Claims

Teachers implemented interleaved practice without training and, surveyed before learning the results, mostly judged it useful and viable though slightly harder and more time-consuming

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · 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.

q2 i? Most of the 15 teachers agreed interleaved practice improves exam scores, suits low- and high-achieving students, and that they would recommend it. → Doug Rohrer 2019 q2 i? A majority reported students found interleaved practice slightly harder (9) and more time-consuming (13) than blocked practice. → Doug Rohrer 2019

Evidence

Doug Rohrer 2019

Doug Rohrer, Robert F. Dedrick, Marissa K. Hartwig, Chi-Ngai Cheung. (2019). A Randomized Controlled Trial of Interleaved Mathematics Practice. Journal of Educational Psychology. https://osf.io/pfeg4/

q2 · i? · causal · r3

Anonymous 23-item paper-and-pencil survey completed by all 15 teachers several weeks after the test, before they were told the results, preceded by a brief tutorial. "a good way to improve students' scores on unit exams (14)".

"Teachers agreed (or strongly agreed) that interleaved practice is a good way to improve students' scores on unit exams (14) and final exams (14) and is appropriate for both low-achieving students (13) and high-achieving math students (15)."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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