Metacognitive control of the spacing of study repetitions

By Aaron S. Benjamin, R. Bird. 2006

99 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Neuroscience, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ae198e2b56f4360429d0507aaff303bcea306297

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Self-regulated learning: beliefs, techniques, and illusions. (2013, background): “…studies explore the kinds of practice schedule that students use while studying, such as whether they prefer spacing or massing their study (e.g., Benjamin & Bird 2006; Pyc & Dunlosky 2010; Son 2004, 2010; Toppino & Cohen 2010; Toppino et al. 2009) and whether they prefer to reschedule…”
The effect of distributed practice on students’ conceptual understanding of statistics (2011, background): “They may also select and plan study strategies that will lead to less forgetting (Benjamin and Bird 2006).”
Optimising Learning Using Flashcards: Spacing Is More Effective Than Cramming (2009, background): “(There is also evidence that learners chose to space or mass differentially depending on whether the to-be-learned materials are easy or difficult; Benjamin & Bird, 2006; Son, 2004.)”
Improving self-monitoring and self-regulation: From cognitive psychology to the classroom (2012, background): “First, participants are typically asked to study learning material, often consisting of a list of items, such as paired associates (e.g., Benjamin & Bird, 2006; Koriat, Sheffer, & Ma’ayan, 2002; Nelson & Dunlosky, 1991), but it could also be a number of texts (Thiede, Anderson, & Therriault, 2003;…”
Memory is More than just Remembering: Strategic Control of Encoding, Accessing Memory, and Making Decisions (2007, background): “Benjamin and Bird (2006) further showed that subjects were more likely to space normatively diYcult items and mass the easy ones, indicating that subjects reserved the more eVective study procedure for the more diYcult materials.”
Spacing and Testing Effects: A Deeply Critical, Lengthy, and At Times Discursive Review of the Literature (2010, background): “Benjamin and Bird (2006), however, forced participants to space exactly half of the items. Under these conditions, participants preferred to space the harder items. These divergent results were reconciled neatly in a recent study by Toppino et al. (2010), who noted that presentation rate was a major”