Good study habits, built into the week.

You’ve probably heard the advice: test yourself, space it out, learn from your mistakes. Aeris builds it into a student’s week. The marked work says exactly what to redo, the mistakes a student keeps come back in later weeks, and before an exam they become dated tasks a tutor checks.

The research on this page is about these habits, not about Aeris. It explains why the week works this way. It can’t promise a mark.

One question, from first lesson to exam.

Follow Maya Chen, a sample student, and one homework question, H7. Each step is a study habit, and its link goes to why it helps.

  1. 01Week 1 · Theory

    Her tutor works through Worked example 7 on percentage composition, step by step.

    See it done, then do it yourself

  2. 02Week 1 · homework

    She does H7 herself, set on page 30 and due at the Practical.

    See it done, then do it yourself

  3. 03Before handing in

    In the Practical she marks her own work against the solutions and notes what went wrong.

    Check your own work before your tutor does

  4. 04Marked 21 Sep

    4 out of 6. She divided by the dry solids (16.23 g) instead of the whole sample, so the water dropped out. The sheet says what it needed.

    Find out exactly what each mistake needed

  5. 05That week

    She redoes H7 on fresh paper, closed book, then checks it.

    Try it again without looking

  6. 06Later weeks

    She adds it to her Error Log, so it can come back in her weekly revisit, mixed with other topics. If the same kind of mistake turns up in another lesson, the log shows it.

    Come back to it later

  7. 0713 days before the exam

    Her Roadmap says: Redo H7 closed book, then mark against the criteria. Her tutor approved the plan first.

    Before an exam, turn it into a plan

Maya Chen is a sample student, followed through one question. Her work and marks are examples we made to show how it works, not a student’s results.

See it done, then do it yourself.

When a topic is new, studying a worked example helps more than struggling with the problem alone. Once you know it, doing it yourself is what helps.

In Aeris

In Theory your tutor works examples through step by step. In the Practical, the exam-style questions are yours.

What the research found

Students meeting a topic for the first time learn more from studying worked examples than from solving the same problems unaided, a widely replicated finding. As they become more capable, they should get more problems to solve on their own.

Known as: Worked examples. Sources: NSW Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation (2017)2; NSW Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation (2018)3

The fine print: what the research doesn’t say

Worked examples help most when a topic is new. Once a student knows it well, the benefit shrinks and can reverse, which is why the Practical moves to questions without them.

TheoryYour tutor works examples through, step by step.

PracticalExam-style questions, worked by you.

The shaded part is how much of each problem is worked for you. An illustration, not a measurement.

Check your own work before your tutor does.

Marking your work against the solutions, and saying what went wrong in your own words, is practice at spotting what you understand and where your reasoning slipped.

In Aeris

Before handing in Practical work, you mark it against the solutions and note what went wrong. Then your tutor looks through it.

What the research found

An Australian summary of 246 studies of teaching students to plan, check and evaluate their own learning rates the evidence as strong. A review of 76 studies found checking your own work is linked with better learning when it’s a step in learning, with clear criteria to check against.

Known as: Metacognition. Sources: Evidence for Learning14; Andrade (2019)5

The fine print: what the research doesn’t say

When students grade themselves for a mark that counts, their grades run high. That’s why your own check is a step in the week and never your mark. The only marks Aeris gives are your tutor’s, on your homework.

The Australian summary says the benefit can be hard to get in practice, and Australian studies have given mixed results.

  1. 1

    Mark it yourself

    Against the solutions, before you hand it in.

  2. 2

    Say what went wrong

    In your own words: the step, not just the answer.

  3. 3

    Your tutor looks through it

    Anything they add that you didn’t spot is worth a second look.

What a Practical hand-in asks of you, in order. An illustration.

Find out exactly what each mistake needed.

Feedback that says what to change helps more than a score or a “good job”.

In Aeris

Your tutor marks your homework question by question. The feedback sheet says what each mistake that matters needed, and what to redo.

What the research found

Feedback on the work, on how it was done, and on checking your own work can all help. Praise for the person rarely does, because it says little about the work.

Known as: Specific feedback. Source: Hattie and Timperley (2007)6

The fine print: what the research doesn’t say

The effect of feedback varies a lot from study to study, and some feedback makes things worse. Feedback can only build on something a student has already started to learn.

The workHow well was it done?
On the feedback sheet: Where the marks went, and what each mistake needed.
How it was doneThe method behind it
On the feedback sheet: The one habit that cost the most marks this week.
Checking yourselfCan you catch it next time?
On the feedback sheet: Redo the questions closed book, then check against the solutions.
Praise for you“Good job”
The kind the review found rarely helps. The sheet doesn’t spend its space on it.
Four kinds of feedback, from Hattie and Timperley’s review,6 and what an Aeris feedback sheet puts at each.

Try it again without looking.

Reading a solution makes it look familiar. Producing it yourself, with the book closed, is what makes it stay.

In Aeris

The questions you lost marks on are listed to redo on fresh paper, closed book, then checked against the solutions.

The weekly revisit asks the same: redo it without looking at your earlier answer. The mock is a whole paper from memory.

What the research found

Rereading feels better straight away. Recalling it yourself is what was still there days later. A large review rated practice testing one of the two most useful study techniques it looked at.

Known as: Active recall. Sources: Roediger and Karpicke (2006)7; Dunlosky and colleagues (2013)1

The fine print: what the research doesn’t say

That study used university students and short passages, in a lab, with no feedback. Nobody can tell you how much a closed-book redo will add to an HSC mark.

Rereading did better after 5 minutes. Recalling did better after 2 days and after a week.

Tested after 5 minutes

Read it again81%
Recalled it75%

After 2 days

Read it again54%
Recalled it68%

After 1 week

Read it again42%
Recalled it56%
How much of a short passage 120 university students remembered, after either reading it again or writing down what they could recall, with no feedback. From Roediger and Karpicke (2006), Experiment 1.7

Come back to it later.

Memory fades fastest just after learning. Meeting the same work again days and weeks later holds on to more of it than doing it all at once.

In Aeris

Theory and Practical are three to four days apart, and the weekly revisit brings past mistakes back in later weeks.

In the weekly revisit, a mistake you’ve redone on your own rests for three weeks before it can come back.

What the research found

A review of 317 experiments found that study spread over separate sessions is remembered better than the same study done in one go. The large review of study techniques rated spacing one of its two most useful.

Known as: Spaced repetition. Sources: Cepeda and colleagues (2006)4; Dunlosky and colleagues (2013)1; Murre and Dros (2015)12

The fine print: what the research doesn’t say

Most spacing experiments tested memory for words and facts, often in a lab. The forgetting curve is one person in 1885 learning made-up syllables: a picture of how fast memory fades, not a measure of HSC content.

Research hasn’t settled the best gap between returns; three weeks is our choice, the 1.5-hour classes are our judgement, and the gap doesn’t grow each time. Spaced repetition here means coming back to the work, not a flashcard app.

Percentage composition, the topic behind H7

  1. Week 1

    Theory

  2. 3–4 days later

    Practical

    , then

  3. that week

    Redo, closed book

    , then

  4. later weeks

    Weekly revisit

    , then

  5. week 8

    Mock exam

    , then

  6. before the exam

    Roadmap task

    , then
The same topic met six times across a block, from Aeris’s own schedule. An illustration, not data.

Ebbinghaus’s forgetting curve, 1885

Higher means more was still remembered: how much quicker it was to learn the list again.

58%20 min44%1 hour36%9 hours34%1 day28%2 days25%6 days21%31 days
One person, Ebbinghaus himself, learning lists of made-up syllables and relearning them later. Points evenly spaced, not to scale. As reproduced by Murre and Dros (2015).12

Mix up the topics.

When questions from different topics come in a mixed order, you have to work out which method each one needs, the way an exam asks you to.

In Aeris

Your weekly revisit takes past mistakes from different topics, when your log has more than one.

What the research found

In a trial in 54 maths classes, Year 7 students whose homework mixed different kinds of problem did better on a surprise test a month later than students who practised one kind at a time.

Known as: Mixed practice. Sources: Rohrer and colleagues (2020)11; Dunlosky and colleagues (2013)1

The fine print: what the research doesn’t say

That trial was Year 7 maths in one part of the US. Mixing also spread the practice out, so the result isn’t from mixing alone, and the large review rated mixed practice moderately useful, not highly.

The revisit is three questions a week, far less than the trial’s homework. The classes follow the syllabus in order.

One topic at a time

  1. Percentage composition
  2. Percentage composition
  3. Percentage composition

Your weekly revisit

  1. Percentage composition
  2. Separation techniques
  3. Classifying matter
Three questions in a row. The revisit mixes topics when your Error Log has more than one. An illustration.

A surprise test a month later: the mixed group scored higher.

One kind at a time38%
Mixed61%
54 Year 7 maths classes in the US, given blocked or mixed homework for four months, then an unannounced test a month later. From Rohrer and colleagues (2020).11

Get it wrong, find out why, try again later.

A mistake is useful when it’s followed by a correction that explains the reasoning, and by another go at it later.

In Aeris

You keep the mistakes that matter to you in your Error Log, each with what it needed. They come back to redo, and the log shows when one keeps coming up.

What the research found

Making mistakes and then having them corrected tends to help learning more than avoiding mistakes altogether, and a correction that explains the reasoning behind a mistake helps most.

Known as: Learning from mistakes. Source: Metcalfe (2017)8

The fine print: what the research doesn’t say

Most of that evidence comes from laboratory studies, and the benefit depends on the correction. A mistake written down and left alone isn’t what was studied.

The Error Log keeps the mistakes that matter to the student, not a record of each one they make.

  1. 1

    Her answer

    She divided by the dry solids (16.23 g) instead of the whole sample, so the water dropped out.

  2. 2

    What it needed

    Divide by the whole sample, water included (93.30 − 52.80 = 40.50 g): 10.15 ÷ 40.50 × 100 = 25.1 % for the sawdust. Then check the three add up to 100.

  3. 3

    Another go

    Redo H7 on fresh paper, closed book, that week.

  4. 4

    When it came back

    It stays in her Error Log. Her weekly revisit can bring it back, and the plan before her exam has her redo it, closed book.

Maya Chen, a sample student, and question H7. An example, not a student’s results.

Before an exam, turn it into a plan.

Revision spread over the days before an exam is remembered better than the same revision crammed into the last night.

In Aeris

Your exam Roadmap puts the habits above on dates, from what the exam covers and your own work. Your tutor checks and approves it before you see it.

The tasks are the habits on this page: redo what went wrong closed book, mixed practice in the final days, a past paper sat to time.

What the research found

Each task is one of the habits above, with its own research. Spreading them over the days before an exam, rather than the night before, is spacing.

Known as: Planned, spaced revision. Source: Cepeda and colleagues (2006)4

The fine print: what the research doesn’t say

How the Roadmap chooses and orders tasks, and how much weight it gives your mistakes, your confidence and your time, is our own design. Those rules haven’t been tested as a whole by any study. On a short run-up to an exam, lower-priority topics may not fit in.

  • What the exam covers

    From your school’s notification, confirmed by you or your tutor.

  • Your marked work and Error Log

    What has gone wrong before, and how often.

  • How confident you feel

    Your own rating of each topic.

  • How much time you have

    About 25, 50 or 90 minutes a day.

A plan with dates

  • Thu 19 NovSelf-test: Rate every syllabus point on the exam green, yellow or red, with nothing open.
  • Fri 20 NovLog task: Redo H7 closed book, then mark against the criteria.
  • Sun 22 NovPast paper: Paper 1, another school's Year 11 yearly. Sit it to time, mark it, log every wrong question.

Your tutor checks and approves the plan. Only then do you see it.

Maya Chen’s plan for her year 11 yearly examination, a sample. What goes in is real; the dates and tasks are examples.

Work through problems with other students.

Working together helps most when the task is well designed, everyone explains their thinking, and a teacher keeps an eye on each group.

In Aeris

In the Practical you work in smaller breakout rooms. Your tutor moves between them.

What the research found

Working together tends to help when it’s structured: small groups, a well-designed task, everyone explaining their thinking, and a teacher keeping an eye on each group.

Known as: Collaborative learning. Sources: Evidence for Learning9; Tenenbaum and colleagues (2020)10

The fine print: what the research doesn’t say

The evidence is rated low in strength. Results vary widely, and collaboration through digital technology tends to show smaller effects. Research on online breakout rooms in particular is thin.

A review of peer learning among students aged 4 to 18 found working with peers didn’t beat working one-to-one with an adult. The rooms are a way of running a class with one tutor, not a replacement for one.

  1. Room 1

    Students

  2. Room 2

    Students, and your tutor

  3. Room 3

    Students

One tutor moves from room to room through the lesson.

The Practical: one tutor, smaller breakout rooms. An illustration.

Sit a whole paper before the one that counts.

A full paper from memory is recall practice, under the conditions of the real thing.

In Aeris

A mock exam at the end of each eight-week block.

It’s held in person in Sydney, with an online sitting at the same time if you can’t get there.

Known as: Exam practice.

The fine print: what the research doesn’t say

A mock is a test, so it’s recall practice. But the research on this page is mostly about short quizzes and recall tests, not full exam papers. Practising the conditions of an exam (the time limit, the silence, a whole paper in one sitting) is our own judgement, not a research finding.

What feels productive, and what to try instead.

  • Rereading

    Feels productive. A large review rated it low on its own, and in one study it was remembered worse a week later.1

    Instead: Close the book and try it.

  • Highlighting

    Rated low on its own in the same review of ten study techniques.1

    Instead: Test yourself on what you highlighted.

  • Cramming

    Study spread over separate days is remembered better than the same study in one go.4

    Instead: Spread it across the days before.

  • Learning styles

    Teaching to a “visual” or “auditory” learner: the studies that tested it properly found no benefit.13

    Not supported by the studies that tested it.

Where “rated highly” comes from.

In 2013 five researchers reviewed the evidence on ten study techniques students commonly use, and rated how useful each one is.

High utility

  • Practice testing
  • Distributed practice

In an Aeris week

  • Redo questions closed book
  • Revisiting past mistakes
  • Two classes a week
  • The mock exam

Moderate utility

  • Elaborative interrogation
  • Self-explanation
  • Interleaved practice

Low utility

  • Summarising
  • Highlighting
  • Keyword mnemonic
  • Imagery for text
  • Rereading
How a 2013 review of ten study techniques rated each one.1 “Low” means the reviewers found it didn’t reliably help on its own, not that it does harm.

References.

  1. 1.Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266
  2. 2.NSW Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation (2017). Cognitive load theory: Research that teachers really need to understand. NSW Department of Education. education.nsw.gov.au/about-us/education-data-and-research/cese/publications/literature-reviews/cognitive-load-theory
  3. 3.NSW Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation (2018). Cognitive load theory in practice: Examples for the classroom. NSW Department of Education. education.nsw.gov.au/about-us/education-data-and-research/cese/publications/practical-guides-for-educators-/cognitive-load-theory-in-practice
  4. 4.Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354–380. doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354
  5. 5.Andrade, H. L. (2019). A critical review of research on student self-assessment. Frontiers in Education, 4, 87. doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00087
  6. 6.Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
  7. 7.Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
  8. 8.Metcalfe, J. (2017). Learning from errors. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 465–489. doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044022
  9. 9.Evidence for Learning. Collaborative learning approaches. Teaching & Learning Toolkit (the Australian edition of the Education Endowment Foundation’s toolkit). evidenceforlearning.org.au/education-evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit/collaborative-learning-approaches
  10. 10.Tenenbaum, H. R., Winstone, N. E., Leman, P. J., & Avery, R. E. (2020). How effective is peer interaction in facilitating learning? A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(7), 1303–1319. doi.org/10.1037/edu0000436
  11. 11.Rohrer, D., Dedrick, R. F., Hartwig, M. K., & Cheung, C.-N. (2020). A randomized controlled trial of interleaved mathematics practice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(1), 40–52. doi.org/10.1037/edu0000367
  12. 12.Murre, J. M. J., & Dros, J. (2015). Replication and analysis of Ebbinghaus’ forgetting curve. PLOS ONE, 10(7), e0120644. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120644
  13. 13.Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119. doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x
  14. 14.Evidence for Learning. Metacognition and self-regulation. Teaching & Learning Toolkit (the Australian edition of the Education Endowment Foundation’s toolkit). evidenceforlearning.org.au/education-evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit/metacognition-and-self-regulation

Request a free trial week