Claims

Repeated practice and blended learning showed no advantage in RCR course effectiveness, failing to replicate prior review findings

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2022 · 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? Courses that challenged learners to practice their abilities repeatedly did not appear more effective than courses with little or no repetition. → Johannes Katsarov 2021 q3 i? Courses employing blended learning did not tend to be more effective than pure online or pure face-to-face courses. → Johannes Katsarov 2021 (2)

Evidence

Johannes Katsarov 2021

Johannes Katsarov, Roberto Andorno, André Krom, Mariëtte van den Hoven. (2021). Effective Strategies for Research Integrity Training—a Meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review (2022) 34:935–955. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09630-9

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Hypothesis H7 tested in the meta-regression of the 30-study sample; the article also reports that the number of treated cases had no significant impact on either learning outcome. No effect size is printed for this null contrast.

"In contrast to our hypothesis, courses that challenged learners to practice their abilities repeatedly did not appear to be more effective than courses with little or no repetition."

Johannes Katsarov 2021 (2)

Johannes Katsarov, Roberto Andorno, André Krom, Mariëtte van den Hoven. (2021). Effective Strategies for Research Integrity Training—a Meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review (2022) 34:935–955. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09630-9

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Hypothesis H8 tested against pooled outcomes in the meta-regression; the authors note a possible explanation is the small number of studies that employed blended learning. No effect size is printed for this null contrast.

"Against our predictions, courses that employed blended learning did not tend to be more effective than pure online or pure face-to-fac e courses."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id rcr-repetition-blended-null-results
title Repeated practice and blended learning showed no advantage in RCR course effectiveness, failing to replicate prior review findings
description Repeated practice and blended learning showed no advantage in RCR course effectiveness, failing to replicate prior review findings
status review
evidence_strength moderate
newest_evidence 2022
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-19
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 2 — johannes-katsarov-2021, johannes-katsarov-2021-2

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