The spacing incentive benefits lower-GPA students more, nearly equalizing exam performance across prior GPA levels¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · checked against its sources 2026-10-26 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The positive effect of counting days on exam scores interacted significantly and negatively with prior GPA, indicating larger benefits for lower-GPA students. → Iman YeckehZaare & Paul Resnick 2025 q3 i? The correlation between prior GPA and exam scores was significantly lower in the counting days condition (contrast −0.118, p < 0.01). → Iman YeckehZaare & Paul Resnick 2025 (2)

Evidence¶

Iman YeckehZaare & Paul Resnick 2025¶

Iman YeckehZaare & Paul Resnick. (2025). Counting days is a spacing incentive that unlocks the potential of low GPA students. npj Science of Learning 10:35. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-025-00322-5

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Beta regression with treatment × GPA interaction in the within-class experiment (n = 143); printed interaction coefficient −0.605 (SE 0.235, p < 0.05) and positive Counting Days coefficient 2.215. No standardized effect size is printed.

"As detailed in Table3, the positive effect of the counting days condition onfinal exam scores and its significant negative interaction with GPA clearly indi- cate that lower-GPA students bene fit more from the Counting Days incentive."

Iman YeckehZaare & Paul Resnick 2025 (2)¶

Iman YeckehZaare & Paul Resnick. (2025). Counting days is a spacing incentive that unlocks the potential of low GPA students. npj Science of Learning 10:35. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-025-00322-5

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Emmeans trend analysis over GPAs from 2.893 (tenth percentile) to 3.548 (mean) in the within-class experiment: GPA-exam-score slope 0.109 (p < 0.001) under counting questions vs. −0.009 (p = 0.704) under counting days; contrast −0.118, p < 0.01.

"Under the counting questions condition, the estimated trend is 0.109 (p <0 . 0 0 1 ). Under the counting days condition, the estimated trend is nearly zero, −0.009 (p = 0.704). The contrast of − 0.118 between the two trends is statistically significant (p < 0.01)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Access to a generative-AI assistant raises task performance for both lower- and higher-education adults, with significantly larger gains for lower-education participants — related
• Students with high initial performance profit more from area-specific practice while students with low initial performance profit more from general practice — related
• A counting days grading incentive raises final exam scores more than a per-question points incentive in an introductory programming course — related
• Counting days incentive strongly increases the number of days of practice in both a within-class and a between-instructor experiment — related
• The counting days treatment's benefit for exam scores is mediated almost entirely by the number of days practiced, not the number of questions — related
• Counting questions students procrastinate, practicing little until late in the semester, while counting days spreads practice across the term — related
• AI Interaction Competence, not GPA or prior knowledge, is the decisive moderator of LLM-assisted learning gains — related
• Baseline vocabulary moderates the effect of question-asking practice on science learning, weakening the vocabulary-learning link and equalizing outcomes — related