Correction: How Learning Actually Works According to Science
Corrected by Emir Baycan · Full-Stack Developer, Mobile App Builder and Web Platform Founder with expertise in SEO, automation, SaaS, AI visibility, DevOps and scalable digital products
Emir Baycan found something wrong, outdated, or unsupported on this page and proposed a fix. The publisher accepted the correction.
- Role
- Correction
- Publisher
- When Notes Fly
- Status
- Accepted
- Date
- 29 July 2026
The exact change
Article attributed a fabricated one-day-versus-one-month score reversal (89pct/72pct flipping to 38pct/61pct) to Rohrer in Psychological Science, and attributed a fabricated 52 percent improvement figure and Khan Academy mastery-learning framing to the real Roschelle et al. 2016 study.
Rohrer's interleaving finding corrected to the real, replicated result (72 percent versus 38 percent on a two-week delayed test, published in Psychonomic Bulletin and Review and Journal of Educational Psychology); the Roschelle et al. citation corrected to accurately describe the real ASSISTments randomized trial and its real effect size of 0.18 standard deviations.
Suggested change
See before/after.
Why this is better
Verified both named studies against their real published versions; found a real researcher's work altered with an invented narrative in one case, and a real study's subject, platform, and effect size all misrepresented in the other.
How this record is verified
- The contribution is tied to a real, identified contributor, not an anonymous byline.
- It counts only because the publisher, When Notes Fly, accepted it. Self-claimed work earns nothing.
- It is recorded against a specific page and cannot be bought or edited after the fact.