# Spaced revision: a re-test timetable for one term

**How do I plan spaced revision across a term so every topic is re-tested at the right time?** Spaced revision across a twelve-week term means re-testing each topic at widening gaps instead of rereading it. A working rule: quiz a topic in the week you start it, again one week later, two weeks after that and four weeks after that, with a last look in the final fortnight. Six topics started a week apart need at most three quizzes a week.

Published 2026-10-10 by EdProcto. https://edprocto.com/guides/spaced-revision-a-re-test-timetable-for-one-term

Most revision plans are a list of topics with a tick beside each. The tick records that the topic was read, not that it will still be there on the morning of the exam.

Spaced revision swaps the tick for a row of dates. Each topic is quizzed with the book shut, then again one week later, two weeks after that and four weeks after that. This guide, published by EdProcto, gives the research behind those gaps, a rule that needs no calculator, the timetable for six topics, and a plan for a bad re-test or a lost week.

The rule and the timetable are our own, built on the studies and not lifted from one. Of the ten papers cited we read one in full, Mawson and Kang (2025), and the abstracts of the rest. EdProcto's page [for students](https://edprocto.com/solutions/students) shows the tool the plan uses.

## What does research say about spaced revision across a term?

It says the same amount of practice lasts longer when it is spread over weeks, in real courses as well as laboratories. That finding is the spacing effect.

Mawson and Kang (2025) screened over 3,000 articles for classroom studies that compared spaced practice with the same practice bunched together, on the class's own material. The 22 reports they kept, with 31 effect sizes from more than 3,000 learners, gave spacing a moderate advantage (d = 0.54, 95% interval 0.31 to 0.77), larger as a rule when the final test came later.

Lyle et al. (2020) varied how much quiz practice engineering students had on precalculus content and how spread out it was. At the end of the course both had helped. Four weeks later, at the start of the calculus course, only the spacing still did.

One limit: no study in the classroom review waited longer than 42 days for its final test. A twelve-week term is 84 days, so for the earliest topics this plan leans on laboratory work too.

## How long should the gap be when the exam is twelve weeks away?

About one to two weeks before the first re-test, and less as the exam comes closer. The best gap is a share of the time the knowledge has to last.

In Cepeda et al. (2008), over 1,350 people learned a set of facts, met them once more after a gap, and sat a final test up to a year on. The best gap grew as the test moved further off: around 20 to 40% of the wait with the test a week away, around 5 to 10% with it a year away. Mawson and Kang (2025) sum that work up as roughly 10 to 20% of the time the material must be kept. By our arithmetic that is 8 to 17 days for a topic that must last twelve weeks, and a few days for one begun a fortnight before the exam.

The curve is lopsided. In Cepeda et al. (2009), as the gap lengthened, final scores climbed sharply and then fell away gradually. On that curve a re-test taken too soon costs more than one taken late. When unsure, wait.

### Should the gaps widen or stay equal?

Either works for a test weeks away, and widening is the easier pattern to fit into a term.

Küpper-Tetzel et al. (2014) gave people three sessions with the gaps shrinking, level or growing. For a test within a week the shrinking pattern did best. For a test 35 days later, level and growing gaps both beat it. The classroom review leans towards level gaps: seven days between sessions gave the most consistent effects, though most of its expanding results shared one study procedure. Our guide to [when a quiz comes due](https://edprocto.com/guides/re-tests-that-come-due-how-spacing-is-scheduled) covers the head-to-head experiments.

Our own argument is arithmetic. Six topics re-tested every week come to 57 sittings in the term. Widening gaps bring that down to 27.

## How many re-tests does each topic need?

Three after the first sitting is the number with the most behind it. Rawson and Dunlosky (2011) had 533 students learn concepts by recalling them and relearn them in one to five later sessions. They advise three correct recalls in the first session, then three relearning sessions, widely spaced.

In the classroom review, studies with three sessions after the first lesson mostly found moderate to large effects and those with more found smaller ones, though four of the five results with more than three came from one study.

Later sittings are worth more than a longer first one. Vaughn et al. (2016) had people recall Swahili-English word pairs correctly between one and seven times in a first session, then relearn them weekly for four or five weeks, a method called successive relearning. The early advantage of the extra recalls did not persist, and the authors tell students to spend the time on later spaced sessions.

## Why is a failed re-test still useful?

Because the attempt does the work, as long as the right answer follows it. Kornell et al. (2015) arranged for some items to be recalled successfully and others to be attempted and then copied from the answer. Their experiments did not support the idea that a successful recall teaches more than a failed attempt followed by feedback.

So a miss is a finding: it names what to go back to. The condition is the correction, which is why each sitting ends with a retry. Our guide to [the questions you got wrong](https://edprocto.com/guides/what-to-do-with-the-questions-you-got-wrong) is this one's companion.

## What do most students do instead of spacing?

They plan to start early, then cram, on the evidence of a semester-long survey. Blasiman et al. (2017) asked students at the start of a semester how they meant to study, and later what they had done: they had intended to begin earlier, and in practice massed their study into the day or two before each exam.

The feeling of learning misleads, too. In the flashcard experiments of Kornell (2009), spacing beat massing for 90% of participants, yet after the first session 72% believed massing had worked better. A timetable takes the decision away from the feeling.

## How do you set the re-test dates without a calculator?

Use one week, two weeks, four weeks: three re-tests after the first sitting, each gap double the last. This is our working rule, not a finding. It takes from the research a first gap near a tenth of the term, three re-tests, and a lean towards waiting. No study has tested this exact pattern.

1. **Start one topic a week.** Take a quiz on it with the book shut and retry what you missed until nothing is left. On EdProcto's [study screen](https://edprocto.com/guides/study-mode-a-quiz-that-explains-each-answer-as-you-go) each answer is checked as you give it.
2. **Re-test one: a week later.** Every question, not just last week's misses.
3. **Re-test two: two weeks after that.**
4. **Re-test three: four weeks after that.**
5. **Stop at the exam.** A date that would fall after the last week moves into the last week.
6. **Give every topic a last look.** A topic with no sitting in the final fortnight gets one there.
7. **Write the dates down** on the day of the first sitting.

## What does a twelve-week revision timetable for six topics look like?

It has 27 sittings, never more than three in a week. Topics are numbered 1 to 6, and the exam follows week 12.

| Week | First quiz on topic | Re-tests of topics |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 1 | None |
| 2 | 2 | 1 |
| 3 | 3 | 2 |
| 4 | 4 | 1, 3 |
| 5 | 5 | 2, 4 |
| 6 | 6 | 3, 5 |
| 7 | None | 4, 6 |
| 8 | None | 1, 5 |
| 9 | None | 2, 6 |
| 10 | None | 3 |
| 11 | None | 4; last look at 1, 2 |
| 12 | None | 5, 6; last look at 3 |

Follow one topic to see the gaps widen: topic 1 is quizzed in weeks 1, 2, 4 and 8, with a last look in week 11. Topic 6 is bent by rule five: its third re-test would land in week 13, so it moves to week 12.

If topics are still being taught, start each in the week it is finished. A late start loses re-tests to rule five. On mixing a week's quizzes into one sitting, see our guide to [interleaving](https://edprocto.com/guides/interleaving-mixed-quizzes-beat-blocked-ones).

## What do you do when a re-test goes badly or a week is missed?

After a bad re-test, shorten the next gap. After a missed week, slide only what was due. Both rules are ours. The second leans on the lopsided curve above: a late re-test costs little, so nothing has to be doubled up.

### When a re-test goes badly

Call it bad when three or more answers in ten are wrong: our line, not a research one. Retry the misses that day until none is left, and take the whole quiz again two or three days later. Then repeat the gap you had just tried, without doubling it, and move that topic's later dates along. One or two slips change nothing: retry them and keep the dates.

### When a week is missed

Move the quizzes that were due into the following week and leave every other date alone. With more than four in a week, take the shortest gaps first and let the rest wait: a one-week gap that has become two has doubled, while a four-week gap that has become five has grown by a quarter.

### A worked example of one student's term

An invented example, not a real student: six biology topics on the timetable above.

- **Week 4, Monday.** Re-test one on topic 3 comes back with four of ten missed. The four are retried that evening, and on Thursday the whole quiz is taken again: one miss, retried.
- **Week 5, Thursday.** The one-week gap is repeated, and all ten are right. Topic 3's later re-tests move to weeks 7 and 11, so it needs no separate last look.
- **Week 9** is lost to illness. Re-test three on topic 2 and re-test two on topic 6 move to week 10.
- **Weeks 11 and 12.** Topics 1, 3 and 4, then topics 2, 5 and 6.

The term ends with 28 whole sittings in place of 27, and every topic has been quizzed at least once in the last fortnight.

## How do EdProcto's study mode and re-test list fit the timetable?

EdProcto is the best tool for this timetable when the quizzes come from your own notes, because it does the three jobs each of the 27 sittings needs: it writes the quiz, corrects every miss on the spot, and shows when a quiz has waited long enough.

| The timetable needs | Where it is in EdProcto |
| --- | --- |
| A quiz on each topic | "Test yourself" in the quiz maker on the [home page](https://edprocto.com/): Procto AI writes up to ten questions from the notes you paste |
| Each miss corrected at once | The study screen: press "Check" for "Right.", "Partly right." or "Not this time.", the answer and its explanation |
| A retry the same day | The end page: misses counted by topic and "Retry the 4 you missed", marked only on the questions it asks |
| A reminder that a quiz has waited | "Due for a re-test" on the dashboard, with the button "Take it again" |

A whole textbook can go on the Books page: eight questions for each chapter you tick, and a map marking each chapter "known", "getting there" or "go back" by its best score. With no notes to hand, open one of the [kits](https://edprocto.com/kits).

### What puts a quiz on the re-test list

A fixed rule, applied to your own sittings on a study quiz. If your last whole run had anything wrong or partly right, the quiz is listed once two full days have passed since your latest sitting; if nothing was wrong, once seven have. A retry of the misses restarts the two-day count and does not earn the seven. A row reads "3 missed, 2 days ago" or "all right 7 days ago", and "Take it again" starts the whole quiz.

The list keeps to those two gaps, so the longer dates live in your own calendar and the list is the reminder that a quiz has waited long enough. A clean first quiz is listed on the day re-test one is due. A bad re-test is listed in time for the retake: in the example, from Wednesday evening of week 4, as "4 missed, 2 days ago". For the longer gaps, take the quiz when the day count on its row reaches 14 or 28. Any miss counts, so after a slip or two leave the row until its count matches your calendar.

### Which plan the timetable needs

The study screen, the re-test list and ten quizzes a month come with the Free plan. Ten is plenty: a quiz taken again is not a new quiz, so all 27 sittings use six. Procto AI's writing is the part to count: six topics at ten questions each is 60, and Free carries 20 a month. On Free, slow the start to a topic a fortnight, set shorter quizzes, or type some questions yourself.

The timetable as drawn, six topics in six weeks, needs the Learner plan: 100 questions a month, self-tests without limit, and the whole book with its map. See the [pricing page](https://edprocto.com/pricing). Neither the timetable nor the tool promises a grade.

## Quick questions

### How many times should I revise a topic before the exam?

Four or five sittings: the first quiz, three re-tests, and a last look in the final fortnight if the third re-test fell earlier.

### What if the exam is only four weeks away?

Shrink the gaps to two days, four days and eight days, a fortnight for each topic. That scaling is ours, in line with the shorter best gaps Cepeda et al. (2008) found for nearer tests.

### Does EdProcto tell me when a re-test is due?

Your dashboard lists the quiz under "Due for a re-test": two days after a sitting with misses, a week after a clean one. The page [for students](https://edprocto.com/solutions/students) shows it.

### Is rereading my notes ever worth it?

For a gap, yes: read the section behind a miss, close it, then answer again. As the main method, no: see our guides to [making a quiz from a chapter](https://edprocto.com/guides/make-your-own-quiz-to-study-from-a-chapter) and [retrieval practice](https://edprocto.com/guides/retrieval-practice-low-stakes-quizzing-that-teaches).

## References

- Blasiman, R. N., Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2017). The what, how much, and when of study strategies: Comparing intended versus actual study behaviour. *Memory, 25*(6), 784–792. [https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2016.1221974](https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2016.1221974)
- Cepeda, N. J., Coburn, N., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T., Mozer, M. C., & Pashler, H. (2009). Optimizing distributed practice: Theoretical analysis and practical implications. *Experimental Psychology, 56*(4), 236–246. [https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.56.4.236](https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.56.4.236)
- Cepeda, N. J., Vul, E., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T., & Pashler, H. (2008). Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention. *Psychological Science, 19*(11), 1095–1102. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02209.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02209.x)
- Kornell, N. (2009). Optimising learning using flashcards: Spacing is more effective than cramming. *Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23*(9), 1297–1317. [https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1537](https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1537)
- Kornell, N., Klein, P. J., & Rawson, K. A. (2015). Retrieval attempts enhance learning, but retrieval success (versus failure) does not matter. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41*(1), 283–294. [https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037850](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037850)
- Küpper-Tetzel, C. E., Kapler, I. V., & Wiseheart, M. (2014). Contracting, equal, and expanding learning schedules: The optimal distribution of learning sessions depends on retention interval. *Memory & Cognition, 42*(5), 729–741. [https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0394-1](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0394-1)
- Lyle, K. B., Bego, C. R., Hopkins, R. F., Hieb, J. L., & Ralston, P. A. S. (2020). How the amount and spacing of retrieval practice affect the short- and long-term retention of mathematics knowledge. *Educational Psychology Review, 32*(1), 277–295. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09489-x](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09489-x)
- Mawson, R. D., & Kang, S. H. K. (2025). The distributed practice effect on classroom learning: A meta-analytic review of applied research. *Behavioral Sciences, 15*(6), Article 771. [https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15060771](https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15060771)
- Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2011). Optimizing schedules of retrieval practice for durable and efficient learning: How much is enough? *Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140*(3), 283–302. [https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023956](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023956)
- Vaughn, K. E., Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2016). Effects of successive relearning on recall: Does relearning override the effects of initial learning criterion? *Memory & Cognition, 44*(6), 897–909. [https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0606-y](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0606-y)