Final answer:
The limitation of distributed practice schedules compared to massed practice is that they require more time, as they involve spacing study sessions over time. Distributed practice is generally more effective for retention and transfer, but less efficient in terms of immediate time usage.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question pertains to the effectiveness of distributed practice schedules compared to massed practice schedules. Distributed practice, also known as spacing effect, involves spreading out study sessions over time. In contrast, massed practice, or cramming, consists of studying intensively over a short period. The limitation of distributed practice, as presented in the options, is that they take longer in comparison to massed practice. While distributed practice is generally more effective for long-term retention and transfer of knowledge, it requires more time since the study sessions are spaced out rather than condensed into a single, intense study period. This longer duration could be viewed as less efficient in terms of immediate time management, especially if there is a tight deadline. However, this perceived limitation is often offset by the superior outcomes in retention and application that distributed practice provides. The other options mentioned (1, 3, and 4) are not limitations of distributed practice according to educational research. In fact, distributed practice tends to result in better retention and transfer than massed practice.