Why Repetition Alone Does Not Create Knowledge
Repetition alone doesn't create knowledge because it's passive. Re-reading builds familiarity, not understanding. Knowledge requires active retrieval.
Contributions
Every accepted correction to this page is recorded with the exact change, so readers can see how the page improved over time.
-
Corrected two altered statistics from otherwise-accurately-cited real studies and removed an entire 'Real-World Case Studies' section containing three unverified institutional studies (University of Michigan Medical School/Anki, Khan Academy, King's College London surgical training), replacing it with accurate content.
What the page claimedArticle stated an unconfirmed '84 percent' figure for a real 2009 Karpicke/Butler/Roediger survey finding on rereading as students' primary study strategy (commonly-cited figures elsewhere are lower, around 55-60%) and stated a single '16 percentage points' gain figure for a real McDaniel/Roediger Columbia, Missouri classroom study, when the actual published results were a range of 13-25 percentage points across different quiz conditions. Separately, the article's entire 'Real-World Case Studies' section was unverified: a nonexistent 2021 University of Michigan Medical School study with unverified figures (273 students, 7,000 Anki cards, 14-point Step 1 score difference), a nonexistent 2020 Khan Academy 'Journal of Learning Analytics' study with unverified figures (800,000 students, 3x/15% gains), and a nonexistent 2019 British Journal of Surgery study by real researcher Nicholas Sevdalis with unverified figures (140 trainees, 6.1 vs 9.3 sessions, 78% vs 52% retention) - no such papers exist for any of the three.
What was correctedThe two altered statistics were softened to accurately reflect the real studies' actual range of findings rather than a single specific unconfirmed number. The unverified case-studies section was replaced with accurate content describing the real Roediger-McDaniel Columbia Missouri classroom research program (correct timeline and gain range), Anki's real design and its genuine connection to spaced-retrieval research, and Khan Academy's real mastery-learning design philosophy - without inventing specific studies, institutions, or statistics that don't exist.
Why: This continues the pattern seen throughout this batch: the underlying 'What Research Shows' section citing real, foundational cognitive-science researchers (Roediger, Karpicke, Bjork, Dunlosky, McDaniel) was largely accurate, with only two specific numbers needing softening, while the separate 'Real-World Case Studies' section was unverified wholesale - three institutional studies unverified from nothing, none locatable in any real source.
View the full record →