Difference between revisions of "Learning event scheduling"

From LearnLab
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
It has been known since at least Ebbinghaus (1885) that the schedule of learning events influences [[long-term retention]]. [[Learning event]] scheduling is therefore an independent variable that can be manipulated. However, because of interactions with task domain (declarative or procedural), task type (study or test), and repetition spacing, learning event scheduling is a complex topic.  
+
It has been known since at least Ebbinghaus (1885) that the schedule of learning events influences [[long-term retention]]. [[Learning events|Learning event]] scheduling is therefore an independent variable that can be manipulated. However, because of interactions with task domain (declarative or procedural), task type (study or test), and repetition spacing, learning event scheduling is a complex topic.  
  
 
See also [[optimized scheduling]].
 
See also [[optimized scheduling]].

Revision as of 16:59, 19 April 2007

It has been known since at least Ebbinghaus (1885) that the schedule of learning events influences long-term retention. Learning event scheduling is therefore an independent variable that can be manipulated. However, because of interactions with task domain (declarative or procedural), task type (study or test), and repetition spacing, learning event scheduling is a complex topic.

See also optimized scheduling.

See also Pavlik and Anderson (2005) and Pavlik (in press).

  • Pavlik Jr., P. I., & Anderson, J. R. (2005). Practice and forgetting effects on vocabulary memory: An activation-based model of the spacing effect. Cognitive Science, 29(4), 559-586.
  • Pavlik Jr., P. I. (in press). Understanding and applying the dynamics of test practice and study practice. Instructional Science.