Many randomized controlled experiments in the classroom have found that mathematics learning is improved dramatically when practice problems of one kind are distributed across multiple assignments (spaced) and mixed with other kinds of problems (interleaved). In two studies, we investigated students' knowledge of spacing and interleaving. In Study 1, 193 undergraduates designed learning schedules for a hypothetical math class. In Study 2, 175 undergraduates selected from among five hypothetical schedules in response to a variety of questions, provided reasons for their selections, and rated the utility of spacing and interleaving. In both studies, most participants incorrectly judged schedules with minimal degrees of spacing and interleaving to be most effective. Also, schedules with more spacing and interleaving were perceived as more difficult, less enjoyable, and less common. Participants' ratings of utility revealed mixed perspectives on spacing and an underappreciation of interleaving. Altogether, these findings demonstrate that most students fail to recognize the benefits of spaced and interleaved practice. Further, by identifying specific ways in which their beliefs about spacing and interleaving fall short, we reveal opportunities to reshape students' beliefs to foster these effective learning techniques. [This is the in press version of a paper published in "Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied."]