↓ Skip to main content

Contracting, equal, and expanding learning schedules: The optimal distribution of learning sessions depends on retention interval

Overview of attention for article published in Memory & Cognition, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
2 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
Title
Contracting, equal, and expanding learning schedules: The optimal distribution of learning sessions depends on retention interval
Published in
Memory & Cognition, February 2014
DOI 10.3758/s13421-014-0394-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carolina E. Küpper-Tetzel, Irina V. Kapler, Melody Wiseheart

Abstract

In laboratory and applied learning experiments, researchers have extensively investigated the optimal distribution of two learning sessions (i.e., initial learning and one relearning session) for the learning of verbatim materials. However, research has not yet provided a satisfying and conclusive answer to the optimal scheduling of three learning sessions (i.e., initial learning and two relearning sessions) across educationally relevant time intervals. Should the to-be-learned material be repeated at decreasing intervals (contracting schedule), constant intervals (equal schedule), or increasing intervals (expanding schedule) between learning sessions? Different theories and memory models (e.g., study-phase retrieval theory, contextual variability theory, ACT-R, and the Multiscale Context Model) make distinct predictions about the optimal learning schedule. We discuss the extant theories and derive clear predictions from each of them. To test these predictions empirically, we conducted an experiment in which participants studied and restudied paired associates with a contracting, equal, or expanding learning schedule. Memory performance was assessed immediately, 1 day, 7 days, or 35 days later with free- and cued-recall tests. Our results revealed that the optimal learning schedule is conditional on the length of the retention interval: A contracting learning schedule was beneficial for retention intervals up to 7 days, but both equal and expanding learning schedules were better for a long retention interval of 35 days. Our findings can be accommodated best by the contextual variability theory and indicate that revisions are needed to existing memory models. Our results are practically relevant, and their implications for real-world learning are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Ireland 1 1%
Unknown 64 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 16%
Student > Master 11 16%
Student > Bachelor 10 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Professor 5 7%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 13 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 24 35%
Computer Science 5 7%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 17 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 January 2018.
All research outputs
#1,740,729
of 24,692,658 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#116
of 1,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,185
of 318,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#2
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,692,658 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,621 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,569 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.