ArticlePeerJ2020
Conjuring cognition: a review of educational magic-based interventions.
Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
- MAGNITIVE: Effectiveness and Feasibility of a Cognitive Training Program Through Magic Tricks for Children With Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder. A Second Clinical Trial in Community Settings.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For hundreds of years, magic tricks have been employed within a variety of pedagogic contexts, including promoting science and mathematics, delivering educational messaging, enhancing scepticism about the paranormal, and boosting creative thinking for product design. This review examines this diverse body of work, focusing on studies that have assessed the impact of such interventions. Although the studies tended to yield positive outcomes, much of the work suffered from methodological shortcomings, including measuring the impact of interventions over a relatively short period of time, focusing on self-report measures and failing to employ control groups. The paper makes several recommendations for future study in the area, including assessing the longer-term impact of magic-based interventions, comparing these interventions to other types of pedagogic techniques, focussing on knowledge retention and behavioural outcomes, and collaborating with magicians to develop more impactful interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.