The blurting method: how to do it, when to repeat it, and what the research says
Published · Updated
Sources checked on by Alexandre Doumergue, founder of Paced.
What the blurting method is
The blurting method of studying has one instruction: after you have studied a topic, write down everything you remember about it, without looking. The page you end up with shows you, in your own handwriting, what you can produce and what you cannot. The name comes from study-tips advice; the practice is what researchers call retrieval practice, or free recall when there is no cue. A survey of 177 college students found that a majority repeatedly read their notes or textbook while relatively few tested themselves (Karpicke et al., 2009), which is why a technique this plain is worth writing down.
How to do the blurting method
- Study the topic first. Blurting tests what you have already studied; it is not a way to meet a topic for the first time.
- Close the notes and take a blank page. Put the book, the slides and your phone out of reach, so that nothing can cue you.
- Write everything you remember. Headings, definitions, the steps of a method, formulas, examples; draw a diagram if the topic is visual. Keep going until you run out, without looking.
- Open the notes and mark the gaps. In another colour, mark what is missing, what is wrong and what you were unsure of.
- Fix the gaps only. Reread those parts and write them out properly. Do not reread the whole chapter.
- Date the next blurt. Put the topic's next review in your calendar before you close the page, on a gap longer than the last one.
Choose a topic you could study in one sitting: a lecture, a chapter section, one problem type. A whole course on one page is too big to check, and a single definition is better as a flashcard.
A blurting method example
A student has studied the light-dependent reactions of photosynthesis. With the notes closed, they write: it happens in the thylakoid membranes; light hits photosystem II; water is split and oxygen is released; electrons pass along a chain to photosystem I; ATP is made; the oxygen comes from carbon dioxide. They open the notes and mark three things. Missing: NADPH, and the proton gradient that drives ATP synthesis. Wrong: the oxygen released comes from water, not from carbon dioxide. The student rewrites those three items properly and puts them first on the next blurt.
The error is the useful part. A page of notes that you reread would have looked familiar; the blank page showed that the sentence was not there. An attempt that fails and is then corrected still helps: in experiments with word pairs and trivia questions, trying to answer before seeing the answer, and failing, improved later learning compared with reading the question and answer together (Kornell et al., 2009).
The blurting method vs active recall
Blurting is one kind of active recall. What sets it apart is that nothing cues you: a flashcard gives you a question, a practice question gives you a prompt, a blank page gives you nothing, so it also shows you what you did not know to ask. In a meta-analysis of the testing effect, tests that required producing an answer gave larger benefits than recognition tests (Rowland, 2014). That supports effortful recall in general; it does not rank a blank page above questions, and the studies cited here do not settle which suits your exam. A mix is the safer plan: blurt to find the holes, then use questions on them.
Is blurting a good way to study?
What the research supports
- Recall beats rereading. Students who practised recalling a text remembered more of it two days and one week later than students who reread it (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006).
- It also beats concept mapping. Practising retrieval produced greater gains in meaningful learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping, on comprehension and inference questions, with texts like those in science teaching (Karpicke & Blunt, 2011).
- Rated high utility. A review of ten learning techniques rated practice testing and distributed practice high and rereading low (Dunlosky et al., 2013).
What the research does not show
None of these studies tested blurting under that name. They are laboratory and classroom studies with word lists, short texts and science passages, and none promises a grade. We read the evidence as support for the practice, not as a measured effect size for blurting.
Where blurting falls short
Our reading of the limits, not findings from the studies:
- You check against your notes. An error in your notes survives the blurt. Check the gaps against the textbook or the syllabus too.
- Recall is not application. Writing out a method is not solving a problem with it. If your exam is problem-based, add practice problems to the plan.
- One blurt is one review. Without later ones the topic is left to the forgetting curve. That is a scheduling problem, below.
When to repeat a blurt
Spacing is the other half. In a study of more than 1,350 learners, the best gap grew with the time to the test (about 20–40% of it for a test a week away, 5–10% for a test a year away) (Cepeda et al., 2008). So the first blurt comes soon after studying, and the next ones come later each time. As a worked example, here is Paced's Standard pace for a topic first studied for 1 h 20: the days are D+1, D+3, D+7, D+15, D+30, D+60, D+120, D+240 after the first study, and the lengths are our planning budget for each review (30% of the first study for the first, 4 points less for each next one, never under 10%), here 24 min for the first.
| Pass | Length |
|---|---|
| D0 | 1 h 20 |
| D+1 | 24 min |
| D+3 | 21 min |
| D+7 | 18 min |
| D+15 | 14 min |
| D+30 | 11 min |
| D+60 | 8 min |
| D+120 | 8 min |
| D+240 | 8 min |
A blurt and its check should fit in the budget for a topic of that size; if they do not, split the topic. Other sequences, such as 2-3-5-7, are compared in spaced repetition schedules; the 2-3-5-7 method and the spaced repetition calculator turn a sequence into dates for your own topics.
Paced puts the first study and every review of each topic on the calendar, inside the hours you actually have, so the next blurt is already dated when you finish the last one. The web plan is free for up to 8 active topics, 7 days ahead, with no card; the iPhone and iPad app needs Plus. Try it without an account.
Questions
What is the blurting method of studying?
You close your notes, write everything you remember about a topic on a blank page, then open the notes and mark what is missing or wrong. It is a form of retrieval practice done on paper.
Is blurting a good way to study?
It uses retrieval practice, which beat rereading and concept mapping in the studies cited on this page. No study tested a procedure called blurting, so treat it as a sound use of a well-supported practice, not as a proven method; check your notes after each blurt and repeat it on growing gaps.
Blurting method vs active recall: what is the difference?
Blurting is one kind of active recall: free recall from a blank page, with no cue. Flashcards and practice questions are other kinds, with a question as the cue. Which suits you depends on what your exam asks.
How long should a blurt take?
No study gives a figure. Stop writing when you run out, then check. As a planning budget, Paced allots 30% of the first study's length to the first review and a few points less to each later one; that is our default, not a result from a study.
How often should I repeat a blurt?
On gaps that grow. In a study of more than 1,350 learners the best gap grew with the time to the test (Cepeda et al., 2008). The comparison of spaced repetition schedules on this site lists the usual sequences.
Sources
- Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255. On tests two days and one week later, practising recall beat restudying the same text.
- Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331(6018), 772–775. Practising retrieval gave greater gains than elaborative studying with concept mapping, on comprehension and inference questions and on texts like those in science teaching.
- 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. Meta-analysis of the testing effect: recall tests gave larger benefits than recognition tests, which supports effortful retrieval.
- Kornell, N., Hays, M. J., & Bjork, R. A. (2009). Unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance subsequent learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(4), 989–998. Trying to answer before seeing the answer, and failing, still improved later learning compared with reading question and answer together (word pairs and trivia).
- 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. Review of 10 techniques: practice testing and distributed practice rated high utility; rereading and highlighting low.
- Karpicke, J. D., Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L. (2009). Metacognitive strategies in student learning: Do students practise retrieval when they study on their own?. Memory, 17(4), 471–479. A survey of 177 college students: a majority repeatedly read their notes or textbook, relatively few tested themselves while studying.
- 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. More than 1,350 learners, review gaps up to 3.5 months, final tests up to a year later.