Eight-day review improved a five-week science test versus one-day review in a simulated university classroom¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r? · q3 · n=169 analyzed (175 recruited)
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

The review gap mattered in this particular two-gap comparison with a five-week test delay. The experiment does not test a no-review group, a massed group, or a universal optimal eight-day schedule.

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Among 169 analyzed undergraduates, an online review eight days rather than one day after a meteorology lecture improved factual short-answer performance 35 days after the review (mean proportion correct .54 versus .47; primary ANCOVA p=.02). → Kapler et al. 2015

q3 i? The eight-day group also scored higher on rephrased application questions (.42 versus .35; primary analysis p=.03), but a conservative reanalysis restricted to initially correct items gave p=.06. → Kapler et al. 2015

Evidence¶

Kapler et al. 2015¶

Kapler, I. V., Weston, T., & Wiseheart, M. (2015). Spacing in a simulated undergraduate classroom: Long-term benefits for factual and higher-level learning. Learning and Instruction, 36, 38–45. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.11.001

q3 · randomized two-gap classroom simulation · i? · reported η² for separate ANCOVAs · n=169 analyzed (175 recruited) · causal · r?

Students attended a simulated university meteorology lecture with an initial test, then completed the same online question-and-feedback review either one or eight days later. A final short-answer test came 35 days after each group's review, so total time since lecture differed across conditions. The eight-day group scored higher on factual and rephrased application questions in the primary analyses. The conservative analysis kept the factual contrast (p=.01) and made the higher-level contrast marginal (p=.06). The design combines spacing with retrieval and feedback; it does not isolate those components or establish effects in an ongoing course.

Discussion¶

This evidence supports considering a longer gap when planning delayed recall and application measures under comparable conditions. It does not show that every review should occur on day eight, that all types of transfer improve, or that the better score arose specifically through a partially forgotten memory trace.

Related Claims¶

• The optimal interstudy interval increases as the retention interval increases — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it

• Distributed Practice Improves Retention

• Spaced Retrieval Improves Retention
• High school students taught with self-study followed by discussion achieved higher immediate retention and near-transfer scores than those taught with lecture followed by discussion — related
• Chen et al. (2018): spaced practice superiority was associated with increased availability of working memory resources — related