All 67 reviewed interleaving studies demonstrated the interleaving effect using very similar interleaved concepts¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · 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? In the systematic review, all 67 studies classified as interleaving studies demonstrated the interleaving effect and used very similar interleaved concepts requiring discrimination. → Ouhao Chen & Fred Paas & John Sweller 2021
Evidence¶
Ouhao Chen & Fred Paas & John Sweller 2021¶
Ouhao Chen & Fred Paas & John Sweller. (2021). Spacing and Interleaving Effects Require Distinct Theoretical Bases: a Systematic Review Testing the Cognitive Load and Discriminative-Contrast Hypotheses. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09613-w
q2 · i? · review · r2
Systematic review analysis of 67 interleaving studies coded by material similarity. The review reports that "All 67 studies demonstrated the interleaving effect" using shuffling or lagging designs with no rest-from-deliberate-learning. Reported Cohen's d values in Table 2 included values such as 1.21 and .56.
"All 67 studies demonstrated the interleaving effect and used very similar interleaved concepts during learning. They shuffled targeting concepts or inserted lags (i.e., intervening concepts) between two targeted concepts without no mental rest-from-deliberate-learning."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Five null studies with spacing but no rest and dissimilar materials showed neither spacing nor interleaving effects — related
- Interleaving is more effective for materials with a low degree of discriminability — related
- Interleaving category examples improves inductive category learning for visual and mathematical materials, but not for expository texts or word categories — a broader claim this one bears on
- The discriminative-contrast hypothesis treats spacing and interleaving as distinct effects, with interleaving benefits more likely for similar than dissimilar interleaved tasks — related
- Interleaving—presenting different concepts in alternation rather than repeating the same concept—improves students' discrimination among similar concepts, terms, and principles — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
interleaving-effect-requires-similar-discriminable-materials |
title |
All 67 reviewed interleaving studies demonstrated the interleaving effect using very similar interleaved concepts |
description |
All 67 reviewed interleaving studies demonstrated the interleaving effect using very similar interleaved concepts |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2021 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-21 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — ouhao-chen-fred-paas-john-sweller-2021 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.