Extracting Precise Conditions from a Research Synthesis
About this practice test
A cautious research synthesis examines how retrieval, interleaving, feedback, praise, scaffolding, materials and classroom routines affect different learners under specific conditions.
What you’ll practice
Finding detail
Locate specific information and evidence.
Interpreting ideas
Connect main points and inferences.
Evaluating arguments
Assess claims, evidence, and limitations.
What to expect:
12 questions with explanations to review after submission.
Study the questions and tasks
Work through the material below, or start the interactive practice above to complete an attempt. Try the exercises before opening any answer or transcript sections, then use them to review your work.
- Practice level
- C2. Try this level if you can follow the instructions and understand most of the language; choose an earlier level if you need more support.
- Question formats
- Short answer
How to approach this practice
Read the passage for its main idea, then return to the relevant sentence or paragraph for each question. Base answers on the passage.
Extracting Precise Conditions from a Research Synthesis
The synthesis gathered six pilots from Year 10 science and literature classes in three schools. The schools were different in size, timetable, and intake, but the team kept one rule: no result counted unless the routine could be repeated by a tired teacher on a rainy Thursday. That rule excluded ideas that looked elegant but needed special equipment, special training, or a long briefing before the lesson could even begin. The clearest gain came from retrieval practice, yet only after pupils had first revisited the idea in a worked example. When the review sheet was crowded, weaker pupils rushed and guessed. Shorter sets produced steadier answers because students had time to check one memory before the next question arrived. The researchers did not claim that more questions were always better; they suggested that pace mattered as much as volume. Interleaving helped the more confident pupils, especially when the questions alternated between topics that looked similar at first glance. The same arrangement confused some novices, who kept chasing the wrong clue. For them, the team used paired questions and a small pause between items. That pause was brief enough to preserve attention but long enough to reduce panic, and it seemed to matter more than the exact subject being taught. Feedback was most useful when it was delayed rather than immediate. In two classrooms, pupils improved more after a ten-minute wait, provided the teacher named the error and the reason behind it. A bare mark, by contrast, was quickly forgotten. Instant correction still mattered for factual slips, but not for the higher-order items the team cared about. Here the synthesis became careful: not all correction had the same purpose. The group also tested whether public praise improved effort. It did, but only for a short while, and only if the praise named the strategy rather than the child. Competition, however, worked against the quieter pupils, who stopped trying after the first few rounds. The report therefore recommended private progress charts instead of leaderboards. That recommendation was practical rather than sentimental; it protected confidence without hiding performance. Practical conditions mattered as much as the method. Internet access varied from room to room, so materials were printed in advance and handed out at the door. That small step spared the lesson from delays, but it also removed the temptation to improvise mid-task. Teachers noted that the printed page made the sequence easier to follow, which mattered when several steps had to happen in quick succession. Another useful adjustment was silent working. When the room stayed quiet for the first part of the lesson, attention rose and off-task talk fell. The effect was strongest in classes that had already completed a warm-up. Yet silence alone was not enough; the task had to stay below twenty minutes, or concentration began to drift. Beyond that point, the silence turned brittle and students started to fidget. The synthesis did not claim that all learners needed the same scaffold. For reluctant readers, the first instruction was read aloud, and the next step was kept visible on the board. For students with stronger decoding skills, the spoken cue was unnecessary and even distracting. In other words, the support should be light, not automatic. The point was not to remove difficulty, but to keep it legible. The team paid close attention to the format of materials. Small whiteboards reduced copying because answers could be erased at once, and the teacher could scan the room in a few seconds. Exercise books, by contrast, slowed the pace and encouraged neatness over thinking. The whiteboards were therefore reserved for the first draft of an answer, not the final version. That distinction helped teachers treat early mistakes as information rather than failure. By the end of the term, the most promising routine was being used from January in upper secondary groups, but only in classes that had already practised basic routines. The authors were careful not to overstate the finding. They argued that a method works less because it is fashionable than because the conditions are right, and because the school is willing to notice when they are not. In their view, this was the difference between a slogan and a usable practice. The strongest pattern across the pilots was not one technique but sequencing: a brief revisit, then retrieval, then delayed correction, then a short reflection. Each step depended on the previous one. If teachers skipped the revisit and jumped straight to recall, weak pupils froze. If they delayed feedback without explanation, gains disappeared. If they added competition, the calm atmosphere vanished. The synthesis therefore treated “what works” as a conditional claim, not a universal promise. That caution mattered because the schools tempted the team to speak in averages. A single average, however, concealed the difference between students who were ready to be stretched and students who were still building confidence. The researchers concluded that the right question was not whether a tool was effective in the abstract, but for whom, after what preparation, and under what classroom rhythm. In that sense, the synthesis was less a verdict than a map of constraints.
-
Question 1 · Short answer
Write a short answer to the question.
Write NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS AND/OR A NUMBER from the passage. What two-word phrase describes the ideas that were excluded because they were not practical enough to repeat in ordinary lessons?
Return to the passage, recording or visualCheck answers and explanations
- Accepted answers
- looked elegant
The passage says the excluded ideas "looked elegant." That exact phrase is copied from the source and is the shortest accurate answer. Options like "special equipment" name reasons for exclusion, not the ideas themselves.
That rule excluded ideas that looked elegant but needed special equipment, special training, or a long briefing before the lesson could even begin
-
Question 2 · Short answer
Write a short answer to the question.
Write NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS AND/OR A NUMBER from the passage. What could students check before the next question arrived?
Return to the passage, recording or visualCheck answers and explanations
- Accepted answers
- one memory
Shorter sets gave students time to check one memory before the next question. The answer is the specific item checked, not the broader reason why shorter sets helped.
Shorter sets produced steadier answers because students had time to check one memory before the next question arrived
-
Question 3 · Short answer
Write a short answer to the question.
Write NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS AND/OR A NUMBER from the passage. Which pupils benefited from interleaving?
Return to the passage, recording or visualCheck answers and explanations
- Accepted answers
- more confident pupils
The synthesis states that interleaving helped the more confident pupils. The question asks only for this group; the passage also describes the conditions under which they benefited.
Interleaving helped the more confident pupils, especially when the questions alternated between topics that looked similar at first glance
-
Question 4 · Short answer
Write a short answer to the question.
Write NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS AND/OR A NUMBER from the passage. For higher-order items, what explanatory element had to accompany identification of the error?
Return to the passage, recording or visualCheck answers and explanations
- Accepted answers
- the reason / reason behind it / reason
The synthesis distinguishes higher-order feedback from correction of factual slips: delayed feedback helped when the teacher named the error and also explained the reason behind it. The required element is therefore the reason, not merely the error.
provided the teacher named the error and the reason behind it
Instant correction still mattered for factual slips, but not for the higher-order items the team cared about
-
Question 5 · Short answer
Write a short answer to the question.
Write NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS AND/OR A NUMBER from the passage. What did public praise have to name, instead of the child, if it was to help even briefly?
Return to the passage, recording or visualCheck answers and explanations
- Accepted answers
- the strategy / strategy
The report says praise worked only if it named "the strategy rather than the child." Therefore the correct answer is the strategy; the child is the rejected alternative. "strategy" is also acceptable because it directly answers the question and stays within the limit.
only if the praise named the strategy rather than the child
-
Question 6 · Short answer
Write a short answer to the question.
Write NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS AND/OR A NUMBER from the passage. What did printed materials remove the temptation to do during the lesson?
Return to the passage, recording or visualCheck answers and explanations
- Accepted answers
- improvise / improvise mid-task
The printed page removed the temptation to "improvise mid-task." The short answer can be "improvise" or the fuller extract "improvise mid-task." Answers about delays or sequence are related but not the action asked for.
it also removed the temptation to improvise mid-task
-
Question 7 · Short answer
Write a short answer to the question.
Write NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS AND/OR A NUMBER from the passage. Which learners needed the first instruction read aloud, because the spoken cue was not useful for everyone?
Return to the passage, recording or visualCheck answers and explanations
- Accepted answers
- reluctant readers
The passage limits this support to reluctant readers; stronger decoders found the spoken cue unnecessary and even distracting. The answer is therefore not all pupils, but reluctant readers.
For reluctant readers, the first instruction was read aloud
-
Question 8 · Short answer
Write a short answer to the question.
Write NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS AND/OR A NUMBER from the passage. What time limit applied to the task before concentration began to drift during the quiet phase?
Return to the passage, recording or visualCheck answers and explanations
- Accepted answers
- twenty minutes / 20 minutes
The task had to stay below twenty minutes; beyond that point, concentration began to drift. The answer gives the stated time limit without requiring the preposition “below.”
the task had to stay below twenty minutes, or concentration began to drift
-
Question 9 · Short answer
Write a short answer to the question.
Write NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS AND/OR A NUMBER from the passage. According to the authors, what kind of support should be used rather than automatic help?
Return to the passage, recording or visualCheck answers and explanations
- Accepted answers
- light / light, not automatic
The authors explicitly say the support should be "light, not automatic." The contrast matters: they are not rejecting support itself, only support that is automatic regardless of need. "light, not automatic" is also acceptable because it is a direct extract from the passage.
the support should be light, not automatic
-
Question 10 · Short answer
Write a short answer to the question.
Write NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS AND/OR A NUMBER from the passage. What did small whiteboards let the teacher do in a few seconds?
Return to the passage, recording or visualCheck answers and explanations
- Accepted answers
- scan the room
The text says the teacher could "scan the room" in a few seconds. That is the precise action the boards enabled, and it is distinct from reducing copying, which is the reason.
the teacher could scan the room in a few seconds
-
Question 11 · Short answer
Write a short answer to the question.
Write NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS AND/OR A NUMBER from the passage. What prior classroom preparation limited use of the promising routine in upper secondary groups?
Return to the passage, recording or visualCheck answers and explanations
- Accepted answers
- practised basic routines
The routine was not recommended for every class. Its use was limited to groups that had already completed the preparation named in the passage: practising basic routines.
but only in classes that had already practised basic routines
a method works less because it is fashionable than because the conditions are right
-
Question 12 · Short answer
Write a short answer to the question.
Write NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS AND/OR A NUMBER from the passage. What phrase captures the authors’ conclusion that effectiveness depended on learner readiness, preparation and classroom rhythm rather than on a method alone?
Return to the passage, recording or visualCheck answers and explanations
- Accepted answers
- map of constraints
The final conclusion rejects a universal verdict because the relevant conditions differed across learners and classrooms. The authors therefore characterize the synthesis as “a map of constraints,” a phrase that captures those interacting limits.
the right question was not whether a tool was effective in the abstract, but for whom, after what preparation, and under what classroom rhythm
the synthesis was less a verdict than a map of constraints
What to review next
Find the words that support each answer. For a mistake, compare the question with the evidence and identify the detail or inference you missed.
A focused practice result shows how you did on these tasks. Use several activities across skills to decide what to study next; one practice score does not certify an overall CEFR level.
Before you practise: a worked example
Look for evidence in the text. Separate what the writer says from what you already know about the topic.
The library normally closes at six, but on Fridays it stays open until eight. When does it close on Friday?
The answer is eight. But introduces an exception to the normal closing time, so the first time mentioned is not the answer.
This teaching example is separate from the scored questions. After your test, compare any mistakes with the explanation and revisit the topic before trying again.