Difference between revisions of "Talk:Optimized scheduling"

From LearnLab
Jump to: navigation, search
(Connecting to broader literature & other web sites)
 
(Connecting to broader literature & other web sites)
 
Line 5: Line 5:
 
* 2. See [[Practice at Retrieval]] which mixes spacing and testing effects.
 
* 2. See [[Practice at Retrieval]] which mixes spacing and testing effects.
 
* 3. See this APS Observer web page on [http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=1953 "Temporal Spacing"]  
 
* 3. See this APS Observer web page on [http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=1953 "Temporal Spacing"]  
 +
* 4. Consider this recent [http://mc.psychonomic-journals.org/content/38/2/244.refs 2010 Bjork et al article]
  
 
Here are some references to consider adding (and updating!).
 
Here are some references to consider adding (and updating!).
Line 24: Line 25:
 
* Wheeler, M. A., & Roediger, H. L. (1992). Disparate effects of repeated testing: Reconciling Ballard's (1913) and Bartlett's (1932) results. Psychological Science, 3, 240-245. Another series of experiments demonstrates the importance of timing, or spacing, for testing. Whereas Bartlett had found that repeated testing decreased memory for story details over time, Ballard had found that repeated testing improved memory for lines of poetry. Attempting to reconcile these disparate findings, the authors conclude that recall of information is optimally benefited by intervening tests when they occur close in time.
 
* Wheeler, M. A., & Roediger, H. L. (1992). Disparate effects of repeated testing: Reconciling Ballard's (1913) and Bartlett's (1932) results. Psychological Science, 3, 240-245. Another series of experiments demonstrates the importance of timing, or spacing, for testing. Whereas Bartlett had found that repeated testing decreased memory for story details over time, Ballard had found that repeated testing improved memory for lines of poetry. Attempting to reconcile these disparate findings, the authors conclude that recall of information is optimally benefited by intervening tests when they occur close in time.
  
--[[User:Koedinger|Koedinger]] 04:33, 15 April 2010 (EDT)
+
--[[User:Koedinger|Koedinger]] 05:24, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

Latest revision as of 09:24, 15 April 2010

Connecting to broader literature & other web sites

This page could be better connected to the broader literature:

Here are some references to consider adding (and updating!). From (3) above:

  • Cepeda, N. J., Mozer, M. C., Coburn, N., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T., & Pashler, H. (2006). Optimizing distributed practice: Theoretical analysis and practical implications. Manuscript submitted for publication.
  • Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (in press). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin.
  • Rohrer, D., & Taylor, K. (2006). The effects of overlearning and distributed practice on the retention of mathematics knowledge. Manuscript submitted for publication.
  • Rohrer, D., Taylor, K., Pashler, H., Cepeda, N. J., & Wixted, J. T. (2005). The effect of overlearning on long-term retention. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 361-374.

From (2) above:

  • Cull, W. (2000). Untangling the benefits of multiple study opportunities and repeated testing for cued recall. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 215-235. A series of experiments demonstrates that learning is improved when learners are required to actively retrieve information from memory (i.e., multiple testing) rather than passively studying the correct response. These beneficial effects of testing on long-term retention are enhanced when testing, or "practice at retrieval," is distributed over time.
  • Dempster, F. N. (1988). The spacing effect: A case study in the failure to apply the results of psychological research. American Psychologist, 43, 627-634. This paper discusses the history of the spacing effect and why it has failed to be broadly applied in classrooms. Although the theoretical basis of the spacing effect may not be fully understood, the author concludes that the implications of this robust effect should be utilized and further tested in educational settings. The findings yielded from applied research, therefore, can shed light on the conditions that do and do not enhance the effect.
  • Dempster, F. N., & Perkins, P. G. (1993). Revitalizing classroom assessment: Using tests to promote learning. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 20, 197-203. This paper examines the potential of classroom tests to improve learning and ways to maximize the beneficial effects of testing, including spacing tests over time.
  • Glover, J. A. (1989). The "testing" phenomenon: Not gone but nearly forgotten. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 392-399. A series of experiments illustrate the "testing effect" and how it is enhanced when tests are spaced and the process of retrieval is complete (e.g., free recall vs. cued recall).
  • Wheeler, M. A., & Roediger, H. L. (1992). Disparate effects of repeated testing: Reconciling Ballard's (1913) and Bartlett's (1932) results. Psychological Science, 3, 240-245. Another series of experiments demonstrates the importance of timing, or spacing, for testing. Whereas Bartlett had found that repeated testing decreased memory for story details over time, Ballard had found that repeated testing improved memory for lines of poetry. Attempting to reconcile these disparate findings, the authors conclude that recall of information is optimally benefited by intervening tests when they occur close in time.

--Koedinger 05:24, 15 April 2010 (EDT)