Simultaneous decisions at study: time allocation, ordering, and spacing

Learners of all ages face complex decisions about how to study effectively. Here we investigated three such decisions made in concert—time allocation, ordering, and spacing. First, college students were presented with, and made judgments of learning about, 16 word-synonym pairs. Then, when presented with all 16 pairs, they created their own study schedule by choosing when and how long to study each item. The results indicated that (a) the most study time was allocated to difficult items, (b) relatively easy items tended to be studied first, and (c) participants spaced their study at a rate significantly greater than chance. The spacing data, which are of particular interest, differ from previous findings that have suggested that people, including adults, believe massing is more effective than spacing.

[1]  Nate Kornell,et al.  The dynamics of learning and allocation of study time to a region of proximal learning. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[2]  R. Bjork,et al.  Learning Concepts and Categories , 2008, Psychological science.

[3]  Nate Kornell,et al.  Research on the Allocation of Study Time , 2008 .

[4]  R. Bjork,et al.  Metacognition in motor learning. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[5]  Lisa K. Son,et al.  Learners’ choices and beliefs about self-testing , 2009, Memory.

[6]  H. Pashler,et al.  Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. , 2006, Psychological bulletin.

[7]  T. O. Nelson,et al.  Allocation of self-paced study time and the "labor-in-vain effect". , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[8]  Nate Kornell,et al.  Study efficacy and the region of proximal learning framework. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[9]  Robert A. Bjork,et al.  The promise and perils of self-regulated study , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[10]  Aaron S. Benjamin,et al.  Metacognitive control of the spacing of study repetitions , 2006 .

[11]  F. N. Dempster,et al.  Spacing effects and their implications for theory and practice , 1989 .

[12]  Rajiv Sethi,et al.  Adaptive Learning and the Allocation of Time , 2010, Adapt. Behav..

[13]  J. Metcalfe,et al.  A Region of Proximal Learning Model of Study Time Allocation Journal of Memory and Language , 2005 .

[14]  A. Glenberg,et al.  Component-levels theory of the effects of spacing of repetitions on recall and recognition , 1979, Memory & cognition.

[15]  John Dunlosky,et al.  Toward a general model of self-regulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time. , 1999 .

[16]  A. Tversky,et al.  The hot hand in basketball: On the misperception of random sequences , 1985, Cognitive Psychology.

[17]  Douglas J. Hacker,et al.  Metacognition in educational theory and practice. , 1998 .

[18]  John Dunlosky,et al.  Training Programs to Improve Learning in Later Adulthood: Helping Older Adults Educate Themselves , 1998 .

[19]  Rajiv Sethi,et al.  Metacognitive Control and Optimal Learning , 2006, Cogn. Sci..

[20]  E. Wagenmakers,et al.  A Model-Averaging Approach to Replication : The Case of p rep , 2009 .

[21]  T. O. Nelson.  Metamemory: A Theoretical Framework and New Findings , 1990 .

[22]  Eugene B. Zechmeister,et al.  When you know that you know and when you think that you know but you don't. , 1980 .

[23]  Lisa K. Son,et al.  Spacing one's study: evidence for a metacognitive control strategy. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[24]  John Dunlosky,et al.  Utilization of Metacognitive Judgments in the Allocation of Study During Multitrial Learning , 1994 .