Claims

Reading a selection through as a whole gives better study results than studying it part by part

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoretical r2 · q1
Currency · newest study 1916 · 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.

q1 i? Most psychological investigations indicate that reading a studied selection through as a whole gives better results than studying it part by part. → J. D. Heilman 1916

Evidence

J. D. Heilman 1916

J. D. Heilman. (1916). Psychology in the Schoolroom. The Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0073918

q1 · i? · theoretical · r2

The article reports this as the consensus of most psychological investigations on whole versus part study, with no printed effect size, sample, or statistics; the comparison names whole reading against part-by-part study.

"In studying a selec- tion, it should be read through as a whole, because most psy- chological investigations on this subject indicate that this gives better results than studying it part by part."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id whole-method-study-beats-part-method
title Reading a selection through as a whole gives better study results than studying it part by part
description Reading a selection through as a whole gives better study results than studying it part by part
status review
evidence_strength weak
newest_evidence 1916
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-24
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — j-d-heilman-1916

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