I did something similar to that as a kid. I hated it. It worked, but much less efficiently.
The strategy that you describe causes you to spend most of your time looking at cards that you've already mastered. You don't have the ability to slowly add to the list. You don't have the ability to have as many flashcards. And, according to the research, long-term retention is worse.
He currently has 465 cards that he's shown some retention on. Of those, tonight he will do 14. Your system would have him spending 33x as much effort maintaining that knowledge as what we're currently doing. A factor of 33 is worth some bookkeeping on my part.
> Your system would have him spending 33x as much effort maintaining that knowledge as what we're currently doing. A factor of 33 is worth some bookkeeping on my part.
I will grant you that. We only used this strategy for the times tables up to 12x12, which has a finite set of cards (144 if I remember my facts correctly :) ).
If I wanted to do an ever growing set, I might consider this method.
> And, according to the research, long-term retention is worse.
Can you point me at some good research on this area? I believe you, I'd just like to read more, as someone who is interested in this sort of thing.
The strategy that you describe causes you to spend most of your time looking at cards that you've already mastered. You don't have the ability to slowly add to the list. You don't have the ability to have as many flashcards. And, according to the research, long-term retention is worse.
He currently has 465 cards that he's shown some retention on. Of those, tonight he will do 14. Your system would have him spending 33x as much effort maintaining that knowledge as what we're currently doing. A factor of 33 is worth some bookkeeping on my part.