Total exposure time per session was significantly lower in the relearn condition than in the restudy condition, ruling out an exposure confound¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i3 Mean total exposure time per session was significantly less in the relearn condition (M = 29.50) than in the restudy condition, d = -1.335. → Philip A. Higham 2020

Evidence¶

Philip A. Higham 2020¶

Philip A. Higham, Bettina Zengel, Laura Bartlett, and Julie A. Hadwin (2020). The Benefits of Successive Relearning on Multiple Learning Outcomes. https://osf.io/nx4va/?view_only=049ee04aab4f420e9fa0091b3b69b9d0

q2 · i3 · causal · r2

Relearn exposure durations were summed across passes within session and collapsed over sessions and weeks, then compared with the fixed restudy duration via t-test. Relearn exposure "was significantly less (M = 29.50; SD = 4.12) than the duration in the restudy condition".

"This value represented the mean total exposure time per session, which was significantly less (M = 29.50; SD = 4.12) than the duration in the restudy condition, t(211) = -19.44, p < .001, d = -1.335."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• First-pass recall accuracy rises while trials-to-criterion and exposure duration fall across the three weekly relearning sessions — related
• Individual differences were not associated with the retention benefit of relearning over restudying — related
• Relearning-to-criterion designs confound distribution of practice with amount of second-session practice — related
• End-of-semester recall of course material was better for relearning than for restudying — related