A second showing of an educational film produced substantial learning increments, but a third showing failed to add materially or significantly¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr?·q3
Currency · newest study 1953 · 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? The first repetition (two showings) yielded substantial learning increments, while three showings failed to add materially or significantly over two showings. → Research Abstracts: Films 1953
q2 i? In a science survey class with college freshmen, the first repetition of a film (two showings) produced substantial increments in learning, while three showings failed to add materially or significantly beyond two. → RESEARCH ABSTRACTS: FILMS 1953
Evidence¶
Research Abstracts: Films 1953¶
Research Abstracts: Films. (1953). https://eric.ed.gov
q3 · i? · causal · r?
Analysis of learning gains by number of showings in McTavish's four-group experiment (319 college freshmen), where each group saw one film once, twice, three times, or four times within one class period. The abstract states the first repetition "resulted in substantial increments in learning" but a third showing did not add materially or significantly. No effect size is printed.
"the first repetition (i.e. two showings) resulted in substantial increments in learning. Three showings failed to add materially or significantly to the learning effected by two showings."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Every group of college freshmen learned significantly from each educational film as measured by pre-test to post-test gains — related
- A fourth showing of an educational film produced an even smaller increment, or in two cases a slight decrement, over three showings — related
- The more often learners meet a word while reading, the more likely they are to learn it incidentally; a meta-analysis of correlational studies finds a moderate correlation — related
- Supplementary examples in an instructional film significantly improve learning, with diminishing returns as example number increases — related
- Announcing an upcoming test did not significantly change learning from the participation film — related
- Repeating an instructional film increases learning only up to a point
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
second-film-showing-substantial-third-adds-little |
aliases |
film-repetition-first-repetition-substantial-gains |
title |
A second showing of an educational film produced substantial learning increments, but a third showing failed to add materially or significantly |
description |
A second showing of an educational film produced substantial learning increments, but a third showing failed to add materially or significantly |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
1953 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-28 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — research-abstracts-films-1953 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.