\n| Listening to music while reading<\/td>\n | Can disrupt the reading process (K\u00e4mpfe et al. 2011); there is also a finding of a small positive effect on learning (2023)<\/td>\n | Yes before reading, no in the background with a difficult text<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n CEOtudent editorial assessment; the evidence in each row rests on the opened primary sources in the Sources section.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/span>How much time do we actually spend reading?<\/span><\/h2>\nTo judge the cost of the recall protocol, you need to know how much time goes to reading. One of the most detailed public, regularly updated sources is the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) American Time Use Survey. The 2025 results, published on June 25, 2026, give average hours per day for the population aged 15 and over. This is U.S. data; we use it here to give a sense of scale.<\/p>\n Table 3. Reading and the testing effect: published figures<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n| Indicator<\/th>\n | Value<\/th>\n | Source<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n | \n\n| Reading, average for ages 15 and over (hours\/day)<\/td>\n | 0.27<\/td>\n | BLS ATUS 2025, Table 11A<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Reading, full-time workers (hours\/day)<\/td>\n | 0.17<\/td>\n | BLS ATUS 2025, Table 11A<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Reading, bachelor’s degree and higher, ages 25 and over (hours\/day)<\/td>\n | 0.39<\/td>\n | BLS ATUS 2025, Table 11A<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Reading, ages 75 and over (hours\/day)<\/td>\n | 0.62<\/td>\n | BLS ATUS 2025, Table 11A<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Watching TV, average for ages 15 and over (hours\/day)<\/td>\n | 2.61<\/td>\n | BLS ATUS 2025, Table 11A<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Watching TV, full-time workers (hours\/day)<\/td>\n | 1.92<\/td>\n | BLS ATUS 2025, Table 11A<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Testing effect, full dataset<\/td>\n | g = 0.50<\/td>\n | Rowland 2014<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Testing effect, initial test success at most 50 percent, no feedback<\/td>\n | g = 0.03 (not reliable)<\/td>\n | Rowland 2014<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Testing effect, initial test success above 75 percent<\/td>\n | g = 0.56<\/td>\n | Rowland 2014<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Testing effect, studies with feedback<\/td>\n | g = 0.73<\/td>\n | Rowland 2014<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Testing effect, published and unpublished studies<\/td>\n | g = 0.58 and g = 0.25<\/td>\n | Rowland 2014<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, American Time Use Survey 2025 Results, Table 11A; Rowland (2014), Psychological Bulletin. Figures as published. BLS notes that because of the federal government shutdown from October 1-November 12, 2025, no time diaries are available for the period September 30-November 11, 2025, and that the estimates were reweighted.<\/em><\/p>\nConverting hours into minutes makes the table more concrete: the average person reads about 16.2 minutes a day, a full-time worker about 10.2 minutes, and a bachelor’s degree holder or higher about 23.4 minutes. On an average day the time spent on TV is about 9.7 times the time spent reading; for full-time workers this ratio is about 11.3. (CEOtudent analysis, calc.py.)<\/p>\n The lower part of the table says how the protocol should be built. In Rowland’s data, when success on the first recall attempt stayed at 50 percent or below and there was no feedback, the testing effect was not reliably different from zero. This suggests that putting off your first recall until weeks later, and managing to remember very little without feedback, will not do much good. The first recall should come early, and where you cannot remember, you should go back to the book and check. The smaller effect in unpublished studies is also a good reminder not to overstate the effect.<\/p>\n <\/span>Practical tool: a 15-minute post-reading recall protocol<\/span><\/h2>\nFor someone who reads an average of 10-16 minutes a day, adding hours to every book is not realistic. The protocol below fits the findings above into about 15 minutes for a chapter or a short book. The times are editorial assumptions, not measurements.<\/p>\n CEOtudent editorial framework: post-reading recall protocol<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n| Step<\/th>\n | When<\/th>\n | What you do<\/th>\n | Time (assumption)<\/th>\n | Finding it rests on<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n | \n\n| 1. Close and write<\/td>\n | As soon as the chapter ends<\/td>\n | Close the book and write down the main ideas you remember as bullet points<\/td>\n | 3 minutes<\/td>\n | Testing effect (Roediger and Karpicke 2006; Rowland 2014)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 2. Check<\/td>\n | Right afterwards<\/td>\n | Open the book and correct missing and wrong points<\/td>\n | 2 minutes<\/td>\n | Largest effect in studies with feedback (Rowland 2014)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 3. Explain<\/td>\n | Same day<\/td>\n | For the most important idea, answer “why is it true?” and “what does it connect to?”<\/td>\n | 2 minutes<\/td>\n | Self-explanation (Bisra; Dunlosky et al. 2013)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 4. Second recall<\/td>\n | 1-2 days later<\/td>\n | Rewrite the main ideas without looking at your notes, then check<\/td>\n | 3 minutes<\/td>\n | Spaced practice (Cepeda et al. 2006)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 5. Decision and third recall<\/td>\n | 1 week later<\/td>\n | Recall three ideas and write a single line in your decision journal<\/td>\n | 5 minutes<\/td>\n | Larger testing effect at least 1 day later (Rowland 2014)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nTotal<\/strong><\/td>\n| <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | 15 minutes<\/strong><\/td>\n| <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n The times are editorial assumptions (calc.py). For comparison: according to BLS 2025 data, 15 minutes equals about 1.5 days of a full-time worker’s average reading time.<\/em><\/p>\nPost-reading checklist<\/strong><\/p>\n\n- [ ] After finishing the chapter, I closed the book and wrote down at least three ideas.<\/li>\n
- [ ] I compared what I wrote with the book and corrected what was missing.<\/li>\n
- [ ] I explained the most important idea to myself with the question “why?”<\/li>\n
- [ ] 1-2 days later, I tried to recall it again without looking at my notes.<\/li>\n
- [ ] A week later, I tied the book to a single decision and wrote it in my decision journal.<\/li>\n
- [ ] If I am reading this book for work, I read it on paper and without time pressure.<\/li>\n
- [ ] I wrote a question next to the sentences I underlined instead of just underlining them.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
<\/span>What this does not mean<\/span><\/h2>\n\n- You don’t have to remember every book.<\/strong> A novel read for pleasure does not need a protocol. The protocol is worth it when you want to use a book’s ideas.<\/li>\n
- Rereading is not forbidden.<\/strong> The figures show that rereading works in the short term. The problem is that at the end of the measured period, a week later, the advantage reverses.<\/li>\n
- The screen is not the enemy.<\/strong> The effects are small and almost zero for narrative texts. The effect is an average; it is not the same for everyone.<\/li>\n
- A single figure is not a personal prediction.<\/strong> Meta-analytic averages come from different materials, ages and tests. Rowland’s data show high heterogeneity among effect sizes.<\/li>\n
- An AI summary does not replace recall.<\/strong> In retrieval practice, the effect comes from you trying to bring the information back. Use the assistant only to compare the recall note you wrote with the book.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
<\/span>Frequently asked questions<\/span><\/h2>\nWhy can’t I remember the books I read?<\/strong> \nForgetting is how memory normally works; never retrieving the information after reading speeds up that loss. Ebbinghaus’s forgetting curve and its 2015 replication show that without review the loss is rapid in the first hours and days. Closing the book after reading and trying to recall it reduces this loss markedly.<\/p>\nIs it better to read a book twice, or read it once and try to recall it?<\/strong> \nIn the long run, trying to recall it. In Roediger and Karpicke’s experiment, the reread group was ahead after 5 minutes (81 percent versus 75 percent) and fell behind after a week (42 percent versus 56 percent).<\/p>\nDoes underlining work?<\/strong> \nOn its own, only to a limited extent. Dunlosky and colleagues placed highlighting and underlining in the low utility group. Writing a question next to the line and answering it later without looking at the book turns marking into a retrieval exercise.<\/p>\nWill I remember an e-book or a printed book better?<\/strong> \nFor informational texts, the printed book gives a small advantage: Delgado and colleagues found g = -0.21, Clinton g = -0.25 (a negative value favors paper). No clear difference was found for novels.<\/p>\nDoes listening to music while reading improve recall?<\/strong> \nThe evidence is mixed. A 2011 meta-analysis found that background music disrupts reading, while a 2023 meta-analysis found a small positive average effect on learning. Turning the music off while reading a difficult text is the safer choice.<\/p>\nHow far apart should I review what I read?<\/strong> \nIt depends on how long you want to retain the information. According to the meta-analysis by Cepeda and colleagues, the best review interval gets longer as the target retention period gets longer. A simple start: the same day, 1-2 days later, and a week later.<\/p>\nIs “we remember 10 percent of what we read” true?<\/strong> \nNo. These ratios come from “learning pyramid” models and, according to Letrud and Hernes’s (2018) historical review, did not originate from empirical research.<\/p>\n<\/span>Sources<\/span><\/h2>\n\n- Roediger, H. L., III and Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-Enhanced Learning: Taking Memory Tests Improves Long-Term Retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249-255.<\/li>\n
- Rowland, C. A. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: A meta-analytic review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1432-1463.<\/li>\n
- Adesope, O. O., Trevisan, D. A. and Sundararajan, N. (2017). Rethinking the Use of Tests: A Meta-Analysis of Practice Testing. Review of Educational Research, 87(3). (Abstract only, ERIC record EJ1141817.)<\/li>\n
- Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T. and Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354-380. (Abstract only.)<\/li>\n
- Murre, J. M. J. and Dros, J. (2015). Replication and Analysis of Ebbinghaus’ Forgetting Curve. PLOS ONE, 10(7), e0120644. (Ebbinghaus’s original data taken from Table 3 of this article.)<\/li>\n
- Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J. and 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. (Abstract only.)<\/li>\n
- Bisra, K. Inducing self-explanation: A meta-analysis and experiment. Doctoral thesis, Simon Fraser University. (Thesis abstract only, SFU Summit repository.)<\/li>\n
- Delgado, P., Vargas, C., Ackerman, R. and Salmer\u00f3n, L. (2018). Don’t throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational Research Review, 25, 23-38. (Author copy, University of Valencia.)<\/li>\n
- Clinton, V. (2019). Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Reading, 42(2), 288-325. (Abstract only.)<\/li>\n
- Smith, S. M. and Vela, E. (2001). Environmental context-dependent memory: A review and meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 8(2), 203-220. (Abstract only.)<\/li>\n
- K\u00e4mpfe, J., Sedlmeier, P. and Renkewitz, F. (2011; online 2010). The impact of background music on adult listeners: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Music, 39(4), 424-448. (Abstract only.)<\/li>\n
- de la Mora Velasco, E., Chen, Y., Hirumi, A. and Bai, H. (2023). The impact of background music on learners: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychology of Music, 51(6), 1598-1626. (Abstract only.)<\/li>\n
- Letrud, K. and Hernes, S. (2018). Excavating the origins of the learning pyramid myths. Cogent Education, 5(1). (Abstract only.)<\/li>\n
- U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2026). American Time Use Survey: 2025 Results (USDL-26-1022, June 25, 2026) and Table 11A: Time spent in leisure and sports activities for the civilian population by selected characteristics, 2025 annual averages.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Note: The tables “CEOtudent analysis: a different reading of the same data,” “CEOtudent analysis: the old 5 tips against the evidence” and “CEOtudent editorial framework: post-reading recall protocol” are CEOtudent analyses; all derived figures were recalculated with calc.py. The times in the protocol are editorial assumptions. The unsourced claims in the 2021 version (“our mind remembers through its perception of place,” “music makes remembering easier,” “classical music can liven up a dull book”) were removed and replaced with meta-analytic findings. Learning pyramid ratios of the “we remember 10 percent of what we read” kind are mentioned only to debunk them. Because the full text of the frequently cited journal article on self-explanation could not be opened, the effect size was taken from the author’s thesis abstract. The “no feedback” effect value for Rowland (2014) circulating in secondary sources was not used, because the PDF table could not be read reliably from the text and the value does not appear in the narrative section.<\/em><\/p>\n \nThis content was compiled with the support of AI following in-depth research, then written and prepared for publication by the CEOtudent editorial team.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Forgetting what you read is not a character flaw; it is how memory normally works. In Roediger and Karpicke’s experiment, the group that closed the text and tried to recall it remembered 56 percent a week later, while the group that reread it remembered 42 percent. This article gives you the 5 habits with the strongest evidence for making books stick, plus a 15-minute post-reading protocol.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5603,"featured_media":137567,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[17211,17209,17693],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-150361","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-life","category-self-improvement","category-strategy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceotudent.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150361","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceotudent.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceotudent.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceotudent.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5603"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceotudent.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=150361"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ceotudent.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150361\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceotudent.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/137567"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceotudent.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=150361"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceotudent.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=150361"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceotudent.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=150361"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}} | | | | |