Why it works

The Science of Accelerated Learning

Accelerated learning backed by decades of research.

For hundreds of years, academics and researchers have been studying how students learn most effectively. There is widely-held consensus that certain learning techniques lead to dramatic improvement in learning and academic performance. These include:

  • Individualizing instruction to the student through Direct Instruction and Adaptive Learning
  • Requiring students master concepts before moving on to more advanced concepts (Mastery Learning)
  • Repeating new and more difficult information (Spaced Repetition)
  • Reinforcing and imprinting new information with short problems and quizzes (the Testing Effect)

As a data-driven program, gt.school uses this research to inform our program of adaptive learning apps and mastery-based learning approach. You can find many of the studies on these learning techniques below.

We are continuing to expand and update this page to help Gifted & Talented parents understand the research behind our approach, and learn helpful learning techniques for any student. If you are not subscribed to our newsletter, subscribe for updates! 

Direct Instruction

Definition

Here we use direct instruction (aka “small DI”) as a catch-all term to include methods involved in providing a student with individualized instruction. This includes one-to-one tutoring with a teacher and a student, and Direct Instruction (aka “capital DI”), a specific program involving scripted teaching, mastery learning, and software-based online learning. 

A good summary discussion: Nintil - On Bloom's two sigma problem: A systematic review of the effectiveness of mastery learning, tutoring, and direct instruction

Research links
  1. Bloom, Benjamin S. “The 2 Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring.” Educational Researcher 13, no. 6 (1984): 4–16.
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1175554.
  2. Canfield, W. (2001). ALEKS: A Web-based intelligent tutoring system. Mathematics and Computer Education, 35(2), 152-158.
  3. Chi, M.T.H., Roy, M. and Hausmann, R.G.M. (2008), Observing Tutorial Dialogues Collaboratively: Insights About Human Tutoring Effectiveness From Vicarious Learning. Cognitive Science, 32: 301-341. https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210701863396 
  4. Elbaum, Batya & Vaughn, Sharon & Tejero Hughes, Marie & Moody, Sally. (2000). How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology.
    92. 605-619. 10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.605. 
  5. Evidence That Tutoring Works. Department of Education, Washington, DC. Planning and Evaluation Service.; Corporation for National Service, Washington, DC.
  6. Horn, Michael and Staker, Heather (2011) The Rise of K-12 Blended Learning Innosight
    https://aurora-institute.org//nas/content/live/gtschool/wp-content/uploads/The-Rise-of-K-12-Blended-Learning.pdf 
  7. Jacob, Robin and Smith, Thomas and Willard, Jacklyn and Rifkin, Rachel, Reading Partners: The Implementation and Effectiveness of a One-on-One Tutoring Program Delivered by Community Volunteers (June 11, 2014). MDRC, Available at SSRN:
    https://ssrn.com/abstract=2466586 
  8. Nickow, A., Oreopoulos, P., & Quan, V. (2020). The Impressive Effects of Tutoring on PreK-12 Learning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Experimental Evidence. National Bureau of Economic Research.
  9. Pane, J.F., Elizabeth D. Steiner, Matthew D. Baird, Laura S. Hamilton, and Joseph D. Pane, How Does Personalized Learning Affect Student Achievement?. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2017. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9994.html.
  10. Pane, J.F., Griffin, B.A., McCaffrey, D.F. & Karam, R. (2014). Effectiveness of Cognitive Tutor Algebra I at Scale. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(2), 127-144. Retrieved March 31, 2021 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/155711/.
  11. Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Cooper, H. (2013). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on K–12 students’ mathematical learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 970–987. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032447 
  12. Topping, K., & Whitley, M. (1990). Participant evaluation of parent-tutored and peer-tutored projects in reading. Educational Research, 32(1), 14-32.

Adaptive Learning

Definition

Adaptive learning, also known as adaptive teaching, is an educational method which uses computer algorithms as well as artificial intelligence to orchestrate the interaction with the learner and deliver customized resources and learning activities to address the unique needs of each learner. In professional learning contexts, individuals may "test out" of some training to ensure they engage with novel instruction. Computers adapt the presentation of educational material according to students' learning needs, as indicated by their responses to questions, tasks and experiences. The technology encompasses aspects derived from various fields of study including computer science, AI, psychometrics, education, psychology, and brain science. (wikipedia)

Apps that use it
Research links
  1. Ghergulescu, I., Flynn, C. & O'Sullivan, C.. “Learning Effectiveness of Adaptive Learning in Real World Context.” (2016).
  2. Mojarad, S., Essa, A., Mojarad, S., & Baker, R. (2018). Studying Adaptive Learning Efficacy using Propensity Score Matching.
    https://www.upenn.edu/learninganalytics/ryanbaker/LAK18-Shirin-PSM-FINAL.pdf 
  3. Walkington, C. A. (2013). Using adaptive learning technologies to personalize instruction to student interests: The impact of relevant contexts on performance and learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 932–945.
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031882 
  4. Wang, Shuai & Christensen, Claire & Cui, Wei & Tong, Richard & Yarnall, Louise & Shear, Linda & Feng, Mingyu. (2020). When adaptive learning is effective learning: comparison of an adaptive learning system to teacher-led instruction. Interactive Learning Environments. 1-11. 10.1080/10494820.2020.1808794. 

Mastery Learning

Definition

Mastery learning (or, as it was initially called, "learning for mastery") is an instructional strategy that maintains that students must achieve a level of mastery (e.g., 90% on a knowledge test) in prerequisite knowledge before moving forward to learn subsequent information. If a student does not achieve mastery on the test, they are given additional support in learning and reviewing the information and then tested again. This cycle continues until the learner accomplishes mastery, and they may then move on to the next stage. Mastery learning methods suggest that the focus of instruction should be the time required for different students to learn the same material and achieve the same level of mastery. This is very much in contrast with classic models of teaching, which focus more on differences in students' ability and where all students are given approximately the same amount of time to learn and the same set of instructions. (wikipedia)

Apps that use it
Research links
  1. Arlin, M., & Webster, J. (1983). Time costs of mastery learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(2), 187–195.
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.75.2.187.
  2. Block, J. H., & Burns, R. B. (1976). 1: Mastery Learning. Review of Research in Education, 4(1), 3–49.
  3. Burrows, Charles, and James R. Okey. “The Effects of a Mastery Learning Strategy on Achievement.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 16, no. 1 (1979): 33–37.
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660160106.
  4. Burrows, Charles K. & Okey, James R. (1975) The Effects of a Mastery Learning Strategy on Achievement National Center for the Development of Training Materials in Teacher Education.
    https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED109240.pdf 
  5. Guskey, Thomas R. & Pigott, Therese D.  (1988) Research on Group-Based Mastery Learning Programs: A Meta-Analysis, The Journal of Educational Research, 81:4, 197-216, DOI: 10.1080/00220671.1988.10885824 
  6. Guskey, Thomas R. and Gates, Sally L., "Synthesis of Research on the Effects of Mastery Learning in Elementary and Secondary Classrooms" (1986). Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology Faculty Publications. 23.
    https://uknowledge.uky.edu/edp_facpub/23
  7. Kulik, C., Kulik, J., & Bangert-Drowns, R. (1990) Effectiveness of Mastery Learning Programs: A Meta Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 60(2), 265-306 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1170612?seq=1 

Spaced Repetition

Definition

Spaced repetition is an evidence-based learning technique that is usually performed with flashcards. Newly introduced and more difficult flashcards are shown more frequently, while older and less difficult flashcards are shown less frequently in order to exploit the psychological spacing effect. The use of spaced repetition has been proven to increase the rate of learning. (wikipedia)

Apps that use it
Research links
  1. Bower, J. V., & Rutson-Griffiths, A. (2017). The Relationship between the Use of Spaced Repetition Software with a TOEIC Word List and TOEIC Score Gains. Computer Assisted Language Learning: An International Journal, 29(7), 1238–1248.
    https://doi-org.coloradocollege.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/09588221.2016.1222444.
  2. Carpenter, S. K., & DeLosh, E. L. (2005). Application of the testing and spacing effects to name learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(5), 619–636.
    https://doi-org.coloradocollege.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/acp.1101.
  3. 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
  4. Chukharev-Hudilainen, E., & Klepikova, T. A. (2016). The Effectiveness of Computer-Based Spaced Repetition in Foreign Language Vocabulary Instruction: A Double-Blind Study. CALICO Journal, 33(3), 334–354.
  5. Kang, S. H. K. (2016). Spaced Repetition Promotes Efficient and Effective Learning: Policy Implications for Instruction. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 12–19.
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215624708
  6. Luckin, Rosemary and Cukurova, Mutlu (2019). Designing Educational Technologies in the Age of AI: A Learning Sciences Driven Approach. University College London.
    https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12861
  7. Melton, Arthur W.,(1970) The situation with respect to the spacing of repetitions and memory, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, Volume 9, Issue 5, 1970, Pages 596-606, ISSN 0022-5371, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(70)80107-4.
  8. Xue, Mei, Chen, Lu, Poldrack, Qi Dong (2010). Spaced Learning Enhances Subsequent Recognition Memory by Reducing Neural Repetition Suppression. J Cogn Neurosci 2011; 23 (7): 1624–1633. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2010.21532
  9. Zirkle, D. M., & Ellis, A. K. (2010). Effects of Spaced Repetition on Long-Term Map Knowledge Recall. Journal of Geography, 109(5), 201–206.

The Testing Effect

Definition

The testing effect is the finding that long-term memory is often increased when some of the learning period is devoted to retrieving the to-be-remembered information. The effect is also sometimes referred to as retrieval practice, practice testing, or test-enhanced learning. Retrieval practice may be the best way to refer to the testing effect because the benefits of retrieval-related testing are not limited to tests. It can be more broad, including tools like flashcards and quizzes. (wikipedia)

Apps that use it
Research links
  1. Bangert-Drowns, Robert L., James A. Kulik & Chen-Lin C. Kulik (1991) Effects of Frequent Classroom Testing, The Journal of Educational Research, 85:2, 89-99, DOI: 10.1080/00220671.1991.10702818 
  2. Butler, A. C. (2010). Repeated testing produces superior transfer of learning relative to repeated studying. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(5), 1118–1133.
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019902 
  3. Carpenter, S.K., Pashler, H., Wixted, J.T. et al. The effects of tests on learning and forgetting. Memory & Cognition 36, 438–448 (2008).
    https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.2.438 
  4. Carpenter, S. K., & DeLosh, E. L. (2005). Application of the testing and spacing effects to name learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(5), 619–636.
    https://doi-org.coloradocollege.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/acp.1101.
  5. Fritz, C. O., Morris, P. E., Acton, M., Voelkel, A. R., & Etkind, R. (2007). Comparing and combining retrieval practice and the keyword mnemonic for foreign vocabulary learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(4), 499–526.
    https://doi-org.coloradocollege.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/acp.1287.
  6. Karpicke, Jeffrey & Roediger, Henry. (2008). The Critical Importance of Retrieval for Learning. Science (New York, N.Y.). 319. 966-8. 10.1126/science.1152408. 
  7. Leonard, L. B., Deevy, P., Karpicke, J. D., Christ, S. L., & Kueser, J. B. (2020). After Initial Retrieval Practice, More Retrieval Produces Better Retention Than More Study in the Word Learning of Children with Developmental Language Disorder. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 63(8), 2763–2776.
  8. Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The Power of Testing Memory: Basic Research and Implications for Educational Practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(3), 181–210.
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x 
  9. Seabrook, R., Brown, G.D.A. and Solity, J.E. (2005), Distributed and massed practice: from laboratory to classroom. Appl. Cognit. Psychol., 19: 107-122.
    https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1066