CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 153Memory Processes and InfluencesVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Increasing Retention Without Increasing Study Time

Open access
Rohrer, Doug, Pashler, Harold·2007·Current Directions in Psychological Science
DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00500.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Because people forget much of what they learn, students could benefit from learning strategies that yield long-lasting knowledge. Yet surprisingly little is known about how long-term retention is most efficiently achieved. Here we examine how retention is affected by two variables: the duration of a study session and the temporal distribution of study time across multiple sessions. Our results suggest that a single session devoted to the study of some material should continue long enough to ensure that mastery is achieved but that immediate further study of the same material is an inefficient use of time. Our data also show that the benefit of distributing a fixed amount of study time across two study sessions—the spacing effect—depends jointly on the interval between study sessions and the interval between study and test. We discuss the practical implications of both findings, especially in regard to mathematics learning.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00500.x

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 19 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. National Geographic, 2006, 2006 Geographic Literacy Study

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–153 of 153

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H.
Affiliations
  • University of South Florida (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
Corresponding author
Rohrer, Doug
ORCID
Venue
Current Directions in Psychological Science
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2007-08
Volume
16
Issue
4
Pages
183-186
ISSN
  • 0963-7214 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-8721
DOI
10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00500.x
OpenAlex
W2044983254
Cited by
153
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 6
FWCI
2.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Current Directions in Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) (submittedVersion)
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
long-term retention, spacing effect, forgetting, mastery, mathematics learning, learning strategies

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