Claims

Individual and paired flashcard learning yield comparable final cued-recall test performance

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2024 · 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.

q3 i? Final test performance did not significantly differ between Individual and Paired conditions in Experiment 1 (d = 0.21, p = .20). → Imundo 2024

Evidence

Imundo 2024

Imundo, M. N., Zung, I., Whatley, M. C., & Pan, S. C. (2024). When Two Learners Are Better Than One: Using Flashcards with a Partner Improves Metacognitive Accuracy. Metacognition and Learning. https://link.springer.com/journal/11409/articles

q3 · i? · causal · r3

Experiment 1's final cued-recall test (40 GRE word-definition pairs, 5-min delay, ≥75% spelling-match scoring threshold) showed no significant difference between conditions, contrary to the hypothesis that paired learning would yield higher performance.

"final test performance was not significantly different between the Individual and Paired conditions, t (150) = 1.29, p = .20, d = 0.21, 95% CI [-.03, .13]."

Discussion

Learner Variables

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id paired-vs-individual-flashcards-similar-test-performance
title Individual and paired flashcard learning yield comparable final cued-recall test performance
description Individual and paired flashcard learning yield comparable final cued-recall test performance
status review
evidence_strength strong
newest_evidence 2024
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-19
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — imundo-2024

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