Revision Schedule Planner

What this generator does

Turns a topic list and two dates into a dated review schedule, with each topic revisited at growing gaps and the topics staggered so the daily load stays even. The revision challenge generator already here produces something to do in a session; this decides which topics a given day should cover and when. It is also distinct from the countdown planners: those schedule a sequence of different tasks backwards from a date, while this schedules the same topic repeatedly forwards at expanding intervals.

How to use this tool

1. List your topics, one per line.
2. Enter the date you are starting and the date of the exam.
3. Press Build the schedule.
4. Check the busiest day — if it is too heavy, start earlier or split the topics.

Understanding the controls

Topics

One per line. Each gets its own ladder of reviews, and its own first-study day — that staggering is what keeps the busiest day manageable. Blank lines are ignored.

Start date

When revision begins. Topics do not all start here: they are spread across the run-in, which is the difference between a workable schedule and one where every ladder lands on the same days.

Exam date

Nothing is scheduled after it. If the run-in is too short for the usual gaps and a first day for each topic, the gaps are shortened in proportion for every topic, and the page shows the gaps it used beside the usual ones.

Worked examples

5 topics, thirteen weeks

25 reviews at the usual gaps of 1, 3, 7, 14 and 30 days, on 24 different dates, with no day holding more than two topics.

24 topics, 135 days

120 reviews at the usual gaps, each topic starting on its own day, and the busiest day holds three.

5 topics, a fortnight

The gaps shorten to 1, 2, 3, 5 and 10 days so that each topic can start on a different day; the busiest day holds four.

12 topics, a fortnight

The gaps shorten to 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 days and the topics start across eight days, so some share a first day. The page says so, and the busiest day holds eight.

5 topics, 3 days

Three reviews each, on consecutive days, all five topics together. There is no day for a fourth.

Common use cases

• Building a revision timetable for a set of exam topics
• Spreading a syllabus over a term so nothing is seen only once
• Giving a class a shared review schedule they can each follow
• Checking whether there is genuinely enough time left before an exam
• Planning review of professional or language material against a fixed test date

How this generator works

Each topic gets a ladder of reviews at one, three, seven, fourteen and thirty days after its own first study session — the conventional expanding interval — and the topics begin a day or more apart, so they do not all come round together. Both need days: thirty for the longest gap, and one for each topic after the first. When the run-in has them, that is exactly what you get, with any spare days used to spread the first sessions further. When it does not, the gaps are shortened by the same proportion, just far enough to give each topic its own first day, and kept as whole days that still widen. The gaps are never squeezed into less than half the run-in or closer than a day apart; past that point topics share first days instead, and the page says how many days they start across. With fewer days than reviews, the last reviews are the ones left out. Nothing is ever placed after the exam. The output is grouped by date and the heaviest day is reported rather than left to be discovered.

Randomness and fairness

Nothing here is random. The same topics and the same dates always produce exactly the same schedule — which is deliberate, because a revision timetable that rearranged itself between visits would be impossible to follow, and the same inputs have been checked to give an identical schedule every time.

For how randomness is produced across the whole site, see how Generate Random works.

Assumptions this tool makes

• Revision starts on the start date and the exam is on the exam date. Both are treated as fixed.
• A topic is first studied on the day it is assigned, with its reviews counted from there.

Limitations and good to know

• The gaps are a conventional ladder, shortened only to fit the dates. This is not an adaptive algorithm — it does not change the schedule based on how well a review went, because doing that honestly needs a stored record of each review, which is a different tool with different privacy obligations.
• It treats all topics as equally difficult and equally long. A topic you find hard needs more time, and only you know which one that is.
• It schedules dates, not sessions. How long each review should take is not something a calendar can decide.
• Days off are not modelled — reviews can land on a weekend. Where that matters, moving the start date by a day or two shifts the whole pattern.
• The spacing effect is well supported; these particular numbers are a teaching convention rather than a research result, and are presented as such.

Common mistakes

Starting too late and then compressing the intervals

Shorter gaps are weaker spacing — five reviews in five days is close to five reviews in a row. When the run-in is short the tool has to shorten the gaps, and it shows you the gaps it used beside the usual ones; the only thing that brings the long gaps back is starting earlier.

Treating a full schedule as the whole of revision

It says when to review, not what to do. Retrieval practice — closing the book and trying to recall — is what makes a review worth having, and a schedule of re-reading produces very little.

Adding every subtopic as its own line

Forty topics over six weeks produces a heavy schedule and a lot of very short reviews. Group them at the level you would actually revise in one sitting, and check the busiest-day figure before committing.

Practical tips

• Check the busiest day before anything else. If it is heavier than you would actually do, start earlier or merge topics — those are the only two real fixes.
• Put the topics you find hardest first in the list. They get the earliest start date, and so the longest stretch between their last review and the exam to go over them again.
• Use it alongside retrieval practice rather than re-reading. The schedule decides when; what you do in the session decides whether it works.

Troubleshooting

The gaps are shorter than 1, 3, 7, 14 and 30 days

There was not room before the exam for the usual gaps and a separate first day for each topic, so the gaps were shortened in proportion; the note above the schedule gives both sets. Starting earlier is the only real fix. The usual gaps come back once the run-in is thirty days plus one for each topic after the first.

Several topics start on the same day

There are more topics than spare days. The gaps are not shortened below half the run-in to make room, so the topics left over share first days and are reviewed together. Fewer, larger topics or an earlier start gives each its own.

A day looks too heavy

Reduce the number of topics or lengthen the run-in. With a fixed number of reviews and a fixed window there is a floor on how thin the load can be spread, and the tool reports the busiest day rather than hiding it.

Privacy and your data

Your topic names and your dates never leave your browser. Nothing is uploaded, nothing is stored between visits, and nothing is written into the page address — a list of topics plus an exam date is more identifying than it looks. Analytics records that the tool ran and how many reviews it produced, never the topics themselves.

Frequently asked questions

Why these intervals?

One, three, seven, fourteen and thirty days is the widely taught expanding ladder. The spacing effect — that distributed practice beats massed practice — is one of the most replicated findings in learning research; these specific numbers are a convention built on it rather than a result themselves, and it is worth being clear about which is which.

Is this the same as Anki or SuperMemo?

No. Those adapt each interval to how well you recalled the item, which needs a stored history of every review you have done. This is one ladder, fitted to your dates and laid out on a calendar, and it does not store anything. If you want genuine adaptation, use flashcard software — imitating it with a fixed schedule would be pretending to a personalisation this does not have.

What if I have only two weeks?

The gaps are shortened in proportion and every topic follows the same shortened ladder. Five topics over a fortnight are reviewed 1, 2, 3, 5 and 10 days after each is first studied, starting on five different days; the page shows the gaps it used beside the usual ones.

Why are the topics staggered instead of all starting today?

Because if they all start today they all get reviewed on the same days, and with a dozen topics that produces a handful of impossible days and a lot of empty ones. Staggering the first study day spreads the load. Nothing is ever pushed past the exam to make room: when days are short, the gaps give way first, and only then do topics share a first day.