The spacing effect in the free recall of homogeneous lists: Present and accounted for

Toppino, Thomas C.; Hara, Yoko; Hackman, Jessica

doi:10.3758/bf03194961

Cited by 29 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, according to the study-phase retrieval point of view, context variation is expected to have no effect on free recall of massed repetitions, because the first presentation is expected still to be in the short-term buffer at its second occurrence, and therefore it is not retrieved from long-term store. Empirical support for the study-phase retrieval account has been demonstrated in several studies (e.g., Braun & Rubin, 1998;Johnston & Uhl, 1976;Thios & D'Agostino, 1976;Toppino & Bloom, 2002;Toppino, Hara, & Hackman, 2002).…”

mentioning

confidence: 83%

Detrimental Influence of Contextual Change on Spacing Effects in Free Recall.

Verkoeijen

Rikers

Schmidt

2004

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments were conducted to determine the mechanism underlying the spacing effect in free-recall tasks. Participants were required to study a list containing once-presented words as well as massed and spaced repetitions. In both experiments, presentation background at repetition was manipulated. The results of Experiment 1 demonstrated that free recall was higher for massed items repeated in a different context than for massed items repeated in the same context, whereas free recall for spaced items was higher when repeated in the same context. Furthermore, a spacing effect was shown for words repeated in the same context, whereas an attenuated spacing effect was revealed for words repeated in a different context. These findings were replicated in Experiment 2 under a different presentation background manipulation. Both experiments seem to be most consistent with a model that combines the contextual variability and the study-phase retrieval mechanism to account for the spacing effect in free-recall tasks.The term spacing effect refers to the phenomenon that repeated items induce better recollection if both occurrences are separated by time or other targets (i.e., spaced presentation), compared with a situation in which repetitions occur in immediate succession (i.e., massed presentation). Although the spacing effect has been demonstrated in a vast number of studies (e.g

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 83%

Detrimental Influence of Contextual Change on Spacing Effects in Free Recall.

Verkoeijen

Rikers

Schmidt

2004

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The pattern of results in these two studies resembles those emerging from the spacing effect. In general, the spacing effect refers to the improvement of memory performance when study repetitions are ''spaced'' (separated by time or other events) rather than ''massed'' (in immediate succession) (e.g., Greene 1989;Toppino et al 2002). In the SP study, students followed a spaced mode of study (they logged in the system several times throughout the week and the post-test followed on the last day).…”

Section: Student Performance Analysismentioning

confidence: 98%

Prompting students’ context-generating cognitive activity in ill-structured domains: does the prompting mode affect learning?

Papadopoulos

Demetriadis

Stamelos

et al. 2008

Education Tech Research Dev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was designed to investigate the impact of question prompts that guide students to focus on context-related issues when learning through cases in an illstructured domain. Three groups of undergraduate students studied cases during a labsession time period using a web-based environment. The first group studied without any question prompts. The second group studied the same material while prompted to provide written answers to embedded questions in the cases. The third group studied while having only to think of possible answers for the question prompts. In this study, we explored how the questioning intervention affected students' conceptual knowledge of the domain and their problem-solving ability. Post-tests did not reveal significant statistical differences in the groups' performance, indicating that under specific study conditions the prompting impact is not traceable in the learning outcomes. This result, however, is discussed in the light of a previous study, which showed that this context-oriented prompting method had a beneficial effect on student learning in a prolonged study-time setting, where students were able to self-regulate their study activity.Keywords Question prompts Á Case-based learning Á Learning in ill-structured domains Á Learning in context Á Technology-enhanced learning This study was designed to investigate the potential of question prompts to facilitate students' processing of complex contextual information presented in cases in an illstructured domain, where contextual issues play a crucial role. The effectiveness of questioning strategies to support learning has been highlighted in several situations. In reviewing the literature, Ge (2001) concludes that scaffolding strategies, such as coaching through prompts (e.g., King 1992;Scardamalia et al. 1984) and guiding students to selfgenerate questions (e.g., King 1991;Rosenshine et al. 1996), may promote comprehension, monitor cognitive thinking, and facilitate general problem solving and reflective thinking. P. M. Papadopoulos (&) Á S. N. Demetriadis Á I. G. Stamelos Á I. A. Tsoukalas

show abstract

“…The spacing effect is extremely robust and occurs with a variety of testing procedures, materials, and participant populations (for recent reviews, see Dempster, 1996;Greene, 1989;Raaijmakers, 2003). In fact, the effect is so robust that some researchers have even argued that failures to find spacing effects may be theoretically informative because of the phenomenonÕs resistance to experimental manipulation (e.g., Challis, 1993;Greene, 1989;Hintzman, 1974;Russo, Mammarella, & Avons, 2002;Toppino, Hara, & Hackman, 2002).…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%