Spacing and Interleaving Effects Require Distinct Theoretical Bases: a Systematic Review Testing the Cognitive Load and Discriminative-Contrast Hypotheses

Abstract

Spaced and interleaved practices have been identified as effective learning strategies which sometimes are conflated as a single strategy and at other times treated as distinct. Learning sessions in which studying information or practicing problems are spaced in time with rest-from-deliberate-learning periods between sessions generally result in better learning outcomes than massed practice without rest-from-deliberate-learning periods. Interleaved practice also consists of spaced sessions, but by interleaving topics rather than having rest-from-deliberate-learning periods. Interleaving is usually contrasted with blocking in which each learning topic is taught in a single block that provides an example of massed practice. The general finding that interleaved practice is more effective for learning than blocked practice is sometimes attributed to spacing. In the current paper, the presence of rest-from-deliberate-learning periods is used to distinguish between spaced and interleaved practice. We suggest that spaced practice is a cognitive load effect that can be explained by working memory resource depletion during cognitive effort with recovery during rest-from-deliberate-learning, while interleaved practice can be explained by the discriminative-contrast hypothesis positing that interleaving assists learners to discriminate between topic areas. A systematic review of the literature provides evidence for this suggestion.

Children’s Evolved Learning Abilities and Their Implications for Education

“…There are likely several reasons for the generally positive effects of recess and physical activity on children's academic performance (see Chen et al, 2021;Pellegrini & Bjorklund, 1997). For example, recess, or simply breaks between rigorous academic tasks, serves to distribute practice on a topic, which has repeatedly been shown to enhance learning (e.g., Chen et al, 2018).…”

Subtraktionsstrategien verschachtelt oder geblockt lernen?

“…Während beim geblockten Lernen (blocked practice) Lerninhalte nacheinander thematisiert werden (aaabbbcccddd), werden diese beim verschachtelten Lernen (interleaved practice) abwechselnd behandelt (abcdabcdabcd). Das Verschachteln der Lerninhalte geht mit kognitiv anspruchsvollen Diskriminations-und Vergleichsprozessen einher, weshalb es auch als wünschenswerte Erschwernis beim Lernen (Bjork & Bjork, 2011;Carvalho & Goldstone, 2015;Chen et al, 2021;Dunlosky et al, 2013) und damit als Strategie zur kognitiven Aktivierung von Lernenden begriffen werden kann (Lipowsky et al, 2019). Durch die Diskriminations-und Vergleichsprozesse kann der Erwerb nicht nur prozeduralen, sondern auch konditionalen Wissens unterstützt werden (Birnbaum et al, 2013;Brunmair & Richter, 2019;Ziegler & Stern, 2014).…”

“…Im Gegensatz zum geblockten Lernen (blocked practice), bei dem einzelne Lerninhalte eines Themengebiets nacheinander behandelt werden, werden diese beim verschachtelten Lernen durchmischt unterrichtet. Hierdurch können lernförderliche Diskriminationsprozesse ausgelöst werden, die die Lernenden dabei unterstützen, die zu lernenden Inhalte zu unterscheiden (Carvalho & Goldstone, 2015;Chen et al, 2021). Im Kontext von halbschriftlichen Subtraktionsstrategien und der schriftlichen Subtraktion konnten bisherige Ergebnisse des vorliegenden LIMIT-Projekts 1 zeigen, dass das verschachtelte Lernen die flexible, adaptive und korrekte Anwendung von Subtraktionsstrategien besser als ein geblocktes Vorgehen fördern kann (Nemeth et al, 2019(Nemeth et al, , 2021.…”

Reply to Sana et al.’s (2022) Commentary on Rest-from-Deliberate-Learning as a Mechanism for the Spacing Effect

“…have provided a useful critique of Chen et al (2021) paper in which we suggested the possibility that resting from cognitive activity can allow working memory recovery and so provide an explanation of the spacing effect while the discriminative-contrast hypothesis can provide an explanation of the interleaving effect. Before addressing the specific criticisms of Sana et al, we would like to indicate the general goals of our 2021 paper.…”