How studies are labeled
Study labelMeaning
Randomized trialStudents, classes, or schools assigned by chance. The strongest single-study design.
Lottery studyAdmission by lottery, which works like random assignment for those who applied.
Meta-analysisA combined analysis of many studies; only as strong as the studies inside it.
Comparison studyGroups compared without random assignment. Useful, but differences may come from who chose what.
Lab studyControlled experiment outside a regular classroom. Explains why; doesn't prove it works at scale.
CorrelationTwo things move together. Shows a link, never cause. Used only for "why it matters."
StudyDesignWhoCompared withFoundLimits
Yang et al. 2021(opens in a new tab)Meta-analysis of classroom studies222 studies, about 48,000 studentsOther learning activities or noneQuizzing raised achievement by about half a standard deviationMixed designs and comparison groups
Agarwal, Nunes & Blunt 2021(opens in a new tab)Systematic review of classroom experiments50 experiments, 5,374 students, K–12 to medical schoolBusiness-as-usual teaching57% of effects were medium or largeBenefits smaller when final test questions were reworded
McDaniel et al. 2011(opens in a new tab)Classroom experiment8th grade scienceContent not quizzed13–25% gains on unit exams; benefits lasted to semester and end-of-year examsOne school
Roediger et al. 2011(opens in a new tab)Classroom experiments6th grade social studiesNot quizzed, or content shown twiceBetter chapter and semester exams after quizzingOne school
Roediger & Karpicke 2006(opens in a new tab)Lab experimentsCollege studentsRestudyingRestudying won at 5 minutes; testing won at 2 days and 1 weekLab, adults, short passages

Counter-evidence and cautions

What we don't know yet

The best number of questions, difficulty level, and format for each age group.

Change log

  1. First published.

5 studies behind this page

Sources

  1. Yang et al. 2021, classroom quizzing (opens in a new tab)

    scholars.hkbu.edu.hk

  2. Agarwal, Nunes & Blunt 2021 (opens in a new tab)

    osf.io

  3. McDaniel et al. 2011 (opens in a new tab)

    ovid.com

  4. Roediger et al. 2011 (opens in a new tab)

    profiles.wustl.edu

  5. Roediger & Karpicke 2006 (opens in a new tab)

    psychology.ecu.edu

  6. Classroom review of 50 experiments (opens in a new tab)

    retrievalpractice.org