Instructed students allocated more total time to learning, and time was correlated with successful retrieval attempts¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 In Experiment 1 the instructed group spent more minutes learning than controls, and learning time correlated strongly with successful recall trials per item. → Ariel 2018

Evidence¶

Ariel 2018¶

Ariel, R., & Karpicke, J. D. (2018). Improving Self-Regulated Learning With a Retrieval Practice Intervention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000133

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

Experiment 1 time-allocation analysis: instructed group M = 21.89 minutes versus control M = 15.55, t(58) = 3.06, p < .01, d = 0.79. In Experiment 2 the groups did not differ in the initial session but did in the transfer session (d = 0.73), with correlations of r = .72 and r = .68.

"The total time allocated to learning was highly correlated with the number of successful recall trials per item, r = .80, p < .001 which suggests that students who allocated more time to learning used their time to implement a highly effective learning strategy."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Time and Continuity — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Learners underuse effective learning strategies such as spacing and retrieval practice — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• Instructions increased self-testing and cumulative learning but not study choices or feedback seeking in Experiment 1 — related
• Retrieval practice instructions led students to recall items to a criterion of about three correct retrievals before dropping them — related
• Repeated successful retrieval during learning predicted final recall in both experiments — related
• Effects of instructions on some measures were inconsistent across experiments, and instructed students did not recall all items to criterion — related
• Interaction volume during AI-supported practice sessions did not differ significantly across conditions, supporting comparability of practice exposure — related
• AI-tutored students spend less time on task than the 60-minute in-class lesson, with no correlation between time and scores — related
• Cumulative correct answers on blended-workshop activities relate to final exam score, but number of attempts does not — related
• University students remain highly on-task throughout 70-minute lectures, refuting the 15–20 minute attention-span myth — related
• Permitting feedback skipping increases the number of retrieval attempts completed within a fixed learning time — related
• The tutored and class-taught groups showed no meaningful difference in time taken per test example — related