Evidence Ledger · Challenge existing claim · reviewed 2026-08-18

Mixed effects of retrieval practice on the acquisition of procedural knowledge in verb spelling education

Existing guidance needs a narrower boundary or a clearer distinction.

Brali decision: Challenge existing claim. This page summarizes a reviewed evidence boundary; it does not reproduce the source and it does not turn one paper into a universal prescription.

What the source supports

Adding retrieval practice to worked examples improved long-term retention of the spelling rules in this classroom study, but the combined group did not outperform worked examples alone on correct rule application after one week.

What it does not establish

Important limitations

Source context

Mixed effects of retrieval practice on the acquisition of procedural knowledge in verb spelling education

  • Source type: primary-study
  • Design: Cluster-randomized classroom experiment comparing worked examples with worked examples plus retrieval practice, with outcomes tested after one week.
  • Population: 105 fourth-grade pupils from regular primary schools in the Netherlands, mean age 9.4 years.
  • Exposure / intervention: Dutch verb-spelling instruction using worked examples alone or worked examples combined with retrieval practice across practice sessions.
  • Outcomes: Long-term retention of verb-spelling rules; Correct application of verb-spelling rules

Citation: Ophuis-Cox FHA, Catrysse L, Camp G. Learning and Instruction. 2026;104:102377.

DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2026.102377

What this changes in Brali

Affected Brali protocol

active recall test yourself

This evidence decision is attached to the maintained Brali entry above. The public protocol may be narrowed, reviewed, or kept practical according to the decision.

Editorial note: Brali should keep active recall as a retention-oriented method but explicitly add application practice when the real goal is using a rule or procedure.

Use the boundary, not just the headline

When an AI agent or a person retrieves this decision, preserve both the supported claim and the unsupported or overstated claims. Dropping the boundary would turn a reviewed source into a stronger claim than Brali actually maintains.

All Evidence Decisions → · Research & trends → · Machine-readable review →