The science of learning dismantles the mathematical rule of the fashionable study method
When it comes to studying anything, almost all of us want to have a system that allows us learn quickly and efficient. This is where we can turn to the Internet, where there are numerous pages that promise us almost miraculous systems to pass easily, and one of them is the 2-7-30 method. But… What does science say about this system? What is it about? This method focuses on a system where you have to review the information exactly 2, 7 and 30 days after having addressed it on the first occasion. Something that is quite similar to what we want to achieve with the flashcards. Something that a priori seems quite simple to put into practice, but which can generate quite a bit of fear by leaving a topic shelved for so many days in the last round. It gives good results. But it is the best from the point of view of science, and to understand it, we have to go to the basics of how our memory works. And this method is based on the spacing effectwhich undoubtedly far surpasses the classic ‘binge’ the night before an exam, where you try to get all the data in in a matter of hours. Here, a classic meta-analysis published in 2006 in Psychological Bulletin, analyzed 839 measures in 317 experiments and confirmed that distributing practice over separate intervals dramatically improves retention. But even in the past, other studies suggested that repeating material over time consolidates memory much more efficiently. Recovery practice. There is no point in spacing out the reviews if, when day 2 or day 7 of the method arrives, we limit ourselves to passively rereading the notes. Here different studies have shown that actively trying to remember information produces much more lasting learning than passively re-studying it. In this way, forcing the brain to “rescue” that data strengthens neuronal connections, and science points to the advantage of active remembering over traditional binge-watching methods, such as making conceptual maps. The enemy to beat. The concept of reviewing in increasingly longer windows of time is born from the need to combat our natural decline in retention. This is where a work on the “forgetting curve” by Hermann Ebbinghaus comes into play, which demonstrated that we lose most of the newly learned information within hours or days if we do nothing to retain it. More modern replications of this idea confirm that this initial rapid forgetting is real and useful to contextualize the problem, although researchers depend on different factors and not only the strict passage of time. That is why the idea we should stick with is that every time we review the information, the forgetting curve resets and its slope becomes gentler so that it takes longer to disappear. The myth of exact numbers. Although it has been shown that spacing study days, in reality science does not identify 2, 7 and 30 days as a universally valid pattern for all learning and people, but will depend on many factors. Here, a study published in 2008 showed that the optimal interval between reviews depends on the retention interval we are looking for, but that the spacing changes radically if the objective is to remember something for an exam that is due in a week versus if we want to remember something in a year, as can happen in an opposition. In this way we get the following pattern: If the exam is in 1 week, the reviews should be separated by just 1 or 2 days. If the exam is in 1 year, Reviews should be spaced several weeks or even a month apart. Images | freepik In Xataka | SQ3R technique: the study method that helps you understand the subjects, not just remember them
