In applied settings, the beneficial effect of random practice on retention is almost negligible, as the competing meta-analysis itself reports¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Czyż et al.'s own meta-analysis reports that random practice's retention benefit in applied settings is almost negligible, yet the paper concluded the CI effect is robust. → Ammar 2025

Evidence¶

Ammar 2025¶

Ammar, A., Trabelsi, K., Salem, A., Jahrami, H., & Schöllhorn, W. I. (2025). Advancing Contextual Interference: Addressing Methodological Debates, Reflecting on Meta-Analytic Practices and Generalizability, and Guiding Future Directions in Motor Learning. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10043-1

q2 · i? · review · r1

The article quotes the abstract of Czyż et al. (2024a), which acknowledges that "the beneficial effect of random practice on retention was almost negligible" in applied settings. The review reports this second-hand; no effect size is printed in the quoted passage.

"On the contrary, in the applied setting, the beneficial effect of random practice on retention was almost negligible"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Long-Term Memory — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Retrieval practice and spaced retrieval improve achievement and retention by medium amounts, while interleaving helps category learning only for some materials and blocking beats it for words — related