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-synthesisr3·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¶
Related Claims¶
- Knowledge acquisition in RCR training benefits from individualized learning and application of ethical guidelines, and is hindered by mandatory status and purely theoretical emphasis — related
- Mono-disciplinary RCR courses were not more effective than multi-domain courses, contradicting prior reviews — related
- A practical, experiential course emphasis is the best predictor of effective research integrity training across learning outcomes — related
- RCR courses produce a pooled mean effect of g = 0.52, with knowledge (0.64) and behavior (0.69) outcomes showing larger average effects than judgment (0.41) — related
- In the narrative synthesis, blended and purely online conditions within a single study generally produced similar learning outcomes, and media elements such as video or online quizzes did not appear to influence learning. — related
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.