Most people know that Spaced Learning is fundamental to Firecracker's adaptive learning platform, but did you know that Firecracker also utilizes 20 other proven principles of learning and memory? We want to share these with you so you can better understand how Firecracker maximizes the efficiency of your studies and helps you achieve your goals.
Spaced Learning is critical to efficient learning and long-term memory consolidation but it's only one of many proven learning principles that can enhance learning, retention and application. Unfortunately, these proven learning principles rarely if ever make it into the education setting. This lack in application of even basic educational science to education is what gets our team up early and keeps us working late into the night.
Firecracker's adaptive platform and content applies 19 proven principles of efficient and effective learning. We obsessively look for additional principles to apply and continually validate and improve our system based on millions of data points generated by our members and their direct feedback. Below are the 20 principles, listed in order of when you guys encounter them as you study, reinforce/retain and learn how to apply new material on Firecracker.
Step 1: Learn New Material
Learn new material by studying Firecracker's high-yield and interactive Topics. Learning principles applied:
1. Contiguity Effect: Ideas that are associated should be presented contiguously in space and time.
Example: Firecracker's topics group related facts as opposed to flashcards which typically have only one fact.
2. Dual Code & Multimedia Effects: Visual and multi-media form richer representations than do a single medium[1, 2].
Example: Firecracker has hundreds of relevant images (e.g. gram stains, CT scans, X-rays, clinical photos) that are presented alongside text content.
3. Coherence Effect: Materials should explicitly link related ideas[1, 3, 4].
Example: Firecracker’s entire system links related concepts, not only with topics, but also with multiple-choice and open-ended questions.
4. Segmentation Principle: Complex lessons should be broken down into manageable sub-parts[1, 2].
Example: Firecracker's topics have two levels of bullet points (key concepts and supportive concepts).
6. Cognitive Flexibility: This improves with multiple viewpoints linking facts and deep conceptual principles[5, 6, 7, 8].
Example: Firecracker presents material in several locations, e.g. TB is covered under Microbiology, Pulmonology, and Immunology. And, over the course of using Firecracker, you will typically see 3-5 different questions of varying difficulty and integration of material for each and every concept you're studying.
7. Anchored Learning: Materials are anchored in real-world problems that you care about.
Example: Firecracker often associates concepts with their clinical correlates, and with questions that reinforce the same.
8. Organization Effects: Outlining, integrating, and synthesizing information produces better learning than rereading materials or other more passive strategies[9, 10].
Example: Creating your own topics, adding concepts and questions to existing topics, taking good notes/annotations, etc. all result in better learning and retention than passive approaches such as reading. Don't be discouraged if you find it difficult to create your own content and questions. That's the point! It should require effort because there is a long-term retention advantage for effortful processing.
Step 2: Take a Study Quiz
Take a study quiz after studying a few topics to both reinforce what you learned, and see how well you remember each concept within the topics you studied. Study quizzes are comprised of both multiple-choice and open-ended study questions. Immediate testing, multiple-choice questions, and open-ended study questions embody eight more learning principles:
9. Imperfect Metacognition: We rarely have an accurate knowledge of our cognition and need assistance with calibrating comprehension, learning, and memory[11, 12, 13, 14].
Example: Firecracker's quizzes solve this problem by helping you see how well you actually understand and remember something.
10. Desirable Difficulties: Challenges make learning and retrieval effortful leading to improved retention[15, 16, 17].
Example: Many of Firecracker’s questions are on par with or exceed USMLE question difficulty. We often find that students have more trouble remembering the answer to an open-ended recall question than with recognizing the answer to a USMLE question. We vary question difficulty to take advantage of this learning principle.
11. Cognitive Disequilibrium: Deep reasoning and learning is stimulated by problems that create cognitive disequilibrium, such as obstacles to goals, contradictions, conflict, and anomalies[18, 19, 20, 21].
Example: Firecracker’s questions are often “2-jump” or “3-jump” questions that require us to integrate disparate knowledge and/or figure out multiple things prior to being able to answer the main question.
12. Generation Effect: Learning is enhanced when learners must produce answers, not merely recognize answers[22, 23, 24].
Example: Firecracker has over 30,000 open-ended study questions that don’t have answer choices and only show you the answer after you've formulated the answer on your own without any prompts.
13. Testing Effect: Testing enhances learning, especially when the tests are aligned with important concepts[25, 26, 27].
Example: After studying and marking a topic as learned, Firecracker immediately incorporates the concepts you just covered and recommends those concepts in quizs. In fact, Firecracker’s entire system is constantly assessing and testing you.
14. Feedback Effects: Students benefit from immediate feedback on their performance.
Example: After each review session, Firecracker will tell you how you did and how you are doing overall.
15. Negative Suggestion Effects: Learning wrong information can be reduced when feedback is immediate[29, 30, 31, 32].
Example: Firecracker tells you what the right answer is immediately after you answer a question. Even our exam simulation has "Tutor mode" wherein you are given the correct answer after you answer each question.
16. Deep Questions: Learners derive more benefit from answering questions that elicit explanations (e.g., why, why not, how, what-if)[35, 36, 37, 38].
Example: Many of Firecracker’s questions require elicit explanations.
Step 3: Follow your Adaptive Review Recommendations
Based on how well you do on your Study quiz, Firecracker schedules review questions for you to do in the future to make sure you review concepts before you forget them. Relearning something takes way longer than reviewing it and if you never want to forget anything before a test! If you follow your personal review calendar, you will review concepts you are having difficulty with more frequency (shorter intervals/spacing) to ensure complete mastery and conversion into long-term memory, and review concepts you have already mastered with less frequency (longer intervals/spacing) to maintain your knowledge over time.
Research shows (and our data confirms) that if we review something only once or twice, we're likely to forget it, but if we review it three or four times, it's likely to stick for good. Considering there are thousands of facts we need to remember, it's not hard to understand why Firecracker is so popular! Creating a review schedule for thousands of concepts isn't practical. Thankfully that's exactly what Firecracker does for us. Adaptive review applies four more learning principles:
17. Spaced Effects: Spacing our learning out over time produces better long-term retention than does a single test or study session[39, 40, 41].
Example. Following your recommended review questions and reviewing something 5 times for 1 minute each over time over the course of a month is more effective than reviewing it for 5 minutes all at once.
18. Goldilocks Principle: Assignments should be at the right difficulty level.
Example: Firecracker varies the difficulty of your review depending on your level of mastery. The more you know, the harder it gets[42, 43, 44].
19. Self-regulated Learning: Most students learn more faster if they self-regulate their learning[45, 46].
Example: Firecracker lets you choose what to study and when and empowers you with the right data to make educated decisions.
20. Exam Expectations: Students benefit more from repeated testing and the expectation thereof.
Example: Firecracker is constantly testing you, so you will be ready come test or exam day—no exceptions.
So there you have it; 20 proven learning and memory science principles that you take advantage each and every day you use Firecracker. We highly recommend you look for other ways you can work these principles into your studies. If you think we should apply another proven learning and memory science principle, please let us know!
- Mayer, R.E. (2001). Multimedia Learning. NY: Cambridge University Press.
- Moreno, R. and Valdez, A. (2005). Cognitive Load and Learning Effects of Having Students Organize Pictures and Words in Multimedia Environments: The Role of Student Interactivity and Feedback. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 35-45.
- Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., and Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 351-371.
- Kozma, R. (2000). Reflections on the state of educational technology research and development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(1), 5-15.
- Pass, F., and Kester, L. (2006). Learner and information characteristics in the design of powerful environments. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 281-285.
- Van Merrienboer, J., Jeroen, J. G., Kester, L., and Pass, F. (2006). Teaching complex rather than simple tasks: Balancing intrinsic and germane load to enhance transfer of learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 343-352.
- Rouet, J. (2006). The Skills of Document Use: From Text Comprehension to Web-based Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Spiro, R.J., Feltovich, P.J., Jacobson, M.J., and Coulson, R.C. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology, 31, 24-33.
- Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., and Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How People Learn (expanded ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
- Bjork, R. A.. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. Simamura (Eds.). Metacognition: Knowing about knowing. (pp. 185-205.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Azevedo, R., and Cromley, J.G. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 523-535.
- Maki, R.H. (1998). Test predictions over text material. In D.J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, and A.C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 117-144). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
- White, B., and Frederiksen, J. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 3-117.
- Winne, P.H. (2001). Self-regulated learning viewed from models of information processing. In B. Zimmerman and D. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 153-189). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Bereiter, C., and Scardamalia, M. (1985). Cognitive coping strategies and the problem of “inert knowledge.” In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal, and R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills: Vol. 2. Current research and open questions (pp. 65-80). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Bjork, R. A. (1988). Retrieval practice and maintenance of knowledge. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, and R. N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory: Current research and issues. (Vol 1, pp. 396-401). NY: Wiley.
- Bjork, R. A. (1999). Assessing our own competence: Heuristics and illusions. In D. Gopher and A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention and performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of performance: interaction of theory and application (pp. 435-459). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
- Chinn, C., and Brewer, W. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1-49.
- Graesser, A. C., and McMahen, C. L. (1993). Anomalous information triggers questions when adults solve problems and comprehend stories. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 136-151.
- Graesser, A.C., Lu, S., Olde, B.A., Cooper-Pye, E., and Whitten, S. (2005). Question asking and eye tracking during cognitive disequilibrium: Comprehending illustrated texts on devices when the devices break down. Memory and Cognition, 33, 1235-1247.
- Graesser, A.C., and Olde, B.A. (2003). How does one know whether a person understands a device? The quality of the questions the person asks when the device breaks down. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 524-536.
- Butler, A. C., and Roediger H.L., III. (in press). Testing improves long-term retention in a simulated classroom setting. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology.
- McDaniel, M.A., Anderson, J. L., Derbish, M. H., and Morrisette, N. (in press). Testing the testing effect in the classroom. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology.
- Tulving E. (1967). The effects of presentation and recall of material in free-recall learning.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 175-184.
- Dempster, F. N. (1997). Distributing and managing the conditions of encoding and practice. In E. L. Bjork and R. A. Bjork (Eds), Human Memory (pp. 197-236). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
- Roediger, H. L. III., and Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Psychological Science, 1, 181-210.
- Wheeler, M. A., and Roediger, H. L. III., (1992). Disparate effects of repeated testing: Reconciling Ballard’s (1913) and Bartlett’s (1932) results. Psychological Science, 3, 240-245.
- Pahler, H., Cepeda, J.T., Wixted, J.T., and Rohrer, D. (2005). When does feedback facilitate learning of words? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 3-8.
- Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., and Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 4(2), 167-207.
- McTighe, J., and OConnor, K. (2005). Seven practices for effective learning. Educational Leadership, 63, 10-17.
- Roediger, H. L. III, and Marsh, E. J. (2005). The positive and negative consequences of multiple-choice testing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 1155-1159.
- Shute, V. (2006). Focus on formative feedback. Unpublished manuscript, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ.
- Toppino, T. C., and Brochin, H. A. (1989). Learning from tests: The case of true-false examinations. Journal of Educational Research, 83, 119-124.
- Craig, S. D., Sullins, J., Witherspoon, A., and Gholson, B. (2006). The deep-level reasoning effect: The role of dialogue and deep-level-reasoning questions during vicarious learning.Cognition and Instruction, 24, 565-591.
- Graesser, A. C., and Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 104-137.
- King A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 338-368.
- Pressley, M. et al. (1992). Encouraging mindful use of prior knowledge: Attempting to construct explanatory answers facilitates learning. Educational Psychologist, 27, 91-109.
- Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., and Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66 181-221.
- Bahrick, H.P., Bahrick, L.E., Bahrick, A.S., and Bahrick, P.E. (1993). Maintenance of foreign language vocabulary and the spacing effect. Psychological Science, 4, 316-321.
- Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T. and Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 354-380.
- Cull, W. L. (2000). Untangling the benefits of multiple study opportunities and repeated testing for cured recall. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 215-235.
- Metcalfe, J., and Kornell, N. (2005). A region or proximal of learning model of study time allocation. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 463-477.
- VanLehn, K., Graesser, A.C., Jackson, G.T., Jordan, P., Olney, A., and Rose, C.P. (2007). When are tutorial dialogues more effective than reading? Cognitive Science, 31, 3-62.
- Wolfe, M.B.W., Schreiner, M.E., Rehder, B., Laham, D., Foltz, P., Kintsch, W., and Landauer, T. (1998). Learning from text: Matching readers and texts by latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 309-336.
- Kruger, J., and Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1121-34.
- Langendyk, V. (2006). Not knowing that they do not know: Self-assessment accuracy of third-year medical students. Medical Education. 40, 173-179.
- Szupnar, K. K., McDermott, K. B., and Roediger, H. L., III. (in press). Expectation of a final cumulative test enhances long-term retention.