The dynamics of learning and allocation of study time to a region of proximal learning
Abstract
In contrast to the dominant discrepancy reduction model, which favors the most difficult items, people, given free choice, devoted most time to medium-difficulty items and studied the easiest items first. When study time was experimentally manipulated, best performance resulted when most time was given to the medium-difficulty items. Empirically determined information uptake functions revealed steep initial learning for easy items with little subsequent increase. For medium-difficulty items, initial gains were smaller but more sustained, suggesting that the strategy people had used, when given free choice, was largely appropriate. On the basis of the information uptake functions, a negative spacing effect was predicted and observed in the final experiment. Overall, the results favored the region of proximal learning framework.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The capacity to accumulate and store personal resources is finite.
“Since, the capacity to accumulate and store these personal resources is finite (Hobfoll et al., 2018;Metcalfe & Kornell, 2003), we posit that the positive effect of LC on entrepreneurs' thriving at work diminishes as entrepreneurs' work task focus increases.”
From Work hard or play hard: the effect of leisure crafting on opportunity recognition and venture performance (2023) · cites this paper as Metcalfe & Kornell, 2003
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 72 · Cited by 186
- Authors
- Metcalfe, J., & Kornell, N.
- Affiliations
- Columbia University (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
- Published
- 2003
- Volume
- 132
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 530-542
- ISSN
- 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2222
- OpenAlex
- W2164485077
- Cited by
- 186
- References
- 72
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 3.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (MH60637, R01MH060637)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Keywords
- study time allocation, spacing effect, item difficulty, learning dynamics
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Learning, Mental Recall, Time Factors
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review