The Temporal Position of Reviews

As the reader who has followed the literature pertaining to review well knows, it has seemed logical to many authorities that the first review exercises should appear soon after learning and be comparatively frequent, with less frequent appearances being required as time goes on. This teach ing has been deduced from the negatively accelerated character of the Eb binghaus curve of forgetting. In attempting to appraise it, it is fitting to inquire what the object of review is. If it is to maintain at any cost a given functional level of attained knowledge, probably no one will question the soundness of the teaching. If the issue is that of the most economical method of securing lasting benefits from learning through the expediency of review, the problem is whether it is more economical in the long run to maintain a given func tional level of knowledge or to regain it. Or, to put the question more directly, does a number of repetitions, employed as review, add more to the permanency of knowledge when indulged in soon after learning, before very much is forgotten, than at a more remote date, after much has been forgotten ? It may serve to clarify the issue to note that there are, in effect, two general kinds of review, or two general methods of reviewing: (1) recall or symbolical review, as in silent or oral rehearsal, written reproduction? verbatim or in substance, and response to various forms of objective tests, (2) reimpression, as in rereading, where the original performance is re peated, in whole or in part. There is no a priori reason why the two kinds of review should be affected alike by variations in experimental or class room procedure. In fact, the published research, as recounted in brief sub sequently, shows that the varying of temporal positions affects these two kinds of review differently. 618