Level 1: Descriptive or exploratoryLearners: Higher-ed studentsOutcome: Behavior or engagementPreprintPerception only
2026-09-22 · arXiv (back catalog) · Study (preprint)
This paper presents a multi-source classroom study conducted during a 10-week quarter in data science courses at Drexel University. We first investigate the behaviors of student engagement with large language models (LLMs) using four surveys across three data science courses.
Why this label for Student Use of LLMs and the Limits of AI-Generated Question Difficulty in Data S
- Level 1: Descriptive or exploratory: Consensus level confirmed against the methodology.
- Review status: Confirmed against the published method (AI-assisted review)
- Grader A: R5 classroom surveys describe student use and perceptions; response data also test LLM question ratings without a learner comparison.
- Grader B: R5: surveys and an item-difficulty correlational analysis in a 10-week course with no comparison group are descriptive (Level 1); the R7 perception/engagement cap also applies to learning claims.
- Rule version: METHODOLOGY v0.3, pipeline v1, rules rules-v0.4
- Retrieval practice: matched 'retrieval practice'
- Motivation and engagement: matched 'student engagement'
Graded blind by two AI graders against our published method. Confirmed against the published method (AI-assisted review) Method
CommentaryLearners: Not reportedOutcome: Not reportedPreprint
2026-07-27 · arXiv (back catalog) · Study (preprint)
Spaced repetition systems (SRS) have demonstrated robust effects on long-term retention, yet existing tools reduce the flashcard interaction to a single binary gesture: flip and self-rate. This impoverished interaction model fails to leverage decades of cognitive science evidence on retrieval practice, and requires...
Why this label for Memdora: Designing Cognitively-Grounded Flashcard Interactions for AI-Powered Sp
- Commentary: Both graders agree; rules version missed it. Consensus level confirmed.
- Review status: Confirmed against the published method (AI-assisted review)
- Grader A: R3 genre gate: the paper presents a system and design rationale but reports no evaluation of learners.
- Grader B: R3 genre gate: system design and rationale paper for a flashcard app, with no evaluation with learners reported
- Rule version: METHODOLOGY v0.3, pipeline v1, rules rules-v0.4
- Retrieval practice: matched 'Flashcard'
- Spacing and interleaving: matched 'Spaced Repetition'
Graded blind by two AI graders against our published method. Confirmed against the published method (AI-assisted review) Method
Level 2: CorrelationalLearners: Higher-ed studentsOutcome: Learning or achievementPreprintSmall or imprecise
2026-06-21 · arXiv (back catalog) · Study (preprint)
Pretesting - attempting problems before instruction - supports learning by activating prior knowledge and sharpening attention to subsequent instruction. Recent work suggests that adaptive AI-assisted pretesting can yield further advantages, particularly for tasks requiring higher-order reasoning, yet it remains...
Why this label for Do Gains from Generative AI-Enabled Adaptive Pretesting Persist? Evidence from a
- Level 2: Correlational: Randomized retention study, but sample size not reported; held at 2 until n is verified.
- Review status: Confirmed against the published method (AI-assisted review)
- Grader A: R5 design ceiling: undergraduates were randomly assigned to study conditions and assessed on posttest performance.
- Grader B: R5 RCT (undergraduates randomly assigned, seven-week retention, learning outcome) gives Level 3; R6 imprecision lowers it to 2 because n and intervals are not reported (RCT without n, needs human review)
- Rule version: METHODOLOGY v0.3, pipeline v1, rules rules-v0.4
- Retrieval practice: matched 'retrieval practice'
- Spacing and interleaving: matched 'spaced retrieval'
Graded blind by two AI graders against our published method. Confirmed against the published method (AI-assisted review) Method
Commentary
2026-06-08 · Carl Hendrick (learning science) · Commentary
The most-cited AI-in-education paper gets retracted, retrieval practice hits a wall under high cognitive load, and a little knowledge turns out to be worse than none at all.
Why this label for The Monthly Dispatch - What's New in Learning Science? - June 2026
- Commentary or coverage: news, commentary or policy with no study
- Retrieval practice: matched 'retrieval practice'
- Cognitive load: matched 'cognitive load'
Provisional label from fixed rules applied to the collected text; research items are re-graded by our review pipeline. Method
Commentary
2026-05-06 · Carl Hendrick (learning science) · Commentary
New evidence on the limits of retrieval practice, phone bans that don't move test scores, ChatGPT as cognitive crutch, and why early vocabulary growth tells us surprisingly little about later reading
Why this label for The Monthly Dispatch - What’s New in Learning Science - May 2026
- Commentary or coverage: news, commentary or policy with no study
- Retrieval practice: matched 'retrieval practice'
Provisional label from fixed rules applied to the collected text; research items are re-graded by our review pipeline. Method
Commentary
2026-04-11 · Carl Hendrick (learning science) · Commentary
Retrieval practice under scrutiny, feedback's missing mechanism, AI that actually teaches, and the quiet erosion of cognitive effort
Why this label for The Monthly Dispatch - What’s New in Learning Science - April 2026
- Commentary or coverage: news, commentary or policy with no study
- Retrieval practice: matched 'Retrieval practice'
- Cognitive load: matched 'cognitive effort'
Provisional label from fixed rules applied to the collected text; research items are re-graded by our review pipeline. Method
Commentary
2026-03-08 · Carl Hendrick (learning science) · Commentary
New studies on retrieval practice, seductive details, engagement myths, reading instruction, and the cognitive costs of modern technology
Why this label for The Monthly Dispatch - What's New in Learning Science? - March 2026
- Commentary or coverage: news summary of others' work; mentions 'studies', graded C until the cited study is itself graded
- Retrieval practice: matched 'retrieval practice'
- Reading and writing: matched 'reading instruction'
Provisional label from fixed rules applied to the collected text; research items are re-graded by our review pipeline. Method
Level 1: Descriptive or exploratoryLearners: Higher-ed studentsOutcome: Learning or achievementPreprintSmall or impreciseShort exposureResearcher-made measure
2025-07-08 · arXiv (back catalog) · Study (preprint)
Retrieval practice is a well-established pedagogical technique known to significantly enhance student learning and knowledge retention. However, generating high-quality retrieval practice questions is often time-consuming and labor intensive for instructors, especially in rapidly evolving technical subjects.
Why this label for Enhancing Student Learning with LLM-Generated Retrieval Practice Questions: An E
- Level 1: Descriptive or exploratory: Both graders agree; rules version missed it. Consensus level confirmed.
- Review status: Confirmed against the published method (AI-assisted review)
- Grader A: R5 places the week-to-week comparison without equivalence data at Level 2; R6 imprecision lowers it for about 60 students with no interval or power information.
- Grader B: R5: a week with LLM-generated retrieval questions vs a week without (~60 students, no equivalence data) is Level 2, then the R6 imprecision downgrade (n<100, no interval) gives 1; one-week exposure and a researcher-made quiz
- Rule version: METHODOLOGY v0.3, pipeline v1, rules rules-v0.4
- Retrieval practice: matched 'Retrieval Practice'
Graded blind by two AI graders against our published method. Confirmed against the published method (AI-assisted review) Method
