As a primary goal, educators often strive to maximize the amount of information pupils remember. In the lab, psychologists have found efficient memory strategies for retaining school-related materials. One such strategy is the spacing effect, a memory advantage that occurs when learning is distributed across time instead of crammed into a single study session. Spaced learning is not often explicitly utilized in actual classrooms, perhaps due to a paucity of research in applied settings and with school-aged children. The current study examined the spacing effect in real-world fifth-grade classrooms. We taught 39 children unfamiliar English words using both massed and spaced learning. Five weeks later, we tested vocabulary recall. One-week spacing produced superior long-term retention compared to massed learning. This finding demonstrates that the spacing effect can be generalized to vocabulary learning in applied settings and middle-school-aged children.

No abstract

In laboratory and applied learning experiments, researchers have extensively investigated the optimal distribution of two learning sessions (i.e., initial learning and one relearning session) for the learning of verbatim materials. However, research has not yet provided a satisfying and conclusive answer to the optimal scheduling of three learning sessions (i.e., initial learning and two relearning sessions) across educationally relevant time intervals. Should the to-be-learned material be repeated at decreasing intervals (contracting schedule), constant intervals (equal schedule), or increasing intervals (expanding schedule) between learning sessions? Different theories and memory models (e.g., study-phase retrieval theory, contextual variability theory, ACT-R, and the Multiscale Context Model) make distinct predictions about the optimal learning schedule. We discuss the extant theories and derive clear predictions from each of them. To test these predictions empirically, we conducted an experiment in which participants studied and restudied paired associates with a contracting, equal, or expanding learning schedule. Memory performance was assessed immediately, 1 day, 7 days, or 35 days later with free- and cued-recall tests. Our results revealed that the optimal learning schedule is conditional on the length of the retention interval: A contracting learning schedule was beneficial for retention intervals up to 7 days, but both equal and expanding learning schedules were better for a long retention interval of 35 days. Our findings can be accommodated best by the contextual variability theory and indicate that revisions are needed to existing memory models. Our results are practically relevant, and their implications for real-world learning are discussed.

The susceptibility of decision-makers’ choices to variations in option framing has been attributed to individual differences in cognitive style. According to this view, individuals who are prone to a more deliberate, or less intuitive, thinking style are less susceptible to framing manipulations. Research findings on the topic, however, have tended to yield small effects, with several studies also being limited in inferential value by methodological drawbacks. We report two experiments that examined the value of several cognitive-style variables, including measures of cognitive reflection, subjective numeracy, actively open-minded thinking, need for cognition, and hemispheric dominance, in predicting participants’ frame-consistent choices. Our experiments used an isomorph of the Asian Disease Problem and we manipulated frames between participants. We controlled for participants’ sex and age, and we manipulated the order in which choice options were presented to participants. In Experiment 1 (N = 190) using an undergraduate sample and in Experiment 2 (N = 316) using a sample of Amazon Mechanical Turk workers, we found no significant effect of any of the cognitive-style measures taken on predicting frame-consistent choice, regardless of whether we analyzed participants’ binary choices or their choices weighted by the extent to which participants preferred their chosen option over the non-chosen option. The sole factor that significantly predicted frame-consistent choice was framing: in both experiments, participants were more likely to make frame-consistent choices when the frame was positive than when it was negative, consistent with the tendency toward risk aversion in the task. The present findings do not support the view that individual differences in people’s susceptibility to framing manipulations can be substantially accounted for by individual differences in cognitive style.

Whether you are an educator or a student, effective time management is critical to achieving success in the formal education system. For educators, the expectation is that a significant amount of curriculum can be covered in a condensed period of time. The goal is to maximize the amount of learning that takes place in the classroom so that students are prepared for the grade level or course that will follow. For students, the expectation is that a range of subject materials will be studied and tested in a short amount of time. This system of learning prioritizes the quantity of knowledge conveyed to students over the quality of students' learningthat is, long-lasting comprehension and retention of the material. In preparation for an upcoming test or exam, teachers and students must decide what material to review and when and how to review it. To maximize the use of limited learning time, it is important to identify learning strategies that will be not only effective but also efficient tools for promoting long-term retention of classroom materials.The field of cognitive psychology offers a wealth of insight on how to enhance knowledge retention. Particularly, researchers have consistently shown the benefit of repetition or reviewing of newly learned information on long-term memory. As explained in the writings of memory researcher Ebbinghaus (1885/1964), "with any considerable number of repetitions a suitable distribution of them over a space of time is decidedly more advantageous than the massing of them at a single time" (p. 89). This phenomenon is called the distributed practice effect or spacing effect, and it refers to the finding that when reviewing previously learned material, distributing or "spacing" a set amount of study time across sessions leads to better memory performance in the long run than "massing" or cramming the same amount of study time into a single session. A typical research design for investigating the spacing effect consists of two study events and one test event. During the first study event, new material is introduced and learned (sometimes to a criterion); during the second study event, the same material is reviewed; and during the test event, the material is tested (Figure 22.1). The time interval between the first and second study events is referred to as the interstudy interval; it can be short/ massed (e.g., immediate or a few seconds later) or long/spaced (e.g., minutes, hours, or days later). The time interval between the last study event and the test event is referred to as the retention interval; it can also be short (e.g., an immediate test or a test in 5 minutes) or long (e.g., a test a month or year away). Therefore, the distributed practice effect can be studied in both single-session experiments as well as multiday experiments. 550