Generated view: 44 sources whose Kunskapsbank note was filed under this theme, 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)
13 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)
5 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)
2 link(s) from sources in this view.
| Source | Tier | Links |
|---|
| AI-016 · Effects of LLM use and note-taking on reading comprehension and memory: A randomised experiment in secondary schools (2026) | RCT | C2 supports |
| AI-017 · Your Programming Students' Cognition with ChatGPT: Higher Performance, Lower Retention, and Reduced Ownership (2026) | RCT | C2 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 |
| DIG-001 · Hur påverkas studieprestationer i skolan av en dator per elev? (2019) | quasi/DiD | K02 supports |
| DIG-002 · En dator per elev i mellanstadiet. Hur påverkas undervisningen och studieresultaten? (2021) | quasi/DiD | K02 supports |
| 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-005 · Rekommendationer för barns och ungas digitala medieanvändning (2024) | myndighet | K02 supports |
| DIG-006 · Students, digital devices and success (2024) | myndighet | K02 limits |
| DIG-008 · Svenska 15-åringars användning av digitala verktyg — Nordiska jämförelser utifrån PISA 2022 (2024) | myndighet | K02 limits |
| 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-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-010 · Semantic relatedness and the efficacy of retrieval practice (2026) | RCT | C0 supports |
| LEARN-011 · No evidence of a visual testing effect for novel, meaningless objects (2025) | RCT | C0 limits |
| LEARN-012 · Does Memory Accessibility Affect How Much We Learn from Studying? (2025) | RCT | C0 challenges, C1 supports |
| LEARN-013 · The Magnitude of the Testing Effect Is Independent of Retrieval Practice Performance (2024) | RCT | C0 challenges, C1 limits |
| LEARN-014 · Prior episodic learning and the efficacy of retrieval practice (2022) | RCT | C0 supports, C1 limits |
| LEARN-015 · Reversing the testing effect by feedback is a matter of performance criterion at practice (2020) | RCT | C0 supports, C1 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 |
| 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 |
| SLEEP-007 · Multi-Night Sleep Restriction Impairs Long-Term Retention of Factual Knowledge in Adolescents (2019) | RCT | K04 supports |