Spreading practice across days shows an effect of about d = 0.54 in a meta-analysis of real classroom studies, which its authors consider smaller than a meta-analysis that mixed in lab studies. Spacing embedded in mathematics courses (which also involves interleaving) is g = 0.24, and when eight university STEM courses used the same procedure, the gain averaged only 1.5 percentage points, with no detectable difference. Rereading a week later showed no detectable advantage a week after that, and none of the studies in that classroom meta-analysis let learners decide for themselves whether to come back and review.
The most complete attempt, Quantum Country, embedded 112 questions in an essay that takes about four hours to read and then emailed readers to schedule reviews. Its authors rate the evidence that readers would remember much less without review as only emerging, and say there is no evidence it generalizes to other domains. When a MOOC pushed review questions to learners, about 80% of those assigned never touched them, and grades showed no detectable difference; the example that worked was a classroom experiment where review was scheduled into class time.
Once studying went fully digital, paper still holds three places with real evidence: reading (paper over screens at g ≈ −0.21 across 171,055 participants, widening to 0.35–0.48 when scrolling is required), writing while you answer (on screen, harder questions draw less scratch work, not more), and drawing (45% recall against 20% for writing). The one claim most people lean on, that handwritten notes stick better, spans −0.008 to +0.248 across four meta-analyses with no consensus.
Dunlosky's 2013 review rated 10 study techniques; only self-testing and distributed practice earned 'high utility'. But a 2026 systematic review puts the effect at 0.22–0.46, and Pan & Rickard's transfer meta-analysis finds 'no positive transfer' once publication bias is corrected — making the premise in the framework's own name the piece that tests worst.