Cited by 186Memory Processes and InfluencesVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

The dynamics of learning and allocation of study time to a region of proximal learning

Metcalfe, Janet, Kornell, Nate·2003·Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

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

Crossref · 10.1037/0096-3445.132.4.530

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 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