Second-study results corroborate the first study despite a shorter drill period of 20 versus 30 recitations¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 1915 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The data of the second study corroborate in every essential particular the data and conclusions of the first study, which used 30 recitations of drill versus 20 in the second. → Brown 1915

Evidence¶

Brown 1915¶

Brown, J. C. (1915). An Investigation on the Value of Drill Work in the Fundamental Operations of Arithmetic. Part II. The Journal of Educational Psychology. https://psycnet.apa.org/journals/edu/

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Author's cross-study comparison of the two investigations of drill work in arithmetic fundamentals. The second study's drill period was 20 recitations versus 30 in the first, yet the author reports the data corroborate "in every essential particular." This is the author's interpretive statement, not a statistical replication test.

"The data of this study corroborate in every essential particular the data and the conclusions of the first study. In comparing the results of the first and second studies it should be recalled that the results of the first study followed a drill period of 30 recitations and those of the second study followed a drill period of 20 recitations."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Drill classes improved from two to three times as much as non-drill classes in arithmetic fundamentals — related
• Mental representation is not amenable to direct explicit instruction because UG and parsers operate only on input data — related
• Automatization of L2 skills requires extensive practice in a consistent environment, not repetition of grammar rules as in traditional exercises — related
• Distributing drill repetitions in time gives better learning results than making many repetitions in succession — related