Sources of learning science: scored

Sources behind the learning-science claims, split into papers and scored practice pages. Method: multivocal-protocol.md.

Company pages and a working paper are tier 2. Scores come from one scorer, a first pass.

Grey sources, scored

Key Kind Quality Used in
Duolingo 2026 company blog by a company researcher, tier 2 A3.5 M5.5 O1 D1 P1 N1 I0.5 T0.5 = 14 review.md
Open Spaced Repetition 2026a community benchmark (GitHub), tier 2 A2.5 M5.5 O2 D0 P1 N1 I0.5 T0.5 = 13 review.md
Oreopoulos 2026 working paper, not peer reviewed (abstract page read), tier 2 A3.5 M4.5 O2 D1 P0.5 N1 I0 T0.5 = 13 against.md, review.md, state-of-the-art.md
Khan Academy 2024 company efficacy report, tier 2 A3 M5 O1 D1 P0.5 N0.5 I0.5 T0.5 = 12 review.md
Open Spaced Repetition 2026b community wiki (body text not captured), tier 3 A2.5 M1.5 O0.5 D1 P1 N0 I0.5 T0 = 7 review.md

Formal sources

Key Kind Used in
Adesope 2017 meta-analysis review.md
Ainsworth 2006 review review.md
Alemdag 2025 meta-analysis review.md
Alfieri 2013 meta-analysis review.md, state-of-the-art.md
Amadieu 2009 experiment review.md
Barbieri 2023 meta-analysis against.md, review.md, state-of-the-art.md
Berney 2016 meta-analysis review.md
Bisra 2018 meta-analysis review.md
Blunt 2014 experiment review.md
Brunmair 2019 meta-analysis review.md
Catrambone 1989 experiment review.md
Catrambone 1998 experiment review.md
Cepeda 2008 experiment review.md, state-of-the-art.md
Clark 1991 review review.md
Costa 2022 meta-analysis review.md
DeStefano 2007 review review.md
Dickson 2005 experiment against.md
Doignon 1985 theory paper review.md
Donoghue 2021 meta-analysis review.md
Dunlosky 2013 review review.md
Fang 2019 meta-analysis review.md
Flanigan 2024 meta-analysis review.md
Fyfe 2014 review against.md, review.md
Gentner 2003 experiment review.md
Gick 1983 experiment review.md
Ginns 2006 meta-analysis review.md, state-of-the-art.md
Hamaker 1986 review review.md
Höffler 2007 meta-analysis review.md
Kalyuga 2003 review review.md
Karpicke 2011 experiment review.md
Kester 2006 experiment review.md
Kiewra 1985 experiment review.md, state-of-the-art.md
Klauer 1984 meta-analysis review.md
Kobayashi 2005 meta-analysis review.md
Kulik 1990 meta-analysis review.md
Latimier 2021 meta-analysis against.md, review.md, state-of-the-art.md
Malashenko 2023 experiment review.md
Margulieux 2016 experiment review.md
Mayer 2001 experiment review.md
Mayer 2002 experiment review.md
Mayer 2020 book, academic press synthesis review.md
Morehead 2019 experiment review.md
Mueller 2014 experiment against.md, review.md
Nesbit 2006 meta-analysis review.md
Newton 2017 survey against.md, review.md
Newton 2020 review of surveys against.md, review.md, state-of-the-art.md
Noetel 2022 meta-meta-analysis against.md, review.md, state-of-the-art.md
Paas 1994 experiment review.md
Pan 2023 review review.md
Pashler 2008 review against.md, state-of-the-art.md
Ploetzner 2020 review review.md
Pollock 2002 experiment review.md
Ponce 2022 meta-analysis against.md, review.md
Rawson 2013 experiment review.md
Renkl 2004 experiment review.md
Richter 2016 meta-analysis review.md
Rittle-Johnson 2007 experiment review.md
Robinson 1995 experiment review.md
Roediger 2006 experiment review.md
Rowland 2014 meta-analysis review.md, state-of-the-art.md
Schneider 2018 meta-analysis review.md, state-of-the-art.md
Schroeder 2018 meta-analysis review.md, state-of-the-art.md
Schwartz 1998 experiment review.md
Sinha 2021 meta-analysis against.md, review.md
St. Hilaire 2023 meta-analysis review.md, state-of-the-art.md
Sun 2021 meta-analysis review.md
Sundararajan 2020 meta-analysis review.md, state-of-the-art.md
Sweller 2019 review review.md
Tetzlaff 2025 meta-analysis review.md, state-of-the-art.md
Tversky 2002 review review.md
Urry 2021 experiment against.md, review.md
Yang 2021 meta-analysis review.md, state-of-the-art.md
Yeo 2019 experiment against.md, review.md
van Gog 2015 review against.md, state-of-the-art.md