Distributed Learning in the Classroom: Effects of Rereading Schedules Depend on Time of Test

Abstract

Research with adults in laboratory settings has shown that distributed rereading is a beneficial learning strategy but its effects depend on time of test. When learning outcomes are measured immediately after rereading, distributed rereading yields no benefits or even detrimental effects on learning, but the beneficial effects emerge two days later. In a preregistered experiment, the effects of distributed rereading were investigated in a classroom setting with school students. Seventh-graders (N = 191) reread a text either immediately or after 1 week. Learning outcomes were measured after 4 min or 1 week. Participants in the distributed rereading condition reread the text more slowly, predicted their learning success to be lower, and reported a lower on-task focus. At the shorter retention interval, massed rereading outperformed distributed rereading in terms of learning outcomes. Contrary to students in the massed condition, students in the distributed condition showed no forgetting from the short to the long retention interval. As a result, they performed equally well as the students in the massed condition at the longer retention interval. Our results indicate that distributed rereading makes learning more demanding and difficult and leads to higher effort during rereading. Its effects on learning depend on time of test, but no beneficial effects were found, not even at the delayed test.

When study capacities are limited and deadline is fixed—How practice type and practice timing influence recall of practiced and unpracticed material.

“…Pyc et al (2014, Experiment 4) compared the effects of restudy and retrieval practice plus feedback after a 10-min and a 24-hr lag, and, 7 days after practice, found a higher benefit of retrieval practice over restudy after the long lag, which is consistent with the present results. Using nonselective restudy as practice type, both Rawson (2012) and Greving and Richter (2019) found a numerical superiority of late over early practice for retention intervals of 48 hr and 1 week, which also fits with the present results. In contrast, the results of at least one study disagree with the present findings.…”

“…The final test took place 1 week after practice and showed a higher benefit of retrieval practice over restudy after lagged than after immediate practice. For restudy as practice type, a numerical superiority of late over early practice of prose material was observed for retention intervals of both 48 hr (Rawson, 2012) and 1 week (Greving & Richter, 2019). 1…”

The ‘Teacher Research Group’ as a collaborative model of professional learning

“…That said, the pupils mainly experienced success, with even the weaker pupils often scoring over six out of ten when tackling more challenging content. This promoted confidence and was consistent with Greving and Richter (2019) claim that low stakes tests, as a form of spaced practice, lead to better long-term retention of material than massed practice where the material is studied more intensively but less frequently.…”

Beyond the Distributed Practice Effect: Is Distributed Learning Also Effective for Learning With Non-repeated Text Materials?

“…However, in school contexts, even distributed practice might fail to benefit learning, for example due to a noisier learning environment (Goossens et al, 2016). A recent study that investigated the effects of rereading schedules in the same age groups arrived at conclusions very similar to those of the present study (Greving and Richter, 2019). In this study, seventh graders read a text about a bacterial cell twice.…”