Contiguity effects are larger under one-on-one testing (d = .89) than under group testing (d = .65), but remain educationally significant in both¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr2·q3·i3large
Currency · newest study 2006 · 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 i3 Meta-analytic moderation testing shows one-on-one testing yields larger effects (d = .89) than group testing (d = .65), yet group-tested effects still exceed benchmarks for educational significance. → Ginns 2006
Evidence¶
Ginns 2006¶
Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information: A meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16(6), 511-525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.10.001
q3 · i3 · quant-synthesis · r2
Moderator analysis of type of testing within the meta-analysis; the article reports the one-on-one versus group contrast as significant (zcontrast = 2.61, p = 0.009 in Results), with the large one-on-one effect "d = .89, 95% CI .75 – 1.03". The discussion notes group-testing effects still exceed benchmarks for educational significance.
"Studies which used one -on-one testing had larger effect sizes ( d = .89, 95% CI .75 – 1.03) than studies which used group testing ( d = .65, 95% CI .54 – .76)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
-
The learning benefit of increasing integration is substantially larger for high element interactivity (complex) materials than for low element interactivity materials — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
-
Split Attention Effect Degrades Learning — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
- Presenting related material contiguously in space and time yields large learning benefits — a broader claim this one bears on
- Spatial and temporal contiguity effects do not differ significantly in mean magnitude — related
- Contiguity effects show no statistically reliable difference between static and dynamic presentation of visual information — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
testing-format-moderates-contiguity-effect |
title |
Contiguity effects are larger under one-on-one testing (d = .89) than under group testing (d = .65), but remain educationally significant in both |
description |
Contiguity effects are larger under one-on-one testing (d = .89) than under group testing (d = .65), but remain educationally significant in both |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2006 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-13 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — ginns-2006 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.