Search

Every day students and instructors are faced with the decision of when to study information. The timing of study, and how it affects memory retention, has been explored for many years in research on human learning. This research has shown that performance on final tests of learning is improved if multiple study sessions are separated--i.e., "spaced" apart--in time rather than massed in immediate succession. In this article, we review research findings of the types of learning that benefit from spaced study, demonstrations of these benefits in educational settings, and recent research on the time intervals during which spaced study should occur in order to maximize memory retention. We conclude with a list of recommendations on how spacing might be incorporated into everyday instruction. (Contains 3 figures.) [This work was partially funded by the James S. McDonnell Foundation.]

More than a century of research shows that increasing the gap between study episodes using the same material can enhance retention, yet little is known about how this so-called distributed practice effect unfolds over nontrivial periods. In two three-session laboratory studies, we examined the effects of gap on retention of foreign vocabulary, facts, and names of visual objects, with test delays up to 6 months. An optimal gap improved final recall by up to 150%. Both studies demonstrated non-monotonic gap effects: Increases in gap caused test accuracy to initially sharply increase and then gradually decline. These results provide new constraints on theories of spacing and confirm the importance of cumulative reviews to promote retention over meaningful time periods. (Contains 4 footnotes, 5 figures and 3 tables.) [This article was printed in the in-press version of: "Experimental Psychology" (2009). Its contents may differ from the final published version.]

Our research on learning enhancement has been focusing on the consequences for learning and forgetting of some of the more obvious and concrete choices that arise in instruction, including: How does spacing of practice affect retention of information over significant retention intervals (up to two years)? Do spacing effects generalize beyond recall of verbal materials? Is feedback needed to promote learning, and must it be immediate? Testing has been found to enhance learning; does it actually reduce the rate of forgetting? Can testing effects be extended to nonverbal materials? We suggest that as answers to these questions are accumulated, it should become possible for cognitive psychology to offer non-obvious advice that can be applied in a variety of instructional contexts to facilitate learning and reduce forgetting. (Contains 9 figures.) [This document represents the submitted version of an article published in: "Psychonomic Bulletin & Review" (2007, 14, 187-193). Its contents may differ from the final published version.]

Once material has been learned to a criterion of one perfect trial, further study within the same session constitutes overlearning. Although overlearning is a popular learning strategy, its effect on long-term retention is unclear. In two experiments presented here, 218 college students learned geography facts (Experiment 1) or word definitions (Experiment 2). The degree of learning was manipulated and measured via multiple test-with-feedback trials, and participants returned for a final cued recall test between one and nine weeks later. The overlearners recalled far more than the low learners at the one-week test, but this difference decreased dramatically thereafter. These data suggest that overlearning (and its concomitant demand for additional study time) is an inefficient strategy for learning material for meaningfully long periods of time. One appendix is included. (Contains 2 figures.)

More than a century of research shows that increasing the gap between study episodes using the same material can enhance retention, yet little is known about how this so-called distributed practice effect unfolds over nontrivial periods. In two three-session laboratory studies, we examined the effects of gap on retention of foreign vocabulary, facts, and names of visual objects, with test delays up to 6 months. An optimal gap improved final recall by up to 150%. Both studies demonstrated nonmonotonic gap effects: Increases in gap caused test accuracy to initially sharply increase and then gradually decline. These results provide new constraints on theories of spacing and confirm the importance of cumulative reviews to promote retention over meaningful time periods.

To achieve enduring retention, people must usually study information on multiple occasions. How does the timing of study events affect retention? Prior research has examined this issue only in a spotty fashion, usually with very short time intervals. To characterize spacing effects over significant durations, over 1350 individuals were taught a set of facts and – after a gap of up to 3.5 months – given a review on the same facts. A final test was administered at a further delay of up to 1 year. At any given retention interval, an increase in the inter-study gap at first increased, and then gradually reduced, test performance. The optimum gap value was about 20% of the test delay for delays of a few weeks, falling to about 5% when delay was one year. The interaction of gap and test delay implies that many educational practices are likely to be highly inefficient.

Our research on learning enhancement has been focusing on the consequences for learning and forgetting of some of the more obvious and concrete choices that arise in instruction, including questions such as these: How does spacing of practice affect retention of information over significant retention intervals(up to 1 year)? Do spacing effects generalize beyond recall of verbal materials? Is feedback needed to promote learning, and must it be immediate? Although retrieval practice has been found to enhance learning in comparison with additional study, does it actually reduce the rate of forgetting? Can retrieval practice effects be extended to nonverbal materials? We suggest that as we begin to find answers to these questions, it should become possible for cognitive psychology to offer nonobvious advice that can be applied in a variety of instructional contexts to facilitate learning and reduce forgetting.

Once material has been learned to a criterion of one perfect trial, further study within the same session constitutes overlearning. Although overlearning is a popular learning strategy, its effect on long-term retention is unclear. In two experiments presented here, 218 college students learned geography facts (Experiment 1) or word definitions (Experiment 2). The degree of learning was manipulated and measured via multiple test-with-feedback trials, and participants returned for a final cued recall test between one and nine weeks later. The overlearners recalled far more than the low learners at the one-week test, but this difference decreased dramatically thereafter. These data suggest that overlearning (and its concomitant demand for additional study time) is an inefficient strategy for learning material for meaningfully long periods of time.

The rate at which people process information appears to influence many aspects of cognition across the lifespan. However, many commonly accepted measures of "processing speed" may require goal maintenance, manipulation of information in working memory, and decision-making, blurring the distinction between processing speed and executive control and resulting in overestimation of processing speed contributions to cognition. This concern may apply particularly to studies of developmental change, as even seemingly simple processing speed measures may require executive processes to keep children and older adults on task. We report two new studies and a re-analysis of a published study, testing predictions about how different processing speed measures influence conclusions about executive control across the lifespan. We find that the choice of processing speed measure affects the relationship observed between processing speed and executive control, in a manner that changes with age, and that choice of processing speed measure affects conclusions about development and the relationship among executive control measures. Implications for understanding processing speed, executive control, and their development are discussed. (Contains 13 tables and 6 footnotes.)

Laptops are commonplace in university classrooms. In light of cognitive psychology theory on costs associated with multitasking, we examined the effects of in-class laptop use on student learning in a simulated classroom. We found that participants who multitasked on a laptop during a lecture scored lower on a test compared to those who did not multitask, and participants who were in direct view of a multitasking peer scored lower on a test compared to those who were not. The results demonstrate that multitasking on a laptop poses a significant distraction to both users and fellow students and can be detrimental to comprehension of lecture content. (Contains 3 figures.)

Every day, students and instructors are faced with the decision of when to study information. The timing of study, and how it affects memory retention, has been explored for many years in research on human learning. This research has shown that performance on final tests of learning is improved if multiple study sessions are separated--i.e., "spaced" apart--in time rather than massed in immediate succession. In this article, we review research findings of the types of learning that benefit from spaced study, demonstrations of these benefits in educational settings, and recent research on the time intervals during which spaced study should occur in order to maximize memory retention. We conclude with a list of recommendations on how spacing might be incorporated into everyday instruction.

Taking a test has been shown to produce enhanced retention of the retrieved information. On tests, however, students often encounter questions the answers for which they are unsure. Should they guess anyway, even if they are likely to answer incorrectly? Or are errors engrained, impairing subsequent learning of the correct answer? We sought to answer this question in 3 experiments. In Experiments 1 and 2, subjects read 80 obscure facts (e.g., "Where is Disko Island? Greenland") and then took a cued recall test. When a subject reported being unable to answer a question, on a randomly chosen half of those questions the computer program insisted upon a guess. Corrective feedback was provided either immediately (Experiment 1) or after a delay (Experiment 2). Forced guessing did not affect subjects' performance on a final test given 1 day later. We extended the investigation to more complex material in Experiment 3. Subjects saw a question (e.g., "Why do ice cubes often pop as they melt in your drink?") and its answer, but for half of the questions, subjects did not see the answer until they first provided a plausible explanation. On a test administered either on the same day or 1 week later, recall performance was again unaffected by a prior wrong guess. (Contains 3 footnotes, 5 tables,and 1 figure.)

People often perseverate, repeating outdated behaviors despite correctly answering questions about rules they should be following. Children who perseverate are slower to respond to such questions than children who successfully switch to new rules, even after controlling for age and processing speed. Thus, switchers may have stronger working memory strength than perseverators, with stronger rule representations supporting both flexible switching and faster responses to questions. Alternatively, better inhibitory abilities may support switchers' faster responses by helping to resolve conflict. The current study tested these accounts using a new one-dimensional card sort. Even with all possible sources of conflict removed, switchers still responded faster than perseverators to questions about rules, supporting the graded working memory account. (Contains 2 figures and 2 tables.)

Some researchers have suggested that although feedback may enhance performance during associative learning, it does so at the expense of later retention. To examine this issue, subjects (N = 258) learned Luganda-English word pairs. After 2 initial exposures to the materials, subjects were tested on each item several times, with the presence and type of feedback varying between subjects. A final test followed after 1 week. Supplying the correct answer after an incorrect response not only improved performance during the initial learning session--it also increased final retention by 494%. On the other hand, feedback after correct responses made little difference either immediately or at a delay, regardless of whether the subject was confident in the response. Practical and theoretical implications are discussed.

Examined changes from age 7 to 82 years in processes responsible for preparation and interference control underlying alternation between two tasks. Found a U-shaped function for switch costs, with larger costs for young children and older adults. Age-related variance in task-switching performance was partially independent from age-related variance in other cognitive processes such as perceptual speed and working memory. (Author/KB)

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2009.01.002 Byline: Katharine A. Blackwell (a), Nicholas J. Cepeda (b), Yuko Munakata (a) Keywords: Cognitive flexibility; Task switching; Working memory; Inhibition; Processing speed; Children Abstract: People often perseverate, repeating outdated behaviors despite correctly answering questions about rules they should be following. Children who perseverate are slower to respond to such questions than children who successfully switch to new rules, even after controlling for age and processing speed. Thus, switchers may have stronger working memory strength than perseverators, with stronger rule representations supporting both flexible switching and faster responses to questions. Alternatively, better inhibitory abilities may support switchers' faster responses by helping to resolve conflict. The current study tested these accounts using a new one-dimensional card sort. Even with all possible sources of conflict removed, switchers still responded faster than perseverators to questions about rules, supporting the graded working memory account. Author Affiliation: (a) Department of Psychology, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309, USA (b) Department of Psychology, York University, Toronto, Ontario M3J 1P3, Canada Article History: Received 8 May 2008; Revised 12 January 2009

The authors performed a meta-analysis of the distributed practice effect to illuminate the effects of temporal variables that have been neglected in previous reviews. This review found 839 assessments of distributed practice in 317 experiments located in 184 articles. Effects of spacing (consecutive massed presentations vs. spaced learning episodes) and lag (less spaced vs. more spaced learning episodes) were examined, as were expanding interstudy interval (ISI) effects. Analyses suggest that ISI and retention interval operate jointly to affect final-test retention: specifically, the ISI producing maximal retention increased as retention interval increased. Areas needing future research and theoretical implications are discussed. Keywords: spacing effect, distributed practice, meta-analysis, interstudy interval, retention interval

Some researchers have suggested that although feedback may enhance performance during associative learning, it does so at the expense of later retention. To examine this issue, subjects (N = 258) learned Luganda--English word pairs. After 2 initial exposures to the materials, subjects were tested on each item several times, with the presence and type of feedback varying between subjects. A final test followed after I week. Supplying the correct answer after an incorrect response not only improved performance during the initial learning session--it also increased final retention by 494%. On the other hand, feedback after correct responses made little difference either immediately or at a delay, regardless of whether the subject was confident in the response. Practical and theoretical implications are discussed.

Observers briefly viewed random dots moving in a given direction and subsequently recalled that direction. When required to remember a single direction, observers performed accurately for memory intervals of up to 8 s; this high-fidelity memory for motion was maintained when observers executed a vigilance task during the memory interval. When observers tried to remember multiple directions of motion, performance deteriorated with increasing number of directions. Still, memory for multiple directions was unchanged over delays of up to 30 s. In a forced-choice experiment, observers viewed 2 successive animation sequences separated by a memory interval; for both sequences, dots moved in any direction within a limited bandwidth. Observers accurately judged which animation sequence was more coherent, even with memory intervals of 30s. The findings are considered within the context of cognitive bias and memory for other aspects of perception.

How can students' forgetting be reduced? The spacing effect--a promising strategy from the field of cognitive psychology--might hold some of the answers. Research has demonstrated that information is remembered two to three times better if study sessions are spaced in time rather than massed together. The testing effect is another research-based teaching strategy that is often used in conjunction with spacing to minimize forgetting. Actively recalling information from memory is a harder task than simply re-reading or listening to the information again. This forceful retrieval process aids in strengthening the memory trace, leading to deeper, more meaningful encoding. Finally, providing timely feedback after an incorrect response increases students' performance during the learning session and leads to a significant increase in long-term retention. (Contains 11 endnotes.)