Spacing Effects in Learning

Abstract

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. In a study aimed at characterizing spacing effects over significant durations, more than 1,350 individuals were taught a set of facts and--after a gap of up to 3.5 months--given a review. A final test was administered at a further delay of up to 1 year. At any given test delay, an increase in the interstudy gap at first increased, and then gradually reduced, final test performance. The optimal gap increased as test delay increased. However, when measured as a proportion of test delay, the optimal gap declined from about 20 to 40% of a 1-week test delay to about 5 to 10% of a 1-year test delay. The interaction of gap and test delay implies that many educational practices are highly inefficient.

Practice and Repetition during Exam Preparation in Blended Learning Courses: Correlations with Learning Results

“…Thalheimer (2006) reviews research on spacing effects and related learning factors and finds, among other things, that repetition is effective for learning, spaced repetition is generally more efficient than non-spaced repetition and spacing is beneficial for long-time retention. Similar findings are reported by Cepeda et al (2008) and Vlach and Sandhofer (2012).…”

“…Another large body of research reports on positive correlations between spacing effects and learning (Cepeda, Vul, Rohrer, Wixted, & Pashler, 2008;Dunlosky et al, 2013;Thalheimer, 2006;Vlach & Sandhofer, 2012;Wells & Hagman, 1989). Thalheimer (2006) reviews research on spacing effects and related learning factors and finds, among other things, that repetition is effective for learning, spaced repetition is generally more efficient than non-spaced repetition and spacing is beneficial for long-time retention.…”

Fragile associations coexist with robust memories for precise details in long-term memory.

“…Many studies have shown that different training manipulations, such as spacing presentations (see Cepeda, Vul, Rohrer, Wixted, & Pashler 2008, for a review), review through testing rather than restudy (Bjork & Bjork, 1992;Roediger & Karpicke, 2006) and allowing self-directed learning (Markant & Gureckis, 2014) can aid the formation and long-term survival of memories. Asking how these different training techniques affect the sources of people's error may help reveal the mechanisms that these techniques rely upon and the associative limitations of long-term memory.…”

Distributed Practice and Retrieval Practice in Primary School Vocabulary Learning: A Multi‐classroom Study

“…Further applied research into the conditions under which these two memory strategies are beneficial is needed. For example, we need to know more about the relation between lag and retention interval (e.g., Cepeda et al, 2006;Cepeda et al, 2008; and about the number of retrieval practice exercises needed. Also, it is important to investigate whether the effects are dependent on the kind of words being learned in the classroom, and the children's prior knowledge of these words.…”

“…Perhaps, the retention interval of the cuedrecall test (1 to 3 days) suited the short-lag condition (also 1 to 3 days) better than the long-lag condition (1 to 6 days). It has been shown that the optimal lag between learning sessions is dependent on the retention interval (e.g., Cepeda, Vul, Rohrer, Wixted, & Pashler, 2008;Cepeda et al, 2006;. When the retention interval increases, the optimal lag between learning sessions increases as well.…”