Generated view: 82 sources whose Kunskapsbank note was filed under this age group, and the claims and candidates they link to.
C0 weakened
After the material has been encoded, practicing retrieval produces more durable retention than spending the same time restudying when the criterion test is delayed, items are correctly retrieved repeatedly in practice with corrective feedback (a single correct retrieval is not enough), and no-feedback multiple-choice practice is excluded. At an immediate (~5 min) test, equal-time restudy can be superior. Once initial learning is equated, the claim does not assert that this advantage grows as final-test delay grows. The claim does not hold when encoding never succeeded, when the practice test is a poor match to what must later be remembered, when practice accuracy is relatively low and no feedback is given, or when “testing” is high-stakes performance rather than practice. The claim does not transfer to novel, meaningless abstract visual materials that lack preexisting semantic scaffolding.
Serves: Q1 (What is optimal learning?)
Ages: not restricted by the claim text; linked bank evidence is mostly adults/university students plus age-spanning reviews (overgripande)
Bounds: Main contrast is for delayed criterion tests, not immediate (~5 min) tests. Delayed contrast requires repeated successful retrievals with corrective feedback (not one-shot success); no-feedback multiple-choice practice is excluded. Delay-growth of the retrieval–restudy advantage is not claimed once initial learning is equated. High semantic relatedness of cue–target materials reduces relative efficacy of retrieval vs restudy (~26%) but does not erase the advantage (Gupta, Pan & Rickard 2026; kill-condition test survived 2026-09-28). Novel meaningless abstract visual materials lacking preexisting semantic scaffolding: McCarter, Huber & Cowell 2025 (six experiments) found restudy ≥ retrieval (sometimes significantly better) despite feedback and delays — outside the claim (cf. Ferreira & Wimber 2023 on meaningful vs low-semantic visual materials).
Attack record: 12 attacks: 6 survived, 6 narrowed · Evidence links: 12 linked sources (7 supports, 5 limits, 2 challenges)
7 link(s) from sources in this view.
C1 weakened
Encoding has succeeded when the learner can later access the target under cue conditions that match the practice criterion without new presentation of the material — accessibility under that cue set, not mere study exposure or storage-without-access. Under corrective feedback, that accessibility criterion is stricter than what C0's delayed retrieval-over-restudy contrast requires: the contrast can appear equally when unaided practice success is experimentally low.
Serves: Q1 (What is optimal learning?)
Ages: not restricted by the claim text
Bounds: Canonical retrieval-practice designs that motivate C0 (e.g. Roediger & Karpicke 2006 Exp. 1) typically gate the restudy/test contrast on study exposure rather than item-level verified retrieval; C1 asserts a stricter accessibility criterion than those designs verify. Success here is accessibility under the practice/criterion cue set (Tulving & Pearlstone), not storage availability alone and not “was on the page.” Encoding success is criterion-relative (Morris, Bransford & Franks transfer-appropriate processing): it is defined relative to the practice/criterion task, not as task-free storage strength. Kill-condition prong 2 is met under corrective feedback (Gupta, Pan & Rickard 2022, DOI 10.3758/s13421-021-01236-4, full text verified 2026-10-01): with practice success experimentally ~0.22 versus ~0.55 via prior-study load, retrieval-with-feedback still beat restudy at ~48 h by a similar margin (Exp. 1 finals ~0.40 vs 0.24 at low success and ~0.60 vs 0.41 at high, no Training×Repetition interaction), so C0's delayed contrast with feedback does not require high unaided practice-phase accessibility success. Racsmány, Szőllősi & Marián 2020 (DOI 10.3758/s13421-020-01041-5, full text verified 2026-10-02): no-feedback equality residual tested and failed — practice success experimentally varied via prior-study load with no practice feedback and a restudy arm; first-final 1-week TE present but not equal across levels (Exp 1 practice ~25–29%, TE d=0.43; Exp 2 ~66–75%, d=1.33; Exp 3 ~76–81%, d=1.71 / ~61% vs ~28%), so without feedback the contrast does not appear equally when accessibility fails for most items; survived 2026-10-02.
Attack record: 7 attacks: 3 survived, 4 narrowed · Evidence links: 9 linked sources (4 supports, 5 limits)
1 link(s) from sources in this view.
C2 alive
When learners use an AI tool that hands them finished answers or solutions while they practise, their scores on the practice work go up, but what they have learned is lower when it is later measured without the tool.
Serves: Q2 (How do we achieve optimal learning when AI and screens are everywhere?)
Ages: grundskola-hog, gymnasium, vuxen-livslangt (evidence: upper-secondary maths in Turkey, grades 7–12 in one Chinese county, England Year 10 reading, university lab, HE RCT with delayed closed-book, and HE introductory programming); not yet shown for younger pupils or in Swedish classrooms
Bounds: Evidence in the bank: Bastani et al. 2024/2025 (upper-secondary maths RCT, Turkey: answer-giving GPT Base +48 % correct answers during practice, −17 % on the closed-book exam compared with pupils who never had GenAI; kill-condition test survived 2026-09-27); Strömberg, Lei & Wu 2026 (secondary-school DiD in one Chinese county, conference paper, results may be revised: homework scores +18 %, monthly closed-book tests −20 % within six months, entrance exams −18 to −24 % with the full penalty visible after about two years); Fan et al. 2025 (university lab, second-language essay: ChatGPT raised essay scores but not knowledge gain or transfer); Barcaui 2025 (HE RCT, Brazil: unrestricted ChatGPT as study aid → lower surprise retention at 45 days vs traditional study, d = 0.68; effect held after controlling for study time; kill-condition test survived 2026-09-27). Kreijkes et al. 2026 (England Year 10 RCT: LLM-only study of informational text → lower 3-day literal retention d=0.44, comprehension d=0.38, free recall d=0.21 vs note-taking; kill-condition test survived 2026-09-29). Bergh et al. 2026 (HE CS experiment, arXiv: ChatGPT during coding → higher task scores but lower immediate and 48 h recall without the tool, g≈0.71–0.77; kill-condition test survived 2026-09-29). The loss is concentrated in "homework outsourcing" use (about 80 % of AI users in Strömberg et al.); users who keep study time similar to non-users show small losses. The claim is about learning measured without the tool; performance with the tool goes up. Positive pooled effects in ChatGPT/chatbot meta-analyses (Deng et al. 2025, Doo & Park 2026, Wu & Yu 2024, Fan et al. 2026) are recorded as challenges, because the bank notes that most of their outcomes were not measured without the tool.
Attack record: 4 attacks: 4 survived · Evidence links: 12 linked sources (7 supports, 3 limits, 4 challenges)
8 link(s) from sources in this view.
C3 weakened
For understanding continuous (linear) text in depth, reading on paper gives somewhat better comprehension on average than reading the same text on a screen among readers beyond early primary school, and readers on screen tend to overestimate how well they have understood. The average paper advantage has not been shown for first-grade beginner readers of short linear texts.
Serves: Q2 (How do we achieve optimal learning when AI and screens are everywhere?)
Ages: overgripande; strongest evidence in university students (vuxen-livslangt; Li & Yan 2024 finds a significant paper advantage only in its university subgroup); school-age evidence from grade 8 and grade 10 in Norway (Jensen, Roe & Blikstad-Balas 2024; Mangen et al. 2013), from Italian grade 7 lengthy informational texts with null medium main effect (Ronconi, Altoè & Mason 2025; kill-condition test survived 2026-09-30, calibration not tested), and from upper-secondary VET (Foss, Støle & Magyari 2026); first-grade beginner readers are outside the average paper advantage (Florit et al. 2025: no screen-inferiority main effect); see Bounds for schoolchildren in Salmerón et al. 2024 and for children aged 1–8
Bounds: The average effect is small (Delgado et al. 2018 g ≈ −0.21; Clinton 2019 g ≈ −0.25) and is scoped to readers beyond early primary school. Delgado's same-text between-participant subgroups favour paper in grades 1–6 (g = −.19), grades 7–12 (g = −.15) and undergraduates (g = −.28), with educational level not a significant moderator. The newest meta-analysis (Li & Yan 2024; 46 experiments, 2000–2022; I² ≈ 92 %) found no overall difference (g = 0.046, ns), but that null is carried by interactive or enhanced digital texts (g = 0.959, digital better), literary texts (mostly children's storybooks) and kindergarten studies; inside this claim's scope its estimates favour paper (university g = −0.432; time-limited g = −0.468; 1000–2000-word texts g = −0.391; informational g = −0.218, p = .053; non-interactive g = −0.172, ns). Its school-age subgroups (primary, middle school) lean digital but are not significant and are dominated by interactive e-books. It pooled no calibration outcome and did not separate comprehension depth or device. Kill-condition test survived 2026-09-28. Foss, Støle & Magyari 2026 (Norwegian VET, n=106, within-subjects, informational texts on own laptop vs print): whole-sample screen inferiority (OR=1.44; print M=4.15 vs digital M=3.42); significant in the lower-comprehension subgroup, trend only in the higher (p=.073); kill-condition test survived 2026-09-29 (calibration not tested). Ronconi, Altoè & Mason 2025 (Italian grade 7, N=191, mixed design; two ~1000-word informational texts; paper vs scrolling desktop PDF): no significant medium main effect on literal or inferential comprehension; lower perceived cognitive load on screen; calibration not tested; kill-condition test survived 2026-09-30 (prong a met for this design; prong b untested). First-grade beginner readers of short linear texts: Florit et al. 2025 (N=58, within-subjects) found no significant medium main effect on main-point, literal, or inferential comprehension; for descriptive texts tablet beat paper on main-point (d ≈ 0.57) and literal (d ≈ 0.59). The advantage is for informational/expository text; for narrative-only text it is not significant (Delgado) or about zero (Clinton). Time limits make the screen disadvantage larger (Delgado: time-limited g = −.26, self-paced g = −.09, ns; Li & Yan 2024: time-limited g = −0.468, free reading g = 0.192, ns); whether any paper advantage remains with self-paced reading is open question 4. Much of the gap is tied to scrolling: with scrolling paper is clearly better, with paginated (no-scroll) display the differences are small or uncertain (Clinton-Lisell & Litzinger 2026). On handheld devices (tablet, e-reader) the disadvantage is about half as large, and between studies it was larger for undergraduates than for schoolchildren, for whom it was not significant (Salmerón et al. 2024). Display technology alone (LCD vs e-ink) does not explain the gap (Siegenthaler et al. 2012). Main-idea understanding is about equal; key points and other details are better on paper (Singer & Alexander 2017). For children aged 1–8, plain digitisation of a story lowers comprehension, but story-congruent digital enhancements can beat paper (Furenes, Kucirkova & Bus 2021). Much of the evidence for the average paper advantage is from studies up to 2017 and from university students.
Attack record: 4 attacks: 3 survived, 1 narrowed · Evidence links: 15 linked sources (10 supports, 10 limits)
11 link(s) from sources in this view.
| Source | Tier | Links |
|---|
| AI-001 · OECD Digital Education Outlook 2026: Exploring Effective Uses of Generative AI in Education (2026) | myndighet | C2 supports |
| AI-004 · A Meta-Analysis of ChatGPT’s Influence on Learning Achievement (2026 (IRRODL Vol. 27, No. 1, februari 2026)) | meta | C2 challenges, K17 supports |
| AI-005 · Does ChatGPT enhance student learning? A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies (2025 (online Dec 2024)) | meta | C2 challenges, K16 supports |
| AI-006 · ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education (2023) | position | K21 supports |
| AI-007 · Do AI chatbots improve students learning outcomes? Evidence from a meta-analysis (2024 (online 2023)) | meta | C2 challenges, K30 supports |
| AI-008 · Beware of metacognitive laziness: Effects of generative artificial intelligence on learning motivation, processes, and performance (2025 (online Dec 2024)) | RCT | C2 supports |
| AI-009 · The Generative AI Learning Penalty: Evidence from Chinese Secondary Education (2026 (CEPR DP21577 / NBER conference paper, juni 2026)) | quasi/DiD | C2 limits, C2 supports |
| AI-010 · Artificiell intelligens i undervisningen — En lägesbild över gymnasielärares användning och hantering av AI under vårterminen 2024 (2024 (publicerad 2024-08-21)) | myndighet | unlinked |
| AI-011 · The Relative Effectiveness of Human Tutoring, Intelligent Tutoring Systems, and Other Tutoring Systems (2011) | meta | K28 supports |
| AI-012 · Effectiveness of Intelligent Tutoring Systems: A Meta-Analytic Review (2016) | meta | K22 supports |
| AI-013 · Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Learning Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis (2014) | meta | K23 supports |
| AI-014 · Making AI Tutoring Productive: Evidence from a Mastery-Based Math Practice Experiment (2026) | RCT | C2 limits, K25 supports |
| AI-015 · One Click Away: AI Tutoring with Khanmigo in a Two-Year School Experiment (2026) | RCT | K26 supports |
| ATTN-001 · Ill Communication: Technology, distraction & student performance (2016) | quasi/DiD | K11 supports |
| ATTN-002 · Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers (2013 (online 2012)) | RCT | K27 supports |
| ATTN-003 · Brain Drain: The Mere Presence of One’s Own Smartphone Reduces Available Cognitive Capacity (2017) | RCT | K29 supports |
| ATTN-004 · Multimedia Design for Learning: An Overview of Reviews With Meta-Meta-Analysis (2022 (RER; preprint 2021)) | meta | unlinked |
| ATTN-005 · Evidence for and against banning mobile phones in schools: A scoping review (2024) | position | K11 limits |
| ATTN-006 · The Impact of Banning Mobile Phones in Swedish Secondary Schools (2019 (IFN WP 1288); publicerad Economics of Education Review 2020) | quasi/DiD | K11 challenges |
| ATTN-007 · Smartphone Bans, Student Outcomes and Mental Health (2024 (NHH SAM 01/24); JHR early view 2026) | quasi/DiD | K14 supports |
| CLT-001 · Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design: 20 Years Later (2019) | position | K13 supports |
| CLT-002 · Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning (2003) | position | K13 supports |
| CLT-003 · A review of research and a meta-analysis of the seductive detail effect (2012) | meta | K13 supports |
| DI-001 · Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching (2006) | position | unlinked |
| DI-002 · The Effectiveness of Direct Instruction Curricula: A Meta-Analysis of a Half Century of Research (2018) | meta | unlinked |
| DI-003 · Principles of Instruction: Research-Based Strategies That All Teachers Should Know (2012 (artikel; baserad på IAE/UNESCO Educational Practices Series-21, 2010)) | position | unlinked |
| DIG-003 · Kunskapssammanställning om användning av digitala enheter i skolan och fritidshemmet (bilaga till delredovisning U2024/01728) (2025) | myndighet | K02 supports |
| DIG-004 · Global Education Monitoring Report 2023: Technology in education – A tool on whose terms? (2023) | myndighet | K02 supports |
| DIG-006 · Students, digital devices and success (2024) | myndighet | K02 limits |
| DIG-007 · ICILS 2023 — digital kompetens hos elever i årskurs 8 (Resultat i korthet + huvudrapport) (2024 (huvudrapport); kortversion uppdaterad 2026) | myndighet | K02 supports |
| DIG-008 · Svenska 15-åringars användning av digitala verktyg — Nordiska jämförelser utifrån PISA 2022 (2024) | myndighet | K02 limits |
| FB-001 · The Power of Feedback (2007) | position | K08 supports |
| FB-002 · Assessment and Classroom Learning (+ populärsammanfattning Inside the Black Box) (1998) | position | K08 supports |
| FB-003 · The Power of Feedback Revisited: A Meta-Analysis of Educational Feedback Research (2020 (online 22 jan 2020; Front. Psychol. 10:3087)) | meta | K08 supports |
| FB-004 · The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory (1996) | meta | K08 supports |
| FB-005 · Focus on Formative Feedback (ETS RR-07-11; journalversion RER 2008) (2007 (ETS-rapport); 2008 (Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189)) | position | K08 supports |
| FB-006 · How does artificial intelligence compare to human feedback? A meta-analysis of performance, feedback perception, and learning dispositions (2025 (online 24 sep 2025; Educational Psychology 2026, 46(1))) | meta | K08 supports |
| HAND-002 · How Much Mightier Is the Pen than the Keyboard for Note-Taking? A Replication and Extension of Mueller and Oppenheimer (2014) (2019) | RCT | K03 challenges |
| HAND-003 · Typed Versus Handwritten Lecture Notes and College Student Achievement: A Meta-Analysis (2024) | meta | K03 supports |
| KNOW-001 · Effect of Prior Knowledge on Good and Poor Readers' Memory of Text (1988) | RCT | unlinked |
| KNOW-002 · How Knowledge Helps: It Speeds and Strengthens Reading Comprehension, Learning—and Thinking (2006) | position | unlinked |
| KNOW-003 · Building Content Knowledge to Boost Comprehension in the Primary Grades (2020) | position | unlinked |
| KNOW-004 · Läsförståelse och undervisning om lässtrategier (2019) | myndighet | unlinked |
| LEARN-001 · Improving Students' Learning With Effective Learning Techniques: Promising Directions From Cognitive and Educational Psychology (2013) | position | C0 limits, C0 supports, K06 supports |
| LEARN-002 · Rethinking the Use of Tests: A Meta-Analysis of Practice Testing (2017) | meta | C0 supports, K06 supports |
| LEARN-003 · Distributed Practice in Verbal Recall Tasks: A Review and Quantitative Synthesis (2006) | meta | K06 supports |
| LEARN-004 · Test-Enhanced Learning: Taking Memory Tests Improves Long-Term Retention (2006) | RCT | C0 limits, C0 supports, C1 limits, K06 supports |
| LEARN-005 · Teaching the science of learning (2018) | position | C0 supports, K06 supports |
| LEARN-006 · Similarity matters: A meta-analysis of interleaved learning and its moderators (2019) | meta | K06 limits |
| MEDIA-001 · Don't throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension (2018) | meta | C3 supports |
| MEDIA-002 · Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2019) | meta | C3 supports |
| MEDIA-005 · Reading comprehension on handheld devices versus on paper: A narrative review and meta-analysis of the medium effect and its moderators (2024 (preprint manuscript 2023; publicerad Journal of Educational Psychology 116(2), 153–172)) | meta | C3 limits, C3 supports |
| MEDIA-006 · Reading Across Mediums: Effects of Reading Digital and Print Texts on Comprehension and Calibration (2017) | RCT | C3 supports |
| MEDIA-007 · Use of tablets in primary and secondary school – a case study (2016) | quasi/DiD | C3 limits |
| MEDIA-008 · Decoding digital reading: a network meta-analysis of comprehension across devices (2026 (online/accept 2025; UND Scholarly Commons 2026-01-04)) | meta | C3 limits |
| MEDIA-009 · LCD vs. E-ink: An Analysis of the Reading Behavior (2012) | RCT | C3 limits |
| MEDIA-010 · PISA 2009 Results: Students On Line — Digital Technologies and Performance (Volume VI) (2011) | myndighet | C3 limits |
| MEDIA-012 · Which reading comprehension is better? A meta-analysis of the effect of paper versus digital reading in recent 20 years (2024) | meta | C3 limits, C3 supports |
| MEM-001 · Understanding Working Memory: A Classroom Guide (2007/2008 (Harcourt Assessment booklet; följer Sage-boken 2008)) | position | K07 supports |
| MEM-002 · Working Memory Underpins Cognitive Development, Learning, and Education (2014) | position | K07 supports |
| MEM-003 · Investigating the predictive roles of working memory and IQ in academic attainment (2010) | quasi/DiD | K07 supports |
| MEM-004 · Desirable Difficulties in Theory and Practice (2020 (kommentar till specialnummer; begreppet myntat 1994)) | position | C0 limits, K07 supports |
| MEM-005 · Is Working Memory Training Effective? A Meta-Analytic Review (2013 (Online First 2012)) | meta | K07 supports |
| MEM-006 · Working Memory and Learning During the School Years (2004 (British Academy lecture 2003; publicerad i Proceedings of the British Academy 125:365–380). Katalogår: 2004/2008-kontext.) | position | K07 supports |
| READ-001 · Ending the Reading Wars: Reading Acquisition From Novice to Expert (2018) | position | K05 supports |
| READ-002 · Teaching Children To Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction (Report of the National Reading Panel) (2000) | meta | K05 supports |
| READ-003 · Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice (2001) | position | K05 supports |
| READ-007 · Leder Läslyftet till bättre skolresultat? Effekter på den läs- och skrivutvecklande undervisningen och elevernas resultat (2024) | quasi/DiD | K05 supports |
| SE-001 · Kunskap för alla – nya läroplaner med fokus på undervisning och lärande (särskilt kap. 8 Digitalisering) (2025) | myndighet | K09 supports |
| SE-003 · PIRLS 2021 — Läsförmågan hos svenska elever i årskurs 4 i ett internationellt perspektiv (2023 (data 2021)) | myndighet | K09 supports |
| SE-004 · Digitala verktyg i undervisningen — Matematik och teknik i årskurs 7–9 (2019) | myndighet | K09 supports |
| SE-005 · Läsning på ojämlika villkor — en fördjupning av PIRLS och inblick i skolors vardag (2026) | myndighet | K09 supports |
| SE-006 · PISA 2022 — 15-åringars kunskaper i läsförståelse, matematik och naturvetenskap (Sverige) (2023) | myndighet | K09 supports |
| SE-007 · Ett nationellt mobilförbud i de obligatoriska skolformerna och fritidshemmet (Ds 2025:9) (2025) | myndighet | K18 supports |
| SLEEP-001 · Electronic media use and sleep in school-aged children and adolescents: A review (2010) | position | K04 supports |
| SLEEP-002 · Digitala medier och barns och ungas hälsa — en kunskapssammanställning (2024 (publicerad 17 juni 2024; uppdaterad 6 september 2024)) | myndighet | K04 supports |
| SLEEP-003 · Screen time and sleep among school-aged children and adolescents: A systematic literature review (2015 (online 2014)) | position | K04 supports |
| SLEEP-004 · Association Between Portable Screen-Based Media Device Access or Use and Sleep Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (2016) | meta | K04 supports |
| SLEEP-005 · A bidirectional model of sleep and technology use: A theoretical review of How much, for whom, and which mechanisms (2024) | position | K04 supports |
| SLEEP-006 · The influence of sleep quality, sleep duration and sleepiness on school performance in children and adolescents: A meta-analytic review (2010) | meta | K04 supports |
| WRITE-001 · A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of Handwriting Instruction (2016) | meta | K10 supports |
| WRITE-002 · A Meta-Analysis of Writing Instruction for Students in the Elementary Grades (2012) | meta | K10 supports |