I have some
questions about the Ebbinghaus Curve.
One example of the curve is linked to here:
While I am
comfortable with the idea of needing to revisit material and that this can help
with long-term retention (one of the authors of a 'Learn Spanish' podcast that
I listen to says that you have to use a word in 6 different contexts before it
becomes embedded), I find the Ebbinghaus Curve to be somewhat dubious.
It looks rather
specific, it has multiple copies of the same 'shape' of curve (subject to a stretch-factor) and it also still
involves 'forgetting', so all we are doing is staving off the inevitable
forgetting that will occur with everything.
I had a brief look
at Ebbinghaus' work and was surprised by a couple of things:
1) Ebbinghaus had a
single subject. One person! This seems to be a ripe and obvious field for
research to be carried out with large numbers of people. The idea that such an idealised curve can be
produced after testing a single individual doesn't seem sensible.
2) The person was an
adult. The curve is now being used to
predict how children might behave. There
are lots of differences between adults and children, but of particular
relevance is that the adult knew they were part of a research study and
presumably wanted to learn and recall things as well as they could. This contrasts with some children in the
classroom.
3) The adult learned
strings of nonsense-words. Again, this
is vastly different to what happens in the classroom. Is memorising strings of unconnected
information related to learning connected information? Is it linked to learning maths? What about the role of understanding?
In summary: I don't
have a problem with the idea of needing to revisit material to help with its
retention. I do think the 'Ebbinghaus
Curve' is overly-specific and is an example of applying an idealised graph
created from research carried out in a particular way to a completely different
scenario.
Edit:
David Wees is exploring the data behind this in detail. Worth looking at this thread:
