Evidence for lasting learning is mixed at 8-week delays: only interleaving, not spacing or retrieval practice in drawing contexts, was supported¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · theoretical r3 · q2 · i0 negligible
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-23 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Spacing showed no evidence of lasting learning at an 8-week interval in a long-multiplication study with fourth graders. → Katharina Scheiter 2026 q2 i0 Retrieval practice showed no benefits when generating drawings in science classes at either 2- or 8-week delays. → Katharina Scheiter 2026 (2)

Evidence¶

Katharina Scheiter 2026¶

Katharina Scheiter, Alexander Renkl. (2026). On the challenges of investigating lasting learning: A commentary. Learning and Instruction 105 (2026) 102417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2026.102417

q2 · i? · theoretical · r3

The commentary reports a null result from a classroom study of long multiplication with fourth graders testing spacing with an 8-week interval; it "found no evidence of lasting learning". No effect size is printed in this passage.

"Finally, regarding the spacing effect, Krauspe et al. (2025) found no evidence of lasting learning using an 8-weeks interval in their study on long multiplication with fourth graders."

Katharina Scheiter 2026 (2)¶

q2 · i0 · theoretical · r3

The commentary reports a null result from classroom science studies of retrieval during generative drawing, with posttests at 2 and 8 weeks; Table 1 lists the effect as "non-significant". Equivalence was not tested.

"Kim et al. (2025) showed no benefits of retrieving knowledge when generating drawings in science classes independent of whether posttest performance was assessed either 2 or 8 weeks after the learning phase."

Discussion¶

Page metadata

Field	Value
`type`	`claim`
`id`	`eight-week-delay-evidence-mixed`
`title`	`Evidence for lasting learning is mixed at 8-week delays: only interleaving, not spacing or retrieval practice in drawing contexts, was supported`
`description`	`Evidence for lasting learning is mixed at 8-week delays: only interleaving, not spacing or retrieval practice in drawing contexts, was supported`
`status`	`review`
`evidence_strength`	`mixed`
`newest_evidence`	`2026`
`source_checked`	`2026-10-23`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-10-23`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
`sources`	2 — `katharina-scheiter-2026`, `katharina-scheiter-2026-2`

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.