Combating effort avoidance in computer adaptive practicing: Does a problem-skipping restriction promote learning?

Effort is key in learning, as evidenced by its omnipresence in both empirical findings and educational theory. At the same time, students are consistently found to avoid effort. In this study, we investigate whether limiting effort avoidance improves learning outcomes. We also examine differences in learning outcomes for a substantive typology of students: toilers (practice many problems), skippers (skip many problems), and rushers (provide fast responses). In a large-scale computer adaptive practice system for primary education, over 1 50 000 participants were distributed across four conditions in which a problem-skipping option was delayed by 0, 3, 6, or 9 s. The results show that after a 14-week period, there are no average treatment effects on learning outcomes across conditions. Also, no consistent conditional average treatment effects are found across the typology. However, different types of students have different learning outcomes, showing that the typology used is meaningful. We conclude that the scale of the experiment suggests a precise null finding, but caution that this should not be interpreted as evidence of no effect. Problem-skipping restrictions may require a longer-lasting implementation to accumulate the desired effect.