Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38658711›Full record

ArticleNPJ science of learning2024

Optimizing self-organized study orders: combining refutations and metacognitive prompts improves the use of interleaved practice.

Erdem Onan, Felicitas Biwer, Roman Abel, Wisnu Wiradhany, Anique de Bruin

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ science of learning, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Erdem OnanSchool of Health Professions Education, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands. e.onan@maastrichtuniversity.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7184-7482
Felicitas BiwerSchool of Health Professions Education, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Roman AbelRuhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4589-4306
Wisnu WiradhanyAtma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8707-3146
Anique de BruinSchool of Health Professions Education, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Maastricht University · NLAtma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia · IDRuhr University Bochum · DE

Funding

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research) VI.Vidi.195.135
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During category learning, students struggle to create an optimal study order: They often study one category at a time (i.e., blocked practice) instead of alternating between different categories (i.e., interleaved practice). Several interventions to improve self-study of categorical learning have been proposed, but these interventions have only been tested in learning tasks where students did not create the study order themselves. Instead, they decided which type of study order to follow. This pre-registered experiment examined whether an intervention that combines refutations and metacognitive prompts can enhance students' engagement in interleaved practice, specifically when they organize the learning materials themselves. Ninety-one undergraduate students were randomized into the intervention and control condition and learned visual categories. Prior to the intervention, students used more blocked practice. After the intervention, the use of interleaved practice significantly increased in both immediate and delayed-transfer tasks. More interleaved practice was associated with better classification performance. Our findings indicate that refutations and metacognitive prompts form a strong intervention that corrects students' erroneous beliefs and increases their engagement in interleaved practice.

Identifiers

PMID38658711
PMCPMC11043372
OpenAlexW4395117410

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.