Does the Effectiveness of Interspersed and Blocked Questions Vary across Readers?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This paper examines whether answering questions that are interspersed within a reading versus presented as a block after a reading produces different learning outcomes for different readers. In an initial study, financial accounting students who read with interspersed (blocked) questioning earned higher exam scores if, in other courses, they typically read before (after) class. A follow-up study randomly assigned students to either interspersed or blocked questioning when reading about business viability. Interspersed questions led to greater delayed recall by stronger readers, whereas blocked questions led to greater delayed recall by weaker readers. A third study randomly assigned type of questioning (interspersed or blocked) and reading conditions (mind-wandering induced or not) to students learning the revenue recognition model. Test scores were higher when interspersed questions were asked of students not induced to mind-wander and when blocked questions were asked of students induced to mind-wander.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it