Designs spaced retrieval schedules for topic lists and timelines based on forgetting curve and distributed practice research. Useful for planning lesson units, term sequences, or revision programs.
npx claudepluginhub garethmanning/claude-education-skills --plugin claude-education-skillsThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
Takes a list of topics and a teaching timeline and generates an optimised review schedule that spaces retrieval opportunities at expanding intervals to combat the forgetting curve. The output is a week-by-week plan showing when to introduce new content and when to revisit previous topics, with specific activity suggestions for each review slot. AI is specifically valuable here because calculati...
Redesigns blocked topic sequences into interleaved plans with mixed practice across related topics for better retention. Use when planning units, homework schedules, or revision programs.
Creates evidence-based learning plans using spaced repetition, retrieval practice, interleaving, and elaboration for long-term retention. Guides goal definition, material breakdown, scheduling, and progress tracking for exams, skills, or tech mastery.
Tracks study sessions with spaced repetition reminders, active recall techniques, progress dashboards, technique suggestions, and exam prep schedules.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Takes a list of topics and a teaching timeline and generates an optimised review schedule that spaces retrieval opportunities at expanding intervals to combat the forgetting curve. The output is a week-by-week plan showing when to introduce new content and when to revisit previous topics, with specific activity suggestions for each review slot. AI is specifically valuable here because calculating optimal spacing intervals across multiple topics while respecting prerequisite dependencies and timetable constraints is genuinely complex — most teachers default to blocked practice (finish topic A, move to topic B, never return) because the cognitive load of planning spaced schedules manually is too high.
Ebbinghaus (1885/1913) first demonstrated that memory follows an exponential decay curve — without review, approximately 70% of new learning is lost within 24 hours. Cepeda et al. (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of 254 studies and established that the optimal gap between study sessions depends on the desired retention interval: roughly 10–20% of the retention interval is optimal (e.g., if you need students to remember something for 30 days, space reviews approximately 3–6 days apart). Carpenter et al. (2012) extended these findings to diverse classroom learning contexts, showing that spaced practice benefits declarative knowledge, procedural skills, and problem-solving. Kornell & Bjork (2008) demonstrated that spacing feels less effective to learners — students rate massed practice as more effective even when spaced practice produces better retention. This means teachers should expect students to initially prefer (and request) the less effective approach. Dunlosky et al. (2013) rated distributed practice as one of only two "high utility" strategies in their comprehensive review.
The teacher must provide:
Optional (injected by context engine if available):
You are an expert in the cognitive psychology of memory, specialising in the spacing effect and distributed practice. You have deep knowledge of Cepeda et al.'s (2006) meta-analysis on optimal inter-study intervals, Ebbinghaus's forgetting curve, and Carpenter et al.'s (2012) work on spacing in educational contexts.
Your task is to generate a spaced practice schedule for the following:
**Topics:** {{topics}}
**Timeline:** {{timeline}}
**Lessons per week:** {{lessons_per_week}}
The following optional context may or may not be provided. Use whatever is available; ignore any fields marked "not provided."
**Assessment date:** {{assessment_date}} — if provided, ensure all topics have at least one retrieval opportunity in the final week before the assessment. If not provided, design the schedule for long-term retention without a specific deadline.
**Topic difficulty ratings:** {{topic_difficulty}} — if provided, allocate more review slots to high-difficulty topics. If not provided, treat all topics as roughly equal difficulty unless your subject knowledge suggests otherwise.
**Required teaching order:** {{curriculum_sequence}} — if provided, respect prerequisite dependencies. If not provided, assume topics can be taught in the order listed.
**Class retention data:** {{student_profiles}} — if provided, weight additional review toward topics where prior data shows weak retention. If not provided, use standard expanding spacing intervals.
Apply these evidence-based principles:
1. **Expanding intervals:** Space review at increasing intervals — first review at 1–3 days after initial teaching, second review at 1–2 weeks, third review at 3–4 weeks. This follows Cepeda et al.'s (2006) finding that optimal spacing expands as retention strengthens.
2. **Review through retrieval, not re-teaching:** Each review slot should involve a retrieval activity (quiz, brain dump, diagram from memory), NOT re-teaching or re-reading. The learning happens through the retrieval attempt (Roediger & Butler, 2011).
3. **New teaching to review ratio:** In any given lesson, approximately 10–15 minutes should be available for retrieval of previously taught material (typically the lesson opening). New content occupies the main teaching portion.
4. **Interleaving where appropriate:** When topics share a domain, mix review questions from different topics in the same retrieval session. This produces an interleaving effect (Rohrer et al., 2015) that improves discrimination between similar concepts.
5. **Difficulty-weighted spacing:** Topics rated as more difficult should receive more frequent review slots. Topics with strong initial encoding may need fewer.
6. **Pre-assessment consolidation:** If an assessment date is provided, ensure every topic has at least one retrieval opportunity in the 5 days before the assessment — but do NOT cram all review into the final week. That defeats the purpose of spacing.
Return your output in this exact format:
## Spaced Practice Schedule: [Subject/Context]
**Timeline:** [Start to end]
**Topics:** [List]
**Total lessons:** [Number]
### Week-by-Week Schedule
For each week, provide:
| Lesson | New Content | Spaced Review (10–15 min starter) |
|--------|------------|-----------------------------------|
| [Day] | [Topic] | [Which previous topic(s) to retrieve + brief activity type] |
### Spacing Rationale
Explain in 3–4 sentences why the topics are spaced at these specific intervals, referencing the evidence base.
### Review Activity Suggestions
For each review slot, suggest a specific brief retrieval activity (not "review Topic X" but "5 free-recall questions on cell transport mechanisms" or "label a blank diagram of cell structure from memory").
### Teacher Guidance
- How long each review starter should take
- What to do when review reveals gaps (re-teach briefly vs. schedule additional retrieval)
- How to explain the purpose to students (they will feel like spaced practice is less effective — this is normal)
**Self-check before returning output:** Verify that (a) no topic goes more than 3 weeks without a retrieval opportunity, (b) expanding intervals are maintained, (c) harder topics get more review slots, (d) the schedule is realistic given the lessons-per-week constraint, and (e) review activities involve retrieval, not re-reading or re-teaching.
Scenario: Topics: ["Tectonic plates", "Earthquakes", "Volcanoes", "Weathering & erosion", "River landscapes"] / Timeline: "6-week half-term, 5 lessons per week" / Lessons per week: 5 / Assessment date: "End of Week 6"
Timeline: Weeks 1–6 (30 lessons) Topics: Tectonic plates, Earthquakes, Volcanoes, Weathering & erosion, River landscapes Total lessons: 30
| Week | Lesson | New Content | Spaced Review Starter (10–15 min) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | Tectonic plates — structure of the Earth | — (baseline assessment: what do students already know?) |
| 1 | 2 | Tectonic plates — plate boundaries | Retrieve: sketch Earth's layers from memory, label and annotate |
| 1 | 3 | Tectonic plates — convection currents | Retrieve: name 3 plate boundary types and one feature of each |
| 1 | 4 | Earthquakes — causes and focus/epicentre | Retrieve: explain in 3 sentences how convection currents drive plate movement |
| 1 | 5 | Earthquakes — measuring and effects | Retrieve: draw and label a diagram showing focus, epicentre, and seismic waves |
| 2 | 1 | Earthquakes — case studies | Retrieve: Tectonic plates — 5 free-recall questions on plate boundaries (first spaced review, ~7 days) |
| 2 | 2 | Volcanoes — formation and types | Retrieve: compare two earthquake case studies from memory — causes, effects, responses |
| 2 | 3 | Volcanoes — eruption processes | Mixed retrieve: 3 Qs on tectonic plates + 2 Qs on earthquake measurement |
| 2 | 4 | Volcanoes — case studies | Retrieve: draw a cross-section of a composite volcano from memory, label 5 features |
| 2 | 5 | Volcanoes — living with volcanic risk | Retrieve: Earthquakes full topic — "Write everything you know about earthquakes in 5 minutes" (brain dump) |
| 3 | 1 | Weathering & erosion — types of weathering | Mixed retrieve: 4 Qs interleaving tectonic plates and volcanoes (2 weeks since tectonics — expanding interval) |
| 3 | 2 | Weathering & erosion — erosion processes | Retrieve: name and explain 3 types of weathering from memory |
| 3 | 3 | Weathering & erosion — erosion vs weathering | Retrieve: Volcanoes — blank diagram: label volcanic features and explain formation |
| 3 | 4 | River landscapes — long profile and processes | Mixed retrieve: distinguish weathering from erosion + 2 Qs on earthquake effects |
| 3 | 5 | River landscapes — upper course features | Retrieve: Weathering & erosion — explain 4 types of river erosion from memory |
| 4 | 1 | River landscapes — middle course features | Mixed retrieve: 2 Qs tectonic plates + 2 Qs volcanoes + 1 Q weathering (interleaved, ~3 weeks since tectonics) |
| 4 | 2 | River landscapes — lower course features | Retrieve: draw and annotate the long profile of a river from memory |
| 4 | 3 | River landscapes — flooding | Retrieve: Earthquakes — compare two case studies + explain one measurement scale |
| 4 | 4 | River landscapes — flood management | Mixed retrieve: 3 Qs on river processes + 2 Qs on erosion types |
| 4 | 5 | Consolidation / depth lesson | Full interleaved quiz: 10 Qs across all 5 topics (2 per topic, mixed order) |
| 5 | 1 | Extended writing: comparing physical processes | Retrieve: River landscapes — sketch upper/middle/lower course features from memory |
| 5 | 2 | Case study depth: chosen topic | Mixed retrieve: 5 Qs interleaving volcanoes, weathering, rivers |
| 5 | 3 | Connections between topics | Retrieve: Tectonic plates — full free recall (4 weeks since initial teaching — critical spacing point) |
| 5 | 4 | Exam technique: using case studies | Mixed retrieve: 6 Qs across all 5 topics, focusing on commonly confused concepts |
| 5 | 5 | Practice assessment | Retrieve: quick-fire 1-minute-per-question across all 5 topics before practice assessment |
| 6 | 1 | Review based on practice assessment gaps | Targeted retrieval on weakest 2 topics from practice assessment data |
| 6 | 2 | Targeted depth: weakest topic | Retrieve: second-weakest topic from practice assessment |
| 6 | 3 | Targeted depth: second weakest | Mixed interleaved retrieval: all 5 topics, emphasis on gap areas |
| 6 | 4 | Final consolidation | Full brain dump: everything you know about all 5 topics in 12 minutes |
| 6 | 5 | Assessment | — |
Topics are spaced at expanding intervals following Cepeda et al.'s (2006) finding that optimal gaps increase as memory strengthens. Tectonic plates (taught first) receives retrieval at days 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28 — an expanding schedule. Each subsequent topic follows the same expanding pattern from its teaching date. Topics are interleaved in review sessions from Week 3 onwards, producing both a spacing and interleaving benefit. The final two weeks shift toward mixed retrieval across all topics, with targeted review driven by practice assessment data in Week 6.
The schedule assumes relatively even topic length. If one topic requires 8 lessons of new teaching and another requires 2, the spacing intervals will be uneven. Teachers need to adjust the schedule based on actual topic weight — this tool provides a starting framework, not a rigid plan.
Optimal spacing intervals from Cepeda et al. (2006) are derived primarily from laboratory studies of verbal learning. Transfer to complex procedural skills (e.g., mathematical problem-solving, essay writing) is less well-established, though Carpenter et al. (2012) provide supportive classroom evidence.
The schedule does not account for school disruptions (assemblies, field trips, cancelled lessons, teacher absence). Teachers should treat the schedule as a target pattern and shift review slots when disruptions occur rather than skipping them entirely.