Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

The science of effective learning with spacing and retrieval practice

Nature Reviews Psychology volume 1, pages 496–511 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Research on the psychology of learning has highlighted straightforward ways of enhancing learning. However, effective learning strategies are underused by learners. In this Review, we discuss key research findings on two specific learning strategies: spacing and retrieval practice. We focus on how these strategies enhance learning in various domains across the lifespan, with an emphasis on research in applied educational settings. We also discuss key findings from research on metacognition — learners’ awareness and regulation of their own learning. The underuse of effective learning strategies by learners could stem from false beliefs about learning, lack of awareness of effective learning strategies or the counter-intuitive nature of these strategies. Findings in learner metacognition highlight the need to improve learners’ subjective mental models of how to learn effectively. Overall, the research discussed in this Review has important implications for the increasingly common situations in which learners must effectively monitor and regulate their own learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Knowledge retention and transfer.
Fig. 2: The spacing effect.
Fig. 3: The retrieval practice effect.
Fig. 4: Successive relearning paradigm.
Fig. 5: Successive relearning results.
Fig. 6: Common factors influencing the metacognition of strategy use.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Witherby, A. E. & Tauber, S. K. The current status of students’ note-taking: why and how do students take notes? J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 8, 139–153 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Feitosa de Moura, V., Alexandre de Souza, C. & Noronha Viana, A. B. The use of massive open online courses (MOOCs) in blended learning courses and the functional value perceived by students. Comput. Educ. 161, 104077 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hew, K. F. & Cheung, W. S. Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): motivations and challenges. Educ. Res. Rev. 12, 45–58 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Adesope, O. O., Trevisan, D. A. & Sundararajan, N. Rethinking the use of tests: a meta-analysis of practice testing. Rev. Educ. Res. 87, 659–701 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Carpenter, S. K. in Learning and Memory: A Comprehensive Reference 2nd edn (ed. Byrne, J. H.) 465–485 (Academic, 2017).

  6. Carpenter, S. K. Distributed practice or spacing effect. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education https://oxfordre.com/education/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264093-e-859 (2020).

  7. Yang, C., Luo, L., Vadillo, M. A., Yu, R. & Shanks, D. R. Testing (quizzing) boosts classroom learning: a systematic and meta-analytic review. Psychol. Bull. 147, 399–435 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Agarwal, P. K., Nunes, L. D. & Blunt, J. R. Retrieval practice consistently benefits student learning: a systematic review of applied research in schools and classrooms. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 33, 1409–1453 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T. & Rohrer, D. Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: a review and quantitative synthesis. Psychol. Bull. 132, 354–380 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chi, M. T. H. & Ohlsson, S. in The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning 371–399 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005).

  11. Bransford, J. D. & Schwartz, D. L. Chapter 3: Rethinking transfer: a simple proposal with multiple implications. Rev. Res. Educ. 24, 61–100 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Barnett, S. M. & Ceci, S. J. When and where do we apply what we learn?: a taxonomy for far transfer. Psychol. Bull. 128, 612–637 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ebbinghaus, H. Über das Gedächtnis: Untersuchungen zur experimentellen Psychologie [German] (Duncker & Humblot, 1885).

  14. Vlach, H. A., Sandhofer, C. M. & Kornell, N. The spacing effect in children’s memory and category induction. Cognition 109, 163–167 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Jackson, C. E., Maruff, P. T. & Snyder, P. J. Massed versus spaced visuospatial memory in cognitively healthy young and older adults. Alzheimer’s Dement. 9, S32–S38 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Emeny, W. G., Hartwig, M. K. & Rohrer, D. Spaced mathematics practice improves test scores and reduces overconfidence. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 35, 1082–1089 (2021). This study demonstrates significant benefits of spacing over massed learning on 11–12-year-old students’ mathematics knowledge.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Vlach, H. A. & Sandhofer, C. M. Distributing learning over time: the spacing effect in children’s acquisition and generalization of science concepts: spacing and generalization. Child. Dev. 83, 1137–1144 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Foot-Seymour, V., Foot, J. & Wiseheart, M. Judging credibility: can spaced lessons help students think more critically online? Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 33, 1032–1043 (2019). This study demonstrates significant long-term benefits of spacing on 9–12-year-old children’s ability to evaluate the credibility of information on websites.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rohrer, D., Dedrick, R. F., Hartwig, M. K. & Cheung, C.-N. A randomized controlled trial of interleaved mathematics practice. J. Educ. Psychol. 112, 40–52 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Yazdani, M. A. & Zebrowski, E. Spaced reinforcement: an effective approach to enhance the achievement in plane geometry. J. Math. Sci. 7, 37–43 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Samani, J. & Pan, S. C. Interleaved practice enhances memory and problem-solving ability in undergraduate physics. npj Sci. Learn. 6, 32 (2021). This study demonstrates significant benefits of distributing homework problems on retention and transfer of university students’ physics knowledge over an academic term.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Raman, M. et al. Teaching in small portions dispersed over time enhances long-term knowledge retention. Med. Teach. 32, 250–255 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Moulton, C.-A. E. et al. Teaching surgical skills: what kind of practice makes perfect?: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann. Surg. 244, 400–409 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Van Dongen, K. W., Mitra, P. J., Schijven, M. P. & Broeders, I. A. M. J. Distributed versus massed training: efficiency of training psychomotor skills. Surg. Tech. Dev. 1, e17 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Spruit, E. N., Band, G. P. H. & Hamming, J. F. Increasing efficiency of surgical training: effects of spacing practice on skill acquisition and retention in laparoscopy training. Surg. Endosc. 29, 2235–2243 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lyle, K. B., Bego, C. R., Hopkins, R. F., Hieb, J. L. & Ralston, P. A. S. How the amount and spacing of retrieval practice affect the short- and long-term retention of mathematics knowledge. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 32, 277–295 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kapler, I. V., Weston, T. & Wiseheart, M. Spacing in a simulated undergraduate classroom: long-term benefits for factual and higher-level learning. Learn. Instr. 36, 38–45 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sobel, H. S., Cepeda, N. J. & Kapler, I. V. Spacing effects in real-world classroom vocabulary learning. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 25, 763–767 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Carpenter, S. K., Pashler, H. & Cepeda, N. J. Using tests to enhance 8th grade students’ retention of US history facts. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 23, 760–771 (2009). This study finds that spacing and retrieval practice can improve eighth-grade students’ knowledge of history facts across a 9-month period.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Cepeda, N. J., Vul, E., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T. & Pashler, H. Spacing effects in learning: a temporal ridgeline of optimal retention. Psychol. Sci. 19, 1095–1102 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Delaney, P. F., Spirgel, A. S. & Toppino, T. C. A deeper analysis of the spacing effect after “deep” encoding. Mem. Cogn. 40, 1003–1015 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hintzman, D. L., Block, R. A. & Summers, J. J. Modality tags and memory for repetitions: locus of the spacing effect. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 12, 229–238 (1973).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Glenberg, A. M. Component-levels theory of the effects of spacing of repetitions on recall and recognition. Mem. Cogn. 7, 95–112 (1979).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., Rikers, R. M. J. P. & Schmidt, H. G. Detrimental influence of contextual change on spacing effects in free recall. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 30, 796–800 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Benjamin, A. S. & Tullis, J. What makes distributed practice effective? Cognit. Psychol. 61, 228–247 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Thios, S. J. & D’Agostino, P. R. Effects of repetition as a function of study-phase retrieval. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 15, 529–536 (1976).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Smolen, P., Zhang, Y. & Byrne, J. H. The right time to learn: mechanisms and optimization of spaced learning. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 17, 77–88 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Goossens, N. A. M. C., Camp, G., Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., Tabbers, H. K. & Zwaan, R. A. Spreading the words: a spacing effect in vocabulary learning. J. Cognit. Psychol. 24, 965–971 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Zulkiply, N., McLean, J., Burt, J. S. & Bath, D. Spacing and induction: application to exemplars presented as auditory and visual text. Learn. Instr. 22, 215–221 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Küpper-Tetzel, C. E. & Erdfelder, E. Encoding, maintenance, and retrieval processes in the lag effect: a multinomial processing tree analysis. Memory 20, 37–47 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., Rikers, R. M. J. P. & Schmidt, H. G. Limitations to the spacing effect: demonstration of an inverted U-shaped relationship between interrepetition spacing and free recall. Exp. Psychol. 52, 257–263 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Randler, C., Kranich, K. & Eisele, M. Block scheduled versus traditional biology teaching—an educational experiment using the water lily. Instr. Sci. 36, 17–25 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Abbott, E. E. On the analysis of the factor of recall in the learning process. Psychol. Rev. Monogr. Suppl. 11, 159–177 (1909).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Roediger, H. L. & Butler, A. C. The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends Cognit. Sci. 15, 20–27 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Rowland, C. A. The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: a meta-analytic review of the testing effect. Psychol. Bull. 140, 1432–1463 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Pan, S. C. & Rickard, T. C. Transfer of test-enhanced learning: meta-analytic review and synthesis. Psychol. Bull. 144, 710–756 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Sheffield, E. & Hudson, J. You must remember this: effects of video and photograph reminders on 18-month-olds’ event memory. J. Cogn. Dev. 7, 73–93 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Fazio, L. K. & Marsh, E. J. Retrieval-based learning in children. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 28, 111–116 (2019). This brief review highlights evidence that retrieval practice can benefit learning as early as infancy.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Coane, J. H. Retrieval practice and elaborative encoding benefit memory in younger and older adults. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 2, 95–100 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Bahrick, H. P., Bahrick, L. E., Bahrick, A. S. & Bahrick, P. E. Maintenance of foreign language vocabulary and the spacing effect. Psychol. Sci. 4, 316–321 (1993). This classic study demonstrates benefits of spaced retrieval practice (successive relearning) on the learning of foreign language vocabulary in adults over a period of 5 years.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Bahrick, H. P. & Phelps, E. Retention of Spanish vocabulary over 8 years. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 13, 344–349 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Kulhavy, R. W. & Stock, W. A. Feedback in written instruction: the place of response certitude. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 1, 279–308 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Pan, S. C., Hutter, S. A., D’Andrea, D., Unwalla, D. & Rickard, T. C. In search of transfer following cued recall practice: the case of process-based biology concepts. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 33, 629–645 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Pashler, H., Cepeda, N. J., Wixted, J. T. & Rohrer, D. When does feedback facilitate learning of words? J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 31, 3–8 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Kang, S. H. K., McDermott, K. B. & Roediger, H. L. Test format and corrective feedback modify the effect of testing on long-term retention. Eur. J. Cognit. Psychol. 19, 528–558 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Jaeger, A., Eisenkraemer, R. E. & Stein, L. M. Test-enhanced learning in third-grade children. Educ. Psychol. 35, 513–521 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Pan, S. C., Rickard, T. C. & Bjork, R. A. Does spelling still matter — and if so, how should it be taught? Perspectives from contemporary and historical research. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 33, 1523–1552 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Jones, A. C. et al. Beyond the rainbow: retrieval practice leads to better spelling than does rainbow writing. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 28, 385–400 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. McDermott, K. B., Agarwal, P. K., D’Antonio, L., Roediger, H. L. & McDaniel, M. A. Both multiple-choice and short-answer quizzes enhance later exam performance in middle and high school classes. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 20, 3–21 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Roediger, H., Agarwal, P., McDaniel, M. & McDermott, K. Test-enhanced learning in the classroom: long-term improvements from quizzing. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 17, 382–395 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Bobby, Z. & Meiyappan, K. “Test-enhanced” focused self-directed learning after the teaching modules in biochemistry. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 46, 472–477 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Pan, S. C. et al. Online and clicker quizzing on jargon terms enhances definition-focused but not conceptually focused biology exam performance. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 18, ar54 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Thomas, A. K., Smith, A. M., Kamal, K. & Gordon, L. T. Should you use frequent quizzing in your college course? Giving up 20 minutes of lecture time may pay off. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 9, 83–95 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Lyle, K. B. & Crawford, N. A. Retrieving essential material at the end of lectures improves performance on statistics exams. Teach. Psychol. 38, 94–97 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Larsen, D. P., Butler, A. C. & Roediger, H. L. III Comparative effects of test-enhanced learning and self-explanation on long-term retention. Med. Educ. 47, 674–682 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Eglington, L. G. & Kang, S. H. K. Retrieval practice benefits deductive inference. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 30, 215–228 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Butler, A. C. Repeated testing produces superior transfer of learning relative to repeated studying. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 36, 1118–1133 (2010). This study demonstrates that retrieval practice can promote the ability to answer inferential questions involving a new knowledge domain (far transfer).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Brabec, J. A., Pan, S. C., Bjork, E. L. & Bjork, R. A. True–false testing on trial: guilty as charged or falsely accused? Educ. Psychol. Rev. 33, 667–692 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. McDaniel, M. A., Wildman, K. M. & Anderson, J. L. Using quizzes to enhance summative-assessment performance in a web-based class: an experimental study. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 1, 18–26 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Rawson, K. A., Dunlosky, J. & Sciartelli, S. M. The power of successive relearning: improving performance on course exams and long-term retention. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 25, 523–548 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Morris, P. E. & Fritz, C. O. The name game: using retrieval practice to improve the learning of names. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 6, 124–129 (2000).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Smith, M. A., Roediger, H. L. & Karpicke, J. D. Covert retrieval practice benefits retention as much as overt retrieval practice. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 39, 1712–1725 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Rummer, R., Schweppe, J., Gerst, K. & Wagner, S. Is testing a more effective learning strategy than note-taking? J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 23, 293–300 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Karpicke, J. D. & Blunt, J. R. Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science 331, 772–775 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Ebersbach, M., Feierabend, M. & Nazari, K. B. B. Comparing the effects of generating questions, testing, and restudying on students’ long-term recall in university learning. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 34, 724–736 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Roelle, J. & Nückles, M. Generative learning versus retrieval practice in learning from text: the cohesion and elaboration of the text matters. J. Educ. Psychol. 111, 1341–1361 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Endres, T., Carpenter, S., Martin, A. & Renkl, A. Enhancing learning by retrieval: enriching free recall with elaborative prompting. Learn. Instr. 49, 13–20 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Glover, J. A. The ‘testing’ phenomenon: not gone but nearly forgotten. J. Educ. Psychol. 81, 392–399 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Karpicke, J. D., Lehman, M. & Aue, W. R. in Psychology of Learning and Motivation Vol. 61 Ch. 7 (ed. Ross, B. H.) 237–284 (Academic, 2014).

  80. Carpenter, S. K. Cue strength as a moderator of the testing effect: the benefits of elaborative retrieval. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 35, 1563–1569 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Carpenter, S. K. Semantic information activated during retrieval contributes to later retention: support for the mediator effectiveness hypothesis of the testing effect. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 37, 1547–1552 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Rickard, T. C. & Pan, S. C. A dual memory theory of the testing effect. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 25, 847–869 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Bjork, R. A. Retrieval as a Memory Modifier: An Interpretation of Negative Recency and Related Phenomena (CiteSeerX, 1975).

  84. Arnold, K. M. & McDermott, K. B. Test-potentiated learning: distinguishing between direct and indirect effects of tests. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 39, 940–945 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Roediger, H. L. & Karpicke, J. D. The power of testing memory: basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 1, 181–210 (2006). This review details the history of psychology research on the retrieval practice effect and is contributing heavily to the resurgence of researcher interest in the topic.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Carpenter, S. K. Testing enhances the transfer of learning. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 21, 279–283 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Pan, S. C. & Agarwal, P. K. Retrieval Practice and Transfer of Learning: Fostering Students’ Application of Knowledge (Univ. of California, 2018).

  88. Tran, R., Rohrer, D. & Pashler, H. Retrieval practice: the lack of transfer to deductive inferences. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 22, 135–140 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Wissman, K. T., Zamary, A. & Rawson, K. A. When does practice testing promote transfer on deductive reasoning tasks? J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 7, 398–411 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. van Gog, T. & Sweller, J. Not new, but nearly forgotten: the testing effect decreases or even disappears as the complexity of learning materials increases. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 27, 247–264 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Carpenter, S. K., Endres, T. & Hui, L. Students’ use of retrieval in self-regulated learning: implications for monitoring and regulating effortful learning experiences. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 32, 1029–1054 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Yeo, D. J. & Fazio, L. K. The optimal learning strategy depends on learning goals and processes: retrieval practice versus worked examples. J. Educ. Psychol. 111, 73–90 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Peterson, D. J. & Wissman, K. T. The testing effect and analogical problem-solving. Memory 26, 1460–1466 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Hostetter, A. B., Penix, E. A., Norman, M. Z., Batsell, W. R. & Carr, T. H. The role of retrieval practice in memory and analogical problem-solving. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 72, 858–871 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Karpicke, J. D., Blunt, J. R., Smith, M. A. & Karpicke, S. S. Retrieval-based learning: the need for guided retrieval in elementary school children. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 3, 198–206 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Smith, M. A. & Karpicke, J. D. Retrieval practice with short-answer, multiple-choice, and hybrid tests. Memory 22, 784–802 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Latimier, A., Peyre, H. & Ramus, F. A meta-analytic review of the benefit of spacing out retrieval practice episodes on retention. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 33, 959–987 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Higham, P. A., Zengel, B., Bartlett, L. K. & Hadwin, J. A. The benefits of successive relearning on multiple learning outcomes. J. Educ. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000693 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Hopkins, R. F., Lyle, K. B., Hieb, J. L. & Ralston, P. A. S. Spaced retrieval practice increases college students’ short- and long-term retention of mathematics knowledge. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 28, 853–873 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Bahrick, H. P. Maintenance of knowledge: questions about memory we forgot to ask. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 108, 296–308 (1979).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Rawson, K. A. & Dunlosky, J. Successive relearning: an underexplored but potent technique for obtaining and maintaining knowledge. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214221100484 (2022). This brief review discusses the method of successive relearning — an effective learning technique that combines spacing and retrieval — and its benefits.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Rawson, K. A. & Dunlosky, J. When is practice testing most effective for improving the durability and efficiency of student learning? Educ. Psychol. Rev. 24, 419–435 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Janes, J. L., Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A. & Jasnow, A. Successive relearning improves performance on a high-stakes exam in a difficult biopsychology course. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 34, 1118–1132 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Rawson, K. A., Dunlosky, J. & Janes, J. L. All good things must come to an end: a potential boundary condition on the potency of successive relearning. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 32, 851–871 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Rawson, K. A. & Dunlosky, J. Optimizing schedules of retrieval practice for durable and efficient learning: how much is enough? J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 140, 283–302 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Flavell, J. H. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. Am. Psychol. 34, 906–911 (1979). This classic paper introduces ideas that are now foundational to research on metacognition.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Kuhn, D. Metacognition matters in many ways. Educ. Psychol. 57, 73–86 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Norman, E. et al. Metacognition in psychology. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 23, 403–424 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Was, C. A. & Al-Harthy, I. S. Persistence of overconfidence in young children: factors that lead to more accurate predictions of memory performance. Eur. J. Dev. Psychol. 15, 156–171 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Forsberg, A., Blume, C. L. & Cowan, N. The development of metacognitive accuracy in working memory across childhood. Dev. Psychol. 57, 1297–1317 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  111. Kuhn, D. Metacognitive development. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 9, 178-181 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Bell, P. & Volckmann, D. Knowledge surveys in general chemistry: confidence, overconfidence, and performance. J. Chem. Educ. 88, 1469–1476 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Saenz, G. D., Geraci, L. & Tirso, R. Improving metacognition: a comparison of interventions. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 33, 918–929 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Morphew, J. W. Changes in metacognitive monitoring accuracy in an introductory physics course. Metacogn. Learn. 16, 89–111 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Geller, J. et al. Study strategies and beliefs about learning as a function of academic achievement and achievement goals. Memory 26, 683–690 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Kornell, N. & Bjork, R. A. The promise and perils of self-regulated study. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 14, 219–224 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Yan, V. X., Thai, K.-P. & Bjork, R. A. Habits and beliefs that guide self-regulated learning: do they vary with mindset? J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 3, 140–152 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Rivers, M. L. Metacognition about practice testing: a review of learners’ beliefs, monitoring, and control of test-enhanced learning. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 33, 823–862 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Carpenter, S. K. et al. Students’ use of optional online reviews and its relationship to summative assessment outcomes in introductory biology. LSE 16, ar23 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Corral, D., Carpenter, S. K., Perkins, K. & Gentile, D. A. Assessing students’ use of optional online lecture reviews. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 34, 318–329 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Blasiman, R. N., Dunlosky, J. & Rawson, K. A. The what, how much, and when of study strategies: comparing intended versus actual study behaviour. Memory 25, 784–792 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Karpicke, J. D., Butler, A. C. & Roediger, H. L. III Metacognitive strategies in student learning: do students practise retrieval when they study on their own? Memory 17, 471–479 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Hamman, D., Berthelot, J., Saia, J. & Crowley, E. Teachers’ coaching of learning and its relation to students’ strategic learning. J. Educ. Psychol. 92, 342–348 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Kistner, S. et al. Promotion of self-regulated learning in classrooms: investigating frequency, quality, and consequences for student performance. Metacogn. Learn. 5, 157–171 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Morehead, K., Rhodes, M. G. & DeLozier, S. Instructor and student knowledge of study strategies. Memory 24, 257–271 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Pomerance, L., Greenberg, J. & Walsh, K. Learning about Learning: What Every New Teacher Needs to Know (National Council on Teacher Quality, 2016).

  127. Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A. & Loughlin, S. M. Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 20, 391–409 (2008). This conceptual review paper explores the relationship between metacognition, self-regulation and self-regulated learning.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. Winne, P. H. in Handbook of Self-regulation of Learning and Performance 2nd edn 36–48 (Routledge/Taylor & Francis, 2018).

  129. Pintrich, P. R. A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 16, 385–407 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Zimmerman, B. J. Self-efficacy: an essential motive to learn. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25, 82–91 (2000).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. McDaniel, M. A. & Butler, A. C. in Successful Remembering and Successful Forgetting: A Festschrift in Honor of Robert A. Bjork 175–198 (Psychology Press, 2011).

  132. Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J. & Kornell, N. Self-regulated learning: beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 64, 417–444 (2013). This review provides an overview of the cognitive psychology perspective on the metacognition of strategy planning and use.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. Nelson, T. O. & Narens, L. in Psychology of Learning and Motivation Vol. 26 (ed. Bower, G. H.) 125–173 (Academic, 1990).

  134. Fiechter, J. L., Benjamin, A. S. & Unsworth, N. in The Oxford Handbook of Metamemory (eds Dunlosky, J. & Tauber, S. K.) 307–324 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2016).

  135. Efklides, A. Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: the MASRL model. Educ. Psychol. 46, 6–25 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Zimmerman, B. J. in Handbook of Self-regulation (eds Boekaerts, M. & Pintrich, P. R.) 13–39 (Academic, 2000). This paper lays out a prominent theory of self-regulated learning and exemplifies the educational psychology perspective on the metacognition of strategy planning and use.

  137. Wolters, C. A. Regulation of motivation: evaluating an underemphasized aspect of self-regulated learning. Educ. Psychol. 38, 189–205 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. Wolters, C. A. & Benzon, M. Assessing and predicting college students’ use of strategies for the self-regulation of motivation. J. Exp. Educ. 18, 199–221 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  139. Abel, M. & Bäuml, K.-H. T. Would you like to learn more? Retrieval practice plus feedback can increase motivation to keep on studying. Cognition 201, 104316 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  140. Kang, S. H. K. & Pashler, H. Is the benefit of retrieval practice modulated by motivation? J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 3, 183–188 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  141. Vermunt, J. D. & Verloop, N. Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learn. Instr. 9, 257–280 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  142. Coertjens, L., Donche, V., De Maeyer, S., Van Daal, T. & Van Petegem, P. The growth trend in learning strategies during the transition from secondary to higher education in Flanders. High. Educ.: Int. J. High. Education Educ. Plan. 3, 499–518 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  143. Severiens, S., Ten Dam, G. & Van Hout Wolters, B. Stability of processing and regulation strategies: two longitudinal studies on student learning. High. Educ. 42, 437–453 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  144. Watkins, D. & Hattie, J. A longitudinal study of the approaches to learning of Austalian tertiary students. Hum. Learn. J. Practical Res. Appl. 4, 127–141 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  145. Russell, J. M., Baik, C., Ryan, A. T. & Molloy, E. Fostering self-regulated learning in higher education: making self-regulation visible. Act. Learn. Higher Educ. 23, 97–113 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  146. Schraw, G. Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instr. Sci. 26, 113–125 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  147. Lundeberg, M. A. & Fox, P. W. Do laboratory findings on test expectancy generalize to classroom outcomes? Rev. Educ. Res. 61, 94–106 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  148. Rivers, M. L. & Dunlosky, J. Are test-expectancy effects better explained by changes in encoding strategies or differential test experience? J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cognn. 47, 195–207 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  149. Chi, M. in Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change (ed. Vosniadou, S.) 61–82 (Lawrence Erlbaum, 2009).

  150. Susser, J. A. & McCabe, J. From the lab to the dorm room: metacognitive awareness and use of spaced study. Instr. Sci. 41, 345–363 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  151. Yan, V. X., Bjork, E. L. & Bjork, R. A. On the difficulty of mending metacognitive illusions: a priori theories, fluency effects, and misattributions of the interleaving benefit. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 145, 918–933 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  152. Ariel, R. & Karpicke, J. D. Improving self-regulated learning with a retrieval practice intervention. J. Exp. Psychol.Appl. 24, 43–56 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  153. Biwer, F., oude Egbrink, M. G. A., Aalten, P. & de Bruin, A. B. H. Fostering effective learning strategies in higher education — a mixed-methods study. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 9, 186–203 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  154. McDaniel, M. A. & Einstein, G. O. Training learning strategies to promote self-regulation and transfer: the knowledge, belief, commitment, and planning framework. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 15, 1363–1381 (2020). This paper provides a framework for training students on how to use learning strategies.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  155. Cleary, A. M. et al. Wearable technology for automatizing science-based study strategies: reinforcing learning through intermittent smartwatch prompting. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 10, 444–457 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  156. Fazio, L. K. Repetition increases perceived truth even for known falsehoods. Collabra: Psychology 6, 38 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  157. Kozyreva, A., Lewandowsky, S. & Hertwig, R. Citizens versus the Internet: confronting digital challenges with cognitive tools. Psychol. Sci. Public. Interest. 21, 103–156 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  158. Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. The psychology of fake news. Trends Cognit. Sci. 25, 388–402 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  159. Ecker, U. K. H. et al. The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nat. Rev. Psychol. 1, 13–29 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  160. Toppino, T. C., Kasserman, J. E. & Mracek, W. A. The effect of spacing repetitions on the recognition memory of young children and adults. J. Exp. Child. Psychol. 51, 123–138 (1991).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  161. Childers, J. B. & Tomasello, M. Two-year-olds learn novel nouns, verbs, and conventional actions from massed or distributed exposures. Dev. Psychol. 38, 967–978 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  162. Lotfolahi, A. R. & Salehi, H. Spacing effects in vocabulary learning: young EFL learners in focus. Cogent Education 4, 1287391 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  163. Ambridge, B., Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V. M. & Tomasello, M. The distributed learning effect for children’s acquisition of an abstract syntactic construction. Cognit. Dev. 21, 174–193 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  164. Schutte, G. M. et al. A comparative analysis of massed vs. distributed practice on basic math fact fluency growth rates. J. Sch. Psychol. 53, 149–159 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  165. Küpper-Tetzel, C. E., Erdfelder, E. & Dickhäuser, O. The lag effect in secondary school classrooms: enhancing students’ memory for vocabulary. Instr. Sci. 42, 373–388 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  166. Bloom, K. C. & Shuell, T. J. Effects of massed and distributed practice on the learning and retention of second-language vocabulary. J. Educ. Res. 74, 245–248 (1981).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  167. Grote, M. G. Distributed versus massed practice in high school physics. Sch. Sci. Math. 95, 97 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  168. Minnick, B. Can spaced review help students learn brief forms? J. Educ. Bus. 44, 146–148 (1969).

    Google Scholar 

  169. Dobson, J. L., Perez, J. & Linderholm, T. Distributed retrieval practice promotes superior recall of anatomy information. Anat. Sci. Educ. 10, 339–347 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  170. Kornell, N. & Bjork, R. A. Learning concepts and categories: is spacing the “enemy of induction”? Psychol. Sci. 19, 585–592 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  171. Rawson, K. A. & Kintsch, W. Rereading effects depend on time of test. J. Educ. Psychol. 97, 70–80 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  172. Butler, A. C., Marsh, E. J., Slavinsky, J. P. & Baraniuk, R. G. Integrating cognitive science and technology improves learning in a STEM classroom. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 26, 331–340 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  173. Carpenter, S. K. & DeLosh, E. L. Application of the testing and spacing effects to name learning. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 19, 619–636 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  174. Pan, S. C., Tajran, J., Lovelett, J., Osuna, J. & Rickard, T. C. Does interleaved practice enhance foreign language learning? The effects of training schedule on Spanish verb conjugation skills. J. Educ. Psychol. 111, 1172–1188 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  175. Miles, S. W. Spaced vs. massed distribution instruction for L2 grammar learning. System 42, 412–428 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  176. Rohrer, D. & Taylor, K. The effects of overlearning and distributed practise on the retention of mathematics knowledge. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 20, 1209–1224 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  177. Wahlheim, C. N., Dunlosky, J. & Jacoby, L. L. Spacing enhances the learning of natural concepts: an investigation of mechanisms, metacognition, and aging. Mem. Cogn. 39, 750–763 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  178. Simmons, A. L. Distributed practice and procedural memory consolidation in musicians’ skill learning. J. Res. Music. Educ. 59, 357–368 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  179. Ebersbach, M. & Barzagar Nazari, K. Implementing distributed practice in statistics courses: benefits for retention and transfer. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 9, 532–541 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  180. Kornell, N. Optimising learning using flashcards: spacing is more effective than cramming. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 23, 1297–1317 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  181. Bouzid, N. & Crawshaw, C. M. Massed versus distributed wordprocessor training. Appl. Ergon. 18, 220–222 (1987).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  182. Lin, Y., Cheng, A., Grant, V. J., Currie, G. R. & Hecker, K. G. Improving CPR quality with distributed practice and real-time feedback in pediatric healthcare providers—a randomized controlled trial. Resuscitation 130, 6–12 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  183. Terenyi, J., Anksorus, H. & Persky, A. M. Impact of spacing of practice on learning brand name and generic drugs. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 82, 6179 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  184. Kerfoot, B. P., DeWolf, W. C., Masser, B. A., Church, P. A. & Federman, D. D. Spaced education improves the retention of clinical knowledge by medical students: a randomised controlled trial. Med. Educ. 41, 23–31 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  185. Kornell, N., Castel, A. D., Eich, T. S. & Bjork, R. A. Spacing as the friend of both memory and induction in young and older adults. Psychol. Aging 25, 498–503 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  186. Leite, C. M. F., Ugrinowitsch, H., Carvalho, M. F. S. P. & Benda, R. N. Distribution of practice effects on older and younger adults’ motor-skill learning ability. Hum. Mov. 14, 20–26 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  187. Balota, D. A., Duchek, J. M. & Paullin, R. Age-related differences in the impact of spacing, lag, and retention interval. Psychol. Aging 4, 3–9 (1989).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  188. Kliegl, O., Abel, M. & Bäuml, K.-H. T. A (preliminary) recipe for obtaining a testing effect in preschool children: two critical ingredients. Front. Psychol. 9, 1446 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  189. Fritz, C. O., Morris, P. E., Nolan, D. & Singleton, J. Expanding retrieval practice: an effective aid to preschool children’s learning. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 60, 991–1004 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  190. Rohrer, D., Taylor, K. & Sholar, B. Tests enhance the transfer of learning. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 36, 233–239 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  191. Lipowski, S. L., Pyc, M. A., Dunlosky, J. & Rawson, K. A. Establishing and explaining the testing effect in free recall for young children. Dev. Psychol. 50, 994–1000 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  192. Wartenweiler, D. Testing effect for visual-symbolic material: enhancing the learning of Filipino children of low socio-economic status in the public school system. Int. J. Res. Rev. 20, 74–93 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  193. Karpicke, J. D., Blunt, J. R. & Smith, M. A. Retrieval-based learning: positive effects of retrieval practice in elementary school children. Front. Psychol. 7, 350 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  194. Metcalfe, J., Kornell, N. & Son, L. K. A cognitive-science based programme to enhance study efficacy in a high and low risk setting. Eur. J. Cognit. Psychol. 19, 743–768 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  195. Rowley, T. & McCrudden, M. T. Retrieval practice and retention of course content in a middle school science classroom. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 34, 1510–1515 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  196. McDaniel, M. A., Agarwal, P. K., Huelser, B. J., McDermott, K. B. & Roediger, H. L. Test-enhanced learning in a middle school science classroom: the effects of quiz frequency and placement. J. Educ. Psychol. 103, 399–414 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  197. Nungester, R. J. & Duchastel, P. C. Testing versus review: effects on retention. J. Educ. Psychol. 74, 18–22 (1982).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  198. Dirkx, K. J. H., Kester, L. & Kirschner, P. A. The testing effect for learning principles and procedures from texts. J. Educ. Res. 107, 357–364 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  199. Marsh, E. J., Agarwal, P. K. & Roediger, H. L. Memorial consequences of answering SAT II questions. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 15, 1–11 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  200. Chang, C., Yeh, T. & Barufaldi, J. P. The positive and negative effects of science concept tests on student conceptual understanding. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 32, 265–282 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  201. Grimaldi, P. J. & Karpicke, J. D. Guided retrieval practice of educational materials using automated scoring. J. Educ. Psychol. 106, 58–68 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  202. Pan, S. C., Gopal, A. & Rickard, T. C. Testing with feedback yields potent, but piecewise, learning of history and biology facts. J. Educ. Psychol. 108, 563–575 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  203. Darabi, A., Nelson, D. W. & Palanki, S. Acquisition of troubleshooting skills in a computer simulation: worked example vs. conventional problem solving instructional strategies. Comput. Hum. Behav. 23, 1809–1819 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  204. Kang, S. H. K., Gollan, T. H. & Pashler, H. Don’t just repeat after me: retrieval practice is better than imitation for foreign vocabulary learning. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 20, 1259–1265 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  205. Carpenter, S. K. & Pashler, H. Testing beyond words: using tests to enhance visuospatial map learning. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 14, 474–478 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  206. Carpenter, S. K. & Kelly, J. W. Tests enhance retention and transfer of spatial learning. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 19, 443–448 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  207. Kang, S. H. K., McDaniel, M. A. & Pashler, H. Effects of testing on learning of functions. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 18, 998–1005 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  208. Jacoby, L. L., Wahlheim, C. N. & Coane, J. H. Test-enhanced learning of natural concepts: effects on recognition memory, classification, and metacognition. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 36, 1441–1451 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  209. McDaniel, M. A., Anderson, J. L., Derbish, M. H. & Morrisette, N. Testing the testing effect in the classroom. Eur. J. Cognit. Psychol. 19, 494–513 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  210. Foss, D. J. & Pirozzolo, J. W. Four semesters investigating frequency of testing, the testing effect, and transfer of training. J. Educ. Psychol. 109, 1067–1083 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  211. Wong, S. S. H., Ng, G. J. P., Tempel, T. & Lim, S. W. H. Retrieval practice enhances analogical problem solving. J. Exp. Educ. 87, 128–138 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  212. Pan, S. C., Rubin, B. R. & Rickard, T. C. Does testing with feedback improve adult spelling skills relative to copying and reading? J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 21, 356–369 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  213. Coppens, L., Verkoeijen, P. & Rikers, R. Learning Adinkra symbols: the effect of testing. J. Cognit. Psychol. 23, 351–357 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  214. Zaromb, F. M. & Roediger, H. L. The testing effect in free recall is associated with enhanced organizational processes. Mem. Cogn. 38, 995–1008 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  215. Carpenter, S. K., Pashler, H. & Vul, E. What types of learning are enhanced by a cued recall test? Psychon. Bull. Rev. 13, 826–830 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  216. Pan, S. C., Wong, C. M., Potter, Z. E., Mejia, J. & Rickard, T. C. Does test-enhanced learning transfer for triple associates? Mem. Cogn. 44, 24–36 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  217. Butler, A. C. & Roediger, H. L. Testing improves long-term retention in a simulated classroom setting. Eur. J. Cognit. Psychol. 19, 514–527 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  218. Dobson, J. L. & Linderholm, T. Self-testing promotes superior retention of anatomy and physiology information. Adv. Health Sci. Educ. 20, 149–161 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  219. Kromann, C. B., Jensen, M. L. & Ringsted, C. The effect of testing on skills learning. Med. Educ. 43, 21–27 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  220. Baghdady, M., Carnahan, H., Lam, E. W. N. & Woods, N. N. Test-enhanced learning and its effect on comprehension and diagnostic accuracy. Med. Educ. 48, 181–188 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  221. Freda, N. M. & Lipp, M. J. Test-enhanced learning in competence-based predoctoral orthodontics: a four-year study. J. Dental Educ. 80, 348–354 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  222. Tse, C.-S., Balota, D. A. & Roediger, H. L. The benefits and costs of repeated testing on the learning of face–name pairs in healthy older adults. Psychol. Aging 25, 833–845 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  223. Meyer, A. N. D. & Logan, J. M. Taking the testing effect beyond the college freshman: benefits for lifelong learning. Psychol. Aging 28, 142–147 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  224. Guran, C.-N. A., Lehmann-Grube, J. & Bunzeck, N. Retrieval practice improves recollection-based memory over a seven-day period in younger and older adults. Front. Psychol. 10, 2997 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  225. McCabe, J. Metacognitive awareness of learning strategies in undergraduates. Mem. Cogn. 39, 462–476 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  226. Carpenter, S. K., Witherby, A. E. & Tauber, S. K. On students’ (mis)judgments of learning and teaching effectiveness. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 9, 137–151 (2020). This review discusses the factors underlying faulty metacognition, and how they can mislead students’ judgements of their own learning as well as the quality of effective teaching.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  227. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P. & Glaser, R. Self-explanations: how students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognit. Sci. 13, 145–182 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  228. Gurung, R. A. R. How do students really study (and does it matter)? Teach. Psychol. 32, 238–241 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  229. Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K. & Kestin, G. Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 19251–19257 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  230. Hartwig, M. K., Rohrer, D. & Dedrick, R. F. Scheduling math practice: students’ underappreciation of spacing and interleaving. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 28, 100–113 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  231. Carpenter, S. K., King-Shepard, Q., & Nokes-Malach, T. J. in In Their Own Words: What Scholars Want You to Know About Why and How to Apply the Science of Learning in Your Academic Setting (eds Overson, C., Hakala, C., Kordonowy, L. & Benassi, V.) (American Psychological Association, in the press).

  232. Kirk-Johnson, A., Galla, B. M. & Fraundorf, S. H. Perceiving effort as poor learning: the misinterpreted-effort hypothesis of how experienced effort and perceived learning relate to study strategy choice. Cognit. Psychol. 115, 101237 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  233. Fisher, O. & Oyserman, D. Assessing interpretations of experienced ease and difficulty as motivational constructs. Motiv. Sci. 3, 133–163 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  234. Schiefele, U. Interest, learning, and motivation. Educ. Psychol. 26, 299–323 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  235. Simons, J., Dewitte, S. & Lens, W. The role of different types of instrumentality in motivation, study strategies, and performance: know why you learn, so you’ll know what you learn! Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 74, 343–360 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  236. Pan, S. C., Sana, F., Samani, J., Cooke, J. & Kim, J. A. Learning from errors: students’ and instructors’ practices, attitudes, and beliefs. Memory 28, 1105–1122 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the James S. McDonnell Foundation 21st Century Science Initiative in Understanding Human Cognition, Collaborative Grant 220020483. The authors thank C. Phua for assistance with verifying references.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA

    Shana K. Carpenter

  2. Department of Psychology, National University of Singapore, Singapore City, Singapore

    Steven C. Pan

  3. Department of Education, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA

    Andrew C. Butler

  4. Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA

    Andrew C. Butler

Authors
  1. Shana K. Carpenter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Steven C. Pan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrew C. Butler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the design of the article. S.K.C. drafted the sections on measuring learning, spacing, successive relearning and future directions; S.C.P. drafted the section on retrieval practice, developed the figures and drafted the tables; A.C.B. drafted the section on metacognition. All authors edited and approved the final draft of the complete manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shana K. Carpenter.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Reviews Psychology thanks Veronica Yan, who co-reviewed with Brendan Schuetze; Mirjam Ebersbach; and Nate Kornell for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Carpenter, S.K., Pan, S.C. & Butler, A.C. The science of effective learning with spacing and retrieval practice. Nat Rev Psychol 1, 496–511 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00089-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00089-1

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing