Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Can Learners Allocate Their Study Time Effectively? It Is Complicated

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The existing literature on study time allocation has primarily focused on how people regulate their study time allocation across different items and conditions. However, these studies rarely investigated how self-regulated study time allocation affects later retention. In this review, the effectiveness of self-regulated study time allocation on retention is evaluated by (1) comparing people who regulated their study time allocation to those who did not and (2) examining whether people reduce or eliminate item difficulty effects through study time allocation. The results suggest that although people benefit from self-pacing their study and selecting what to study, they cannot regulate their study strategies effectively or fully compensate for item difficulty effects through self-regulated study time allocation. Existing theoretical models of study time allocation are discussed in light of these findings, and two alternative theoretical explanations are proposed to account for the findings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, F. (2017). Quizzing and restudy dynamics in a TST paradigm: The (null) effect of feedback and the (significant) effects of metacognition (Master’s thesis, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, USA). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.7936/K7W095B8

  • Arbuckle, T. Y., & Cuddy, L. L. (1969). Discrimination of item strength at time of presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(1), 126–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ariel, R. (2013). Learning what to learn: The effects of task experience on strategy shifts in the allocation of study time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(6), 1697–1711.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ariel, R., Al-Harthy, I. S., Was, C. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2011). Habitual reading biases in the allocation of study time. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(5), 1015–1021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ariel, R., & Dunlosky, J. (2013). When do learners shift from habitual to agenda-based processes when selecting items for study? Memory & Cognition, 41(3), 416–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ariel, R., Dunlosky, J., & Bailey, H. (2009). Agenda-based regulation of study-time allocation: When agendas override item-based monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(3), 432–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ariel, R., Dunlosky, J., & Toppino, T. C. (2014). Contribution of degraded perception and insufficient encoding to decisions to mass or space study. Experimental Psychology, 61(2), 110–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ariel, R., & Karpicke, J. D. (2018). Improving self-regulated learning with a retrieval practice intervention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 24(1), 43–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ariel, R., Price, J., & Hertzog, C. (2015). Age-related associative memory deficits in value-based remembering: The contribution of agenda-based regulation and strategy use. Psychology and Aging, 30(4), 795–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, R. C. (1972). Optimizing the learning of a second-language vocabulary. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 96(1), 124–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175–1184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, A. S. (2007). Memory is more than just remembering: Strategic control of encoding, accessing memory, and making decisions. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 48, 175–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, A. S., & Bird, R. D. (2006). Metacognitive control of the spacing of study repetitions. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(1), 126–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, A. S., Bjork, R. A., & Schwartz, B. L. (1998). The mismeasure of memory: When retrieval fluency is misleading as a metamnemonic index. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127(1), 55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britton, B. K., & Tesser, A. (1991). Effects of time-management practices on college grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 405–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castel, A. D. (2007). The adaptive and strategic use of memory by older adults: Evaluative processing and value-directed remembering. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 48, 225–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cull, W. L., & Zechmeister, E. B. (1994). The learning ability paradox in adult metamemory research: Where are the metamemory differences between good and poor learners? Memory & Cognition, 22(2), 249–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dufresne, A., & Kobasigawa, A. (1989). Children’s spontaneous allocation of study time: Differential and sufficient aspects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 47(2), 274–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Ariel, R. (2011a). Self-regulated learning and the allocation of study time. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 54, 103–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Ariel, R. (2011b). The influence of agenda-based and habitual processes on item selection during study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(4), 899–912.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., Ariel, R., & Thiede, K. W. (2011). Agenda-based regulation of study-time allocation. Constructions of remembering and metacognition (pp. 182–198). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Connor, L. T. (1997). Age differences in the allocation of study time account for age differences in memory performance. Memory & Cognition, 25(5), 691–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Hertzog, C. (1997). Older and younger adults use a functionally identical algorithm to select items for restudy during multitrial learning. The Journals of Gerontology Series b: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 52(4), 178–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Hertzog, C. (1998). Training programs to improve learning in later adulthood: Helping older adults educate themselves. Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice, 249, 276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., Hertzog, C., Kennedy, M. R., & Thiede, K. W. (2005). The self-monitoring approach for effective learning. Cognitive Technology, 10(1), 4–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., Kubat-Silman, A. K., & Hertzog, C. (2003). Training monitoring skills improves older adults’ self-paced associative learning. Psychology and Aging, 18(2), 340–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., Mueller, M. L., Morehead, K., Tauber, S. K., Thiede, K. W., & Metcalfe, J. (2021). Why does excellent monitoring accuracy not always produce gains in memory performance? Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 229(2), 104–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Nelson, T. O. (1992). Importance of the kind of cue for judgments of learning (JOL) and the delayed-JOL effect. Memory & Cognition, 20(4), 374–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2012). Overconfidence produces underachievement: Inaccurate self-evaluations undermine students’ learning and retention. Learning and Instruction, 22(4), 271–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. (1998). What makes people study more? An evaluation of factors that affect self-paced study. Acta Psychologica, 98(1), 37–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Theide, K. W. (2004). Causes and constraints of the shift-to-easier-materials effect in the control of study. Memory & Cognition, 32, 779–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040–1048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: The MASRL model. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 6–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finley, J. R., & Benjamin, A. S. (2012). Adaptive and qualitative changes in encoding strategy with experience: Evidence from the test-expectancy paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(3), 632–652.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finley, J. R., Tullis, J. G., & Benjamin, A. S. (2010). Metacognitive control of learning and remembering. New science of learning (pp. 109–131). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, N. L., Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2018). Self-regulated learning of principle-based concepts: Do students prefer worked examples, faded examples, or problem solving? Learning and Instruction, 55, 124–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fulton, K. (2012). Upside down and inside out: Flip your classroom to improve student learning. Learning & Leading with Technology, 39(8), 12–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Salas, C. R. (2013). Supporting effective self-regulated learning: The critical role of monitoring. International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (pp. 19–34). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2008). Individual differences, rereading, and self-explanation: Concurrent processing and cue validity as constraints on metacomprehension accuracy. Memory & Cognition, 36, 93–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gureckis, T. M., & Markant, D. B. (2012). Self-directed learning: A cognitive and computational perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(5), 464–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, D. J., Bol, L., Horgan, D., & Rakow, E. (2000). Test prediction and performance in a classroom context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 160–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartwig, M. K., & Dunlosky, J. (2012). Study strategies of college students: Are self-testing and scheduling related to achievement? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(1), 126–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karpicke, J. D. (2009). Metacognitive control and strategy selection: Deciding to practice retrieval during learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(4), 469–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karpicke, J. D. (2017). Retrieval-based learning: A decade of progress. In J. T. Wixted (Ed.), Cognitive psychology of memory, Vol. 2 of Learning and memory: A comprehensive reference (J. H. Byrne, Series Ed.) (pp. 487–514). Oxford: Academic Press.

  • Karpicke, J. D., Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2009). Metacognitive strategies in student learning: Do students practice retrieval when they study on their own? Memory, 17(4), 471–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kearney, E. M., & Zechmeister, E. B. (1989). Judgments of item difficulty by good and poor associative learners. The American Journal of Psychology, 365–383

  • Kimball, D. R., Smith, T. A., & Muntean, W. J. (2012). Does delaying judgments of learning really improve the efficacy of study decisions? Not so much. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(4), 923–954.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, J. F., Zechmeister, E. B., & Shaughnessy, J. J. (1980). Judgments of knowing: The influence of retrieval practice. The American Journal of Psychology, 329–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kobasigawa, A., & Metcalf-Haggert, A. (1993). Spontaneous allocation of study time by first-and third-grade children in a simple memory task. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 154(2), 223–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A. (2008). Easy comes, easy goes? The link between learning and remembering and its exploitation in metacognition. Memory & Cognition, 36(2), 416–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A., Ackerman, R., Lockl, K., & Schneider, W. (2009). The memorizing effort heuristic in judgments of learning: A developmental perspective. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 102(3), 265–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A., & Bjork, R. A. (2006a). Illusions of competence during study can be remedied by manipulations that enhance learners’ sensitivity to retrieval conditions at test. Memory & Cognition, 34(5), 959–972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A., & Bjork, R. A. (2006b). Mending metacognitive illusions: A comparison of mnemonic-based and theory-based procedures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(5), 1133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A., & Ma’ayan, H. (2005). The effects of encoding fluency and retrieval fluency on judgments of learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(4), 478–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A., Ma’ayan, H., & Nussinson, R. (2006). The intricate relationships between monitoring and control in metacognition: Lessons for the cause-and-effect relation between subjective experience and behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(1), 36–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2007). The promise and perils of self-regulated study. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 219–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Optimizing self-regulated study: The benefits-and costs-of dropping flashcards. Memory, 16, 125–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kornell, N., & Finn, B. (2016). Self-regulated learning: An overview of theory and data. The Oxford Handbook of Metamemory, 325.

  • Kornell, N., & Metcalfe, J. (2006). Study efficacy and the region of proximal learning framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(3), 609–622.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornell, N., & Son, L. K. (2009). Learners’ choices and beliefs about self-testing. Memory, 17(5), 493–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaPorte, R. E., & Nath, R. (1976). Role of performance goals in prose learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(3), 260–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Ny, J. F., Denhiere, G., & Le Taillanter, D. (1972). Regulation of study-time and interstimulus similarity in self-paced learning conditions. Acta Psychologica, 36(4), 280–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipowski, S., Ariel, R., Tauber, S. K., & Dunlosky, J. (2017). Children’s agenda-based regulation: The effects of prior performance and reward on elementary school children’s study choices. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 164, 55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockl, K., & Schneider, W. (2004). The effects of incentives and instructions on children’s allocation of study time. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1(2), 153–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovelace, E. A. (1984). Metamemory: Monitoring future recallability in free and cued recall. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 22(6), 497–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markant, D., & Gureckis, T. (2010). Category learning through active sampling. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 32(32), 248–253. Retrieved from.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masur, E. F., McIntyre, C. W., & Flavell, J. H. (1973). Developmental changes in apportionment of study time among items in a multitrial free recall task. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 15(2), 237–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzoni, G., & Cornoldi, C. (1993). Strategies in study time allocation: Why is study time sometimes not effective? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(1), 47–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzoni, G., Cornoldi, C., & Marchitelli, G. (1990). Do memorability ratings affect study-time allocation? Memory & Cognition, 18(2), 196–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, J. (2011). Metacognitive awareness of learning strategies in undergraduates. Memory & Cognition, 39(3), 462–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J. (2002). Is study time allocated selectively to a region of proximal learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131(3), 349–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognitive judgments and control of study. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(3), 159–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J., & Finn, B. (2008). Evidence that judgments of learning are causally related to study choice. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 174–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J., & Finn, B. (2013). Metacognition and control of study choice in children. Metacognition and Learning, 8(1), 19–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J., & Kornell, N. (2003). The dynamics of learning and allocation of study time to a region of proximal learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132(4), 530–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J., & Kornell, N. (2005). A region of proximal learning model of study time allocation. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(4), 463–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, J. R., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. (2004). Adult age differences in self-regulated learning from reading sentences. Psychology and Aging, 19(4), 626–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morehead, K., & Dunlosky, J. (2020). Do students make effective decisions when regulating their learning of categories? Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 6(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulligan, N. W., & Peterson, D. J. (2014). The spacing effect and metacognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(1), 306–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, M. D., Schmitt, F. A., Caruso, M. J., & Sanders, R. E. (1987). Metamemory in older adults: The role of monitoring in serial recall. Psychology and Aging, 2(4), 331–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T. O. (1993). Judgments of learning and the allocation of study time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 269–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T. O., & Dunlosky, J. (1991). When people’s judgments of learning (JOLs) are extremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall: The “delayed-JOL effect”. Psychological Science, 2(4), 267–271.

  • Nelson, T. O., Narens L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In Psychology of learning and motivation Academic Press, 26 125 173

  • Nelson, T. O., & Leonesio, R. J. (1988). Allocation of self-paced study time and the “labor-in-vain effect.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(4), 676–686.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T. O., Dunlosky, J., Graf, A., & Narens, L. (1994). Utilization of metacognitive judgments in the allocation of study during multitrial learning. Psychological Science, 5(4), 207–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pashler, H., Bain, P. M., Bottge, B. A., Graesser, A., Koedinger, K., McDaniel, M., & Metcalfe, J. (2007). Organizing instruction and study to improve student learning. IES Practice Guide. NCER 2007–2004. National Center for Education Research.

  • Pelegrina, S., Bajo, M. T., & Justicia, F. (2000). Differential allocation of study time: Incomplete compensation for the difficulty of the materials. Memory, 8(6), 377–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, Y., & Tullis, J. G. (2020). Theories of intelligence influence self-regulated study choices and learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46(3), 487–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(6), 459–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, J., Hertzog, C., & Dunlosky, J. (2010). Self-regulated learning in younger and older adults: Does aging affect metacognitive control? Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 17(3), 329–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, M. G., & Castel, A. D. (2009). Metacognitive illusions for auditory information: Effects on monitoring and control. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(3), 550–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robey, A. (2020). A latent profile analysis of student restudy decisions. Metacognition and Learning, 15(1), 77–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roediger, H. L., III., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roediger III, H. L., Putnam, A. L., & Smith, M. A. (2011). Ten benefits of testing and their applications to educational practice. In Psychology of learning and motivation Academic Press, 55 1 36

  • Roediger, H. L., III., & Pyc, M. A. (2012). Inexpensive techniques to improve education: Applying cognitive psychology to enhance educational practice. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1(4), 242–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaughnessy, J. J. (1981). Memory monitoring accuracy and modification of rehearsal strategies. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(2), 216–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soderstrom, N. C., & Bjork, R. A. (2014). Testing facilitates the regulation of subsequent study time. Journal of Memory and Language, 73, 99–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soderstrom, N. C., & McCabe, D. P. (2011). The interplay between value and relatedness as bases for metacognitive monitoring and control: Evidence for agenda-based monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(5), 1236–1242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: Frequency and cognitive-behavioral correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31(4), 503–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Son, L. K. (2004). Spacing one’s study: Evidence for a metacognitive control strategy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(3), 601–604.

    Google Scholar 

  • Son, L. K. (2010). Metacognitive control and the spacing effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(1), 255–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Son, L. K., & Kornell, N. (2008). Research on the allocation of study time: Key studies from 1890 to the present (and beyond). A handbook of memory and metamemory, 333–351.

  • Son, L. K., & Kornell, N. (2009). Simultaneous decisions at study: Time allocation, ordering, and spacing. Metacognition and Learning, 4(3), 237–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Son, L. K., & Metcalfe, J. (2000). Metacognitive and control strategies in study-time allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(1), 204–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stine-Morrow, E. A., Shake, M. C., Miles, J. R., & Noh, S. R. (2006). Adult age differences in the effects of goals on self-regulated sentence processing. Psychology and Aging, 21(4), 790–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoff, D. M., & Eagle, M. N. (1971). The relationship among reported strategies, presentation rate, and verbal ability and their effects on free recall learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 87(3), 423–428.

  • Tauber, S. K., & Rhodes, M. G. (2010). Metacognitive errors contribute to the difficulty in remembering proper names. Memory, 18(5), 522–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiede, K. W. (1999). The importance of monitoring and self-regulation during multitrial learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6(4), 662–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 66–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiede, K. W., & Dunlosky, J. (1999). Toward a general model of self-regulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(4), 1024–1037.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiede, K. W., Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Redford, J. S. (2009). Metacognitive monitoring during and after reading. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition and self-regulated learning (pp. 85–106). Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, A. K., & McDaniel, M. A. (2007). The negative cascade of incongruent generative study-test processing in memory and metacomprehension. Memory & Cognition, 35(4), 668–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiede, H. L., & Leboe, J. P. (2009). Illusions of competence for phonetically, orthographically, and semantically similar word pairs. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/revue Canadienne De Psychologie Expérimentale, 63(4), 294–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toppino, T. C., Cohen, M. S., Davis, M. L., & Moors, A. C. (2009). Metacognitive control over the distribution of practice: When is spacing preferred? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(5), 1352–1358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tullis, J. G., & Benjamin, A. S. (2011). On the effectiveness of self-paced learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 64(2), 109–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tullis, J. G., & Benjamin, A. S. (2012). Consequences of restudy choices in younger and older learners. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(4), 743–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Underwood, B. J. (1966). Individual and group predictions of item difficulty for free learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(5), 673–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Digest of education statistics 2019.

  • Voss, J. L., Gonsalves, B. D., Federmeier, K. D., Tranel, D., & Cohen, N. J. (2011). Hippocampal brain-network coordination during volitional exploratory behavior enhances learning. Nature Neuroscience, 14(1), 115–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasylkiw, L., Tomes, J. L., & Smith, F. (2008). Subset testing: Prevalence and implications for study behaviors. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(3), 243–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice, 93, 27–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zacks, R. T. (1969). Invariance of total learning time under different conditions of practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 82(3), 441–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zechmeister, E. B., & Shaughnessy, J. J. (1980). When you know that you know and when you think that you know but you don’t. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 15(1), 41–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, USA

    Eylul Tekin

Authors
  1. Eylul Tekin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eylul Tekin.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tekin, E. Can Learners Allocate Their Study Time Effectively? It Is Complicated. Educ Psychol Rev 34, 717–748 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09645-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09645-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation