Studies in Substance Memorization

A review of note-taking: The encoding-storage paradigm and beyond

“…For example, the literature essentially is silent with respect to the optimal placement and length of a review period, or how often a learner should review notes. Tangential research studies involving prose learning, in which notes were neither recorded nor reviewed, indicate that multiple review periods significantly boost recall beyond a single review opportunity (Annis and Annis, 1987;Bromage and Mayer, 1986;English et al, 1934), and that review is equally effective whether it occurs soon after acquisition or just prior to testing (Petersen et ak, 1952). A more recent study (Kardash and Kroeker, 1988) in which notes were recorded from text indicated that the optimal placement of a review period was prior to the twoday delayed recall test, as opposed to immediately following reading.…”

Spacing effects and their implications for theory and practice

“…Some studies have found that beyond a certain spacing interval, further increases in spacing are not always associated with further increases in learning. For example, English et al (1934) found that four readings of a text at 3-hr intervals were associated with better learning than four consecutive unspaced readings; however, readings at 3-hr intervals were no better than readings at either 1-or 3-day intervals. Similarly, Lyon (1914), Peterson et al (1935), and Sones and Stroud (1940) reported essentially no differences in retention between groups with rereadingreviews spaced 1 and 7, 1 and 9, and 1 and 17 days after original learning.…”

“…In some cases, in fact, the number of word meanings recalled was 50-100% greater under spaced conditions than under massed conditions. Finally, spacing effects have been demonstrated repeatedly in a variety of text processing tasks (Dempster, 1986;English et al, 1934;Glover and Corkill, 1987;Kraft and Jenkins, 1981). For example, Dempster (1986) found that two readings of a text separated by a 48-hr interval or a 30-min interval was significantly more effective than two readings of a text separated by 30-sec and 5-min.…”

“…For example, Dempster (1986) found that two readings of a text separated by a 48-hr interval or a 30-min interval was significantly more effective than two readings of a text separated by 30-sec and 5-min. Also English et al,, (1934) found that four readings of a text at 3-hr intervals were associated with better learning than four consecutive unspaced readings. Similarly, Glover and Corkill (1987) observed the spacing effect (0 lag vs. a 30-min lag) in subjects' memory for paragraphs they read as well as for brief lectures they heard.…”

The Effect of Study Strategies on the Retention of College Text Material

“…Review of Literature Considering the first problem, studies by Mackay (1921), and English, Welborn, and Killian (1934), suggest that review does increase retention. Levels of statistical significance were not given in these studies, however, and therefore their results are somewhat clouded.…”