Maximizing Students' Retention Via Spaced Review: Practical Guidance From Computational Models Of Memory

During each school semester, students face an onslaught of material to be learned. Students work hard to achieve initial mastery of the material, but when they move on, the newly learned facts, concepts, and skills degrade in memory. Although both students and educators appreciate that review can help stabilize learning, time constraints result in a trade-off between acquiring new knowledge and preserving old knowledge. To use time efficiently, when should review take place? Experimental studies have shown benefits to long-term retention with spaced study, but little practical advice is available to students and educators about the optimal spacing of study. The dearth of advice is due to the challenge of conducting experimental studies of learning in educational settings, especially where material is introduced in blocks over the time frame of a semester. In this study, we turn to two established models of memory-ACT-R and MCM-to conduct simulation studies exploring the impact of study schedule on long-term retention. Based on the premise of a fixed time each week to review, converging evidence from the two models suggests that an optimal review schedule obtains significant benefits over haphazard (suboptimal) review schedules. Furthermore, we identify two scheduling heuristics that obtain near optimal review performance: (a) review the material from μ-weeks back, and (b) review material whose predicted memory strength is closest to a particular threshold. The former has implications for classroom instruction and the latter for the design of digital tutors.

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

[2]  John R Anderson,et al.  Using a model to compute the optimal schedule of practice. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[3]  Robert V. Lindsey,et al.  Improving Students’ Long-Term Knowledge Retention Through Personalized Review , 2014, Psychological science.

[4]  Jeroen G. W. Raaijmakers,et al.  Spacing and repetition effects in human memory: application of the SAM model , 2003, Cogn. Sci..

[5]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Practice and Forgetting Effects on Vocabulary Memory: An Activation-Based Model of the Spacing Effect , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[6]  Nicholas J. Cepeda,et al.  Spacing Effects in Real-World Classroom Vocabulary Learning , 2011 .

[7]  Shana K. Carpenter,et al.  Using Spacing to Enhance Diverse Forms of Learning: Review of Recent Research and Implications for Instruction , 2012 .

[8]  Harold Pashler,et al.  Retrieval practice over the long term: Should spacing be expanding or equal-interval? , 2014, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[9]  Konrad Paul Kording,et al.  The dynamics of memory as a consequence of optimal adaptation to a changing body , 2007, Nature Neuroscience.

[10]  Edward Vul,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article Spacing Effects in Learning A Temporal Ridgeline of Optimal Retention , 2022 .

[11]  J. Staddon,et al.  Habituation, memory and the brain: the dynamics of interval timing , 2002, Behavioural Processes.

[12]  John R Anderson,et al.  An integrated theory of the mind. , 2004, Psychological review.

[13]  Ed Vul,et al.  Predicting the Optimal Spacing of Study: A Multiscale Context Model of Memory , 2009, NIPS.

[14]  Philip I. Pavlik,et al.  Understanding and applying the dynamics of test practice and study practice , 2007 .

[15]  Hermann Ebbinghaus (1885) Memory: A Contribution to Experimental Psychology , 2013, Annals of Neurosciences.

[16]  R. Bjork Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. , 1994 .

[17]  Aaron S. Benjamin,et al.  What makes distributed practice effective? , 2010, Cognitive Psychology.

[18]  Robert V. Lindsey,et al.  Optimizing Memory Retention with Cognitive Models , 2009 .

[19]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  Topics in Cognitive Science , 2009 .