Adaptive spacing algorithms are powerful tools for helping learners manage their study time efficiently. By personalizing the temporal distribution of retrieval practice of a given piece of knowledge, they improve learners' long-term memory retention compared to fixed review schedules. However, such algorithms are generally designed for the pure memorization of single items, such as vocabulary words. Yet, the spacing effect has been shown to extend to more complex knowledge, such as the practice of mathematical skills. In this article, we extend three adaptive spacing heuristics from the literature for selecting the best skill to review at any timestamp given a student's past study history. In real-world educational settings, items generally involve multiple skills at the same time. Thus, we also propose a multi-skill version for two of these heuristics: instead of selecting one single skill, they select with a greedy procedure the most promising subset of skills to review. To compare these five heuristics, we develop a synthetic experimental framework that simulates student learning and forgetting trajectories with a student model. We run multiple synthetic experiments on large cohorts of 500 simulated students and publicly release the code for these experiments. Our results highlight the strengths and weaknesses of each heuristic in terms of performance, robustness, and complexity. Finally, we find evidence that selecting the best subset of skills yields better retention compared to selecting the single best skill to review.
How to Cite
adaptive spacing, skill selection heuristics, knowledge components, multi-skill learning items
BJORK, R. 1994. Memory and meta-memory considerations in the training of human beings. In Metacognition: Knowing about knowing, J. Metcalfe & A. Shimamura (Eds.), Ed. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, US, 185–205.
CEPEDA, N. J., VUL, E., ROHRER, D., WIXTED, J. T., AND PASHLER, H. 2008. Spacing eﬀects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention. Psychological Science 19, 11, 1095–1102.
CHOFFIN, B., POPINEAU, F., BOURDA, Y., AND VIE, J. 2019. DAS3H: modeling student learning and forgetting for optimally scheduling distributed practice of skills. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, M. C. Desmarais, C. F. Lynch, A. Merceron, and R. Nkambou, Eds. International Educational Data Mining Society, 29-38.
DOROUDI, S., ALEVEN, V., AND BRUNSKILL, E. 2017. Robust evaluation matrix: Towards a more principled oﬄine exploration of instructional policies. In Proceedings of the Fourth ACM Conference on Learning@Scale. ACM, 3–12.
DOROUDI, S., ALEVEN, V., AND BRUNSKILL, E. 2019. Where’s the reward? International Journal of Artiﬁcial Intelligence in Education 29, 4, 568–620.
DUNLOSKY, J., RAWSON, K. A., MARSH, E. J., NATHAN, M. J., AND 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.
EBBINGHAUS, H. 1885. Ueber das Gedächtnis. Duncker and Humblot.
EFFENBERGER, T., PELÁNEK, R., AND ČECHÁK, J. 2020. Exploration of the robustness and generalizability of the additive factors model. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge (LAK 2020). ACM, 472–479.
EGLINGTON, L. G. AND PAVLIK, JR, P. I. 2020. Optimizing practice scheduling requires quantitative tracking of individual item performance. npj Science of Learning 5, 1, 15.
GOUTTE, C., DURAND, G., AND LÉGER, S. 2018. On the learning curve attrition bias in additive factor modeling. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelligence in Education. LNCS, vol. 10948. Springer, 109–113.
HUNZIKER, A., CHEN, Y., MAC AODHA, O., RODRIGUEZ, M. G., KRAUSE, A., PERONA, P., YUE, Y., AND SINGLA, A. 2019. Teaching multiple concepts to a forgetful learner. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 4050–4060.
KANG, S. H., LINDSEY, R. V., MOZER, M. C., AND PASHLER, H. 2014. Retrieval practice over the long term: Should spacing be expanding or equal-interval? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 21, 6, 1544–1550.
KHAJAH, M. M., LINDSEY, R. V., AND MOZER, M. C. 2014. Maximizing students’ retention via spaced review: Practical guidance from computational models of memory. Topics in Cognitive Science 6, 1, 157–169.
LEITNER, S. 1972. So Lernt Man Lernen. Angewandte Lernpsychologie - ein Weg zum Erfolg. Herder.
LINDSEY, R. V., SHROYER, J. D., PASHLER, H., AND MOZER, M. C. 2014. Improving students’ long-term knowledge retention through personalized review. Psychological Science 25, 3, 639–647.
METTLER, E., MASSEY, C. M., AND KELLMAN, P. J. 2016. A comparison of adaptive and ﬁxed schedules of practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 145, 7, 897–917.
METZLER-BADDELEY, C. AND BADDELEY, R. J. 2009. Does adaptive training work? Applied Cognitive Psychology 23, 2, 254–266.
PASHLER, H., CEPEDA, N., LINDSEY, R. V., VUL, E., AND MOZER, M. C. 2009. Predicting the optimal spacing of study: A multiscale context model of memory. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 22. Curran Associates, Inc., 1321–1329.
PAVLIK, P., BOLSTER, T., WU, S.-M., KOEDINGER, K., AND MACWHINNEY, B. 2008. Using optimally selected drill practice to train basic facts. In International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS 2008). LNCS, vol. 5091. Springer, 593–602.
PAVLIK, P. I. AND ANDERSON, J. R. 2008. Using a model to compute the optimal schedule of practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 14, 2, 101–117.
PIMSLEUR, P. 1967. A memory schedule. The Modern Language Journal 51, 2, 73–75.
REDDY, S., LABUTOV, I., BANERJEE, S., AND JOACHIMS, T. 2016. Unbounded human learning: Optimal scheduling for spaced repetition. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, B. Krishnapuram, M. Shah, A. J. Smola, C. C. Aggarwal, D. Shen, and R. Rastogi, Eds. ACM, 1815–1824.
REDDY, S., LEVINE, S., AND DRAGAN, A. 2017. Accelerating human learning with deep reinforcement learning. In NIPS’17 Workshop: Teaching Machines, Robots, and Humans.
ROEDIGER III, H. L. AND KARPICKE, J. D. 2011. Intricacies of spaced retrieval: A resolution. In Successful Remembering and Successful Forgetting, A. Benjamin, Ed. Psychology Press, 41–66.
ROLLINSON, J. AND BRUNSKILL, E. 2015. From Predictive Models to Instructional Policies. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Educational Data Mining, O. C. Santos, J. Boticario, C. Romero, M. Pechenizkiy, A. Merceron, P. Mitros, J. M. Luna, M. C. Mihaescu, P. Moreno, A. Hershkovitz, S. Ventura, and M. C. Desmarais, Eds. International Educational Data MiningSociety, 179–186.
ROWLAND, C. A. 2014. The eﬀect of testing versus restudy on retention: a meta-analytic review of the testing eﬀect. Psychological Bulletin 140, 6, 1432–1463.
STAMPER, J., NICULESCU-MIZIL, A., RITTER, S., GORDON, G., AND KOEDINGER, K. 2010. Algebra I 2005-2006 and Bridge to Algebra 2006-2007. Development data sets from KDD Cup 2010 Educational DataMining Challenge. Find them at http://pslcdatashop.web.cmu.edu/KDDCup/downloads.jsp.
TABIBIAN, B., UPADHYAY, U., DE, A., ZAREZADE, A., SCHÖLKOPF, B., AND GOMEZ-RODRIGUEZ, M. 2019. Enhancing human learning via spaced repetition optimization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, 10, 3988–3993.
TATSUOKA, K. K. 1983. Rule space: An approach for dealing with misconceptions based on item response theory. Journal of Educational Measurement 20, 4, 345–354.
UPADHYAY, U., DE, A., AND RODRIGUEZ, M. G. 2018. Deep reinforcement learning of marked temporal point processes. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. Curran Associates Inc., 3168–3178.
VAN GOG, T. AND SWELLER, J. 2015. Not new, but nearly forgotten: the testing eﬀect decreases or even disappears as the complexity of learning materials increases. Educational Psychology Review 27, 2, 247–264.
VAN RIJN, H., VAN MAANEN, L., AND VAN WOUDENBERG, M. 2009. Passing the test: Improving learning gains by balancing spacing and testing eﬀects. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of Cognitive Modeling. Vol. 2. 7–6.
VIE, J. AND KASHIMA, H. 2019. Knowledge tracing machines: Factorization machines for knowledge tracing. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelligence. Vol. 33. AAAI Press, 750–757.
VLACH, H. A. AND SANDHOFER, C. M. 2012. Distributing learning over time: the spacing eﬀect in children’s acquisition and generalization of science concepts. Child Development 83, 4, 1137–1144.
WANG, Z., LAMB, A., SAVELIEV, E., CAMERON, P., ZAYKOV, Y., HERNÁNDEZ-LOBATO, J. M., TURNER,R. E., BARANIUK, R. G., BARTON, C., JONES, S. P., WOODHEAD, S., AND ZHANG, C. 2020. Diagnostic questions: The NeurIPS 2020 Education Challenge.
WEINSTEIN, Y., MADAN, C. R., AND SUMERACKI, M. A. 2018. Teaching the science of learning. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications 3, 1, 2.
WOZNIAK, P. AND GORZELANCZYK, E. J. 1994. Optimization of repetition spacing in the practice of learning. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis 54, 59–59.
YANG, Z., SHEN, J., LIU, Y., YANG, Y., ZHANG, W., AND YU, Y. 2020. TADS: learning time-aware scheduling policy with dyna-style planning for spaced repetition. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, J. Huang, Y. Chang, X. Cheng, J. Kamps, V. Murdock, J. Wen, and Y. Liu, Eds. ACM, 1917–1920.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
- Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
- The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons 4.0 License (Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International), or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
- Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
- Noncommercial—other users (including Publisher) may not use this Work for commercial purposes;
- No Derivative Works—other users (including Publisher) may not alter, transform, or build upon this Work,with the understanding that any of the above conditions can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
- The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
- Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
- The Author represents and warrants that:
- the Work is the Author’s original work;
- the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
- the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
- the Work has not previously been published;
- the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
- the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
- The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.