…use mid-class exercise<\/strong> to enhance attention<\/strong>.<\/p>\n …interleave<\/strong> topics to create desirable difficulties<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Each individual suggestion has lots of research behind it, and we’re glad to get these ideas.<\/p>\n But: what happens when we start thinking about combinations<\/strong>?<\/p>\n If we use more than one technique at a time<\/em>, do the benefits add onto each other? Do they conflict with each other? How can we link up research-informed strategies to create the best overall learning experience?<\/p>\n In the last ten years, we’ve seen a real explosion in research about long-term memory formation (aka,\u00a0learning<\/em>).<\/p>\n We’ve seen that retrieval practice<\/strong> takes no more time than simple review, but results in lots more learning.<\/p>\n We’ve seen that spreading practice out (aka,\u00a0spacing<\/strong>) helps students learn better than bunching practice together.<\/p>\n So, here’s the big question: what happens if we do both<\/em>? Is retrieval practice + spacing more powerful than each technique by itself? Is 1+1 greater than 2?<\/p>\n A research team at Kent State recently explored this question<\/a>.<\/p>\n In this study, researchers developed a complex study paradigm that created both<\/em> retrieval practice and<\/em> spacing. Unlike some retrieval practice exercises — which simply require students to try to remember the answer — this paradigm required students to get questions correct<\/em> before they were done.<\/p>\n Researchers called this combination successive relearning<\/strong>. Students used successive relearning for some of the topics they learned in an advanced biopsychology course. They used their regular (“business-as-usual”) study techniques for the others.<\/p>\n Did successive relearning help students learn<\/em>?<\/p>\n To some degree, the answer to that question is: it depends on what you compare to what.<\/p>\n Should the researchers compare\u00a0this year’s students<\/em> to\u00a0last year’s students in the same course<\/em>?<\/p>\n Should they compare students’ memory of topics where they did<\/em> use successive relearning to topics where they didn’t<\/em>?<\/p>\n Being thorough, this research team compared lots of variables to lots of other variables. Quite consistently, they found that “successive relearning” helped.<\/strong><\/p>\n That is: this year’s students learned more than last year’s. Among this year’s students, successive relearning helped students remember more than their “business-as-usual” strategies.<\/p>\n Roughly speaking, students remembered at least 10% more using successive relearning than other strategies.<\/p>\n So: 1 + 1 = +10%<\/p>\n Case closed.<\/p>\n But wait just a minute here.<\/p>\n If you’ve got a good memory, this blog post might be ringing some bells.<\/p>\n Back in February of this year, I wrote about a study<\/a> in which spacing helped<\/strong> students learn, but — in the long run — retrieval practice didn’t<\/strong>.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/braindevs.net\/blog\/\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/AdobeStock_328201206_Credit.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nFocus on Memory<\/h2>\n
Answers, and More Questions<\/h2>\n
Case Reopened?<\/h2>\n