No abstract

Ten possible sources of individual and developmental differences in memory span-rehearsal, grouping, chunking, retrieval strategies, item identification, item ordering, capacity, susceptibility to interference, search rate, and the ouput buffer-arc examined, drawing on existing research, Considerable evidence suggests that the speed with which presented items can be identified is a major source of both individual and developmental differences in span, By contrast, there is no conclusive evidence that any of the other possibilities examined, including those traditionally associated with span differences (rehearsal, grouping, chunking, and overall information-processing capacity) contributes to variations in span. Speed of item identification differences are discussed in terms of processing efficiency or the capacity needed to activate appropriate perceptual/ cognitive units and linguistic programs. Educational implications and the modifiability of processing efficiency are discussed.I thank Robbie Case, Arthur R. Jensen, Frederick E. Kirschner, and William D. Rohwer, Jr., for their encouragement and valuable comments on earlier versions of the article.Requests for reprints should be sent to Frank N.

The spacing effect would appear to have considerable potential for improving classroom learning, yet there is no evidence of its widespread application. I consider nine possible impediments to the implementation of research findings in the classroom in an effort to determine which, if any, apply to the spacing effect. I conclude that the apparent absence of systematic application may be due, in part, to the ahistorical character of research on the spacing effect and certain gaps in our understanding of both the spacing effect and classroom practice. However, because none of these concerns seems especially discouraging, and in view of what we do know about the spacing effect, classroom application is recommended.

No abstract

No abstract