Although expanding spacing is often regarded as the most effective practice schedule, studies comparing equal and expanding spacing have yielded mixed results. The present study set out to examine whether the amount of spacing and the retention interval may influence the effects of expanding and equal spacing on second language (L2) vocabulary learning. One hundred and twenty-eight Japanese college students studied 20 English-Japanese word pairs. The type of spacing (expanding and equal) and the amount of spacing (massed, short, medium, and long) were manipulated. Results demonstrated a limited, yet statistically significant, advantage of expanding spacing. The finding is significant because this is the first L2 study to find the superiority of expanding over equal spacing. The main effect of the amount of spacing was also significant, producing large effect sizes. Taken together, the results suggest that expanding spacing may facilitate vocabulary learning, although introducing spacing may have a larger effect.

Cognitive psychology research has shown that interleaving, wherein learners practice multiple skills or concepts at once, facilitates learning more than does blocking, wherein learners practice only one skill or concept at a time. Despite the advantage of interleaving over blocking observed across a number of domains, limited attention has been devoted to the effects of interleaving on second language (L2) learning. This study examined the effects of blocking and interleaving on L2 grammar learning. In this study, 115 Japanese learners studied 5 English grammatical structures under 1 of 3 conditions: blocking, interleaving, and increasing (i.e., blocking followed by interleaving). Learning was measured using a grammaticality judgment test administered immediately and 1 week after the treatment. Although interleaving led to the highest number of incorrect responses during training, it was more effective than blocking in the 1‐week delayed posttest. These results indicate that the advantage of interleaving extends to L2 grammar learning. Furthermore, learners’ levels of prior knowledge were found to moderate the effects of interleaving. Specifically, participants with lower pretest scores benefited more from interleaving compared to those with higher pretest scores. Pedagogically, the findings suggest that grammar learning may be enhanced by incorporating interleaved practice.

No abstract

The spacing effect is known to be one of the most robust phenomena in experimental psychology, and many attempts have been made to realize effective spaced learning for L2 vocabulary learning. This study compares vocabulary learning with word lists, word cards, and computers in order to identify which material leads to the most superior spaced learning. In the experiment, 226 Japanese high school students studied ten English words with one of the three learning materials: lists, cards, and computers. One-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) showed that although no significant difference existed between the Card group and the other two, the PC group significantly outperformed the List group on the delayed post-test. Item analysis using Chi-squares demonstrated that on the delayed post-test, the List group's successful recall rates for four of the ten items were significantly lower than those of the Card or PC group. Correlational analysis indicated that the time invested in learning and the subsequent post-test scores did not correlate significantly for the List and Card groups. Paradoxically, a negative correlation was observed between the PC group's study time and their post-test scores. The lack of meaningful relationships between the study time and subsequent retention may be partially due to the limited ability of certain learners to learn effectively while using certain materials. A questionnaire given to the participants found that, in general, computers were evaluated more favorably than lists or cards. At the same time, however, learners exhibited large variations in their evaluation of computers, implying the importance of considering individual differences when introducing CALL to learners. In summary, the study has demonstrated the superiority of computers over lists, the limited advantage of word cards over lists, and no statistically significant difference between computers and cards. The findings are significant because although the advantages of cards or computers have been advocated, no study has ever tested such claims empirically.