When exemplars are already interleaved, larger temporal spacing between same-category exemplars yields better inductive learning than smaller spacing¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2013 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i2 The large-spacing condition (lag of 15 other-species exemplars) outperformed the small-spacing condition (lag of 3), d = 0.752, with juxtaposition held constant. → Monica S. Birnbaum 2013

Evidence¶

Monica S. Birnbaum 2013¶

Monica S. Birnbaum, Nate Kornell, Elizabeth Ligon Bjork, & Robert A. Bjork. (2013). Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval. Memory & Cognition, 41, 392–402. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012-0272-7

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

Experiment with 53 UCLA undergraduates studying 16 butterfly species, all interleaved, varying only lag (3 vs. 15 intervening exemplars) while holding juxtaposition, time on task, and time until test constant. "t(51) 0 2.74, p 0 .008", effect size d = 0.752, favored large spacing.

"the participants in the large-spacing condition performed significantly better ( M 0 .42, SD 0 .198) than those in the small-spacing condition ( M 0 .29, SD 0 .125), t(51) 0 2.74, p 0 .008, d 0 0.752"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

Time and Continuity — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it

Inserting trivia questions between interleaved exemplars impairs inductive learning when it disrupts juxtaposition of categories, with total spacing held constant — related
When trivia questions space out exemplars, spacing and interleaving are subadditive: interleaving beats blocking only with contiguous presentation, and spacing helps blocked but not interleaved study — reports the opposite
Spaced Practice Improves Retention — a broader claim this one bears on
Learners Misjudge Spacing Benefits — related
Learners overwhelmingly judge blocking more effective than interleaving even when their test performance favors interleaving — related
The most effective intervention types provided counterstereotypical exemplar experience, evaluative conditioning, or strategies to override biases — related
The interleaving benefit is not caused by spacing, and the benefit extends to delayed tests — related
Verbal learning tasks with intervals filled with other to-be-learned items test the discriminative-contrast hypothesis rather than the spacing effect — related
Interleaving is more effective for materials with a low degree of discriminability — related
Interleaved practice yields better category learning than blocked practice, and students who choose interleaved practice outperform those who choose blocked practice on novel materials — related

Page metadata

Field	Value
`type`	`claim`
`id`	`larger-spacing-better-interleaved-induction`
`title`	`When exemplars are already interleaved, larger temporal spacing between same-category exemplars yields better inductive learning than smaller spacing`
`description`	`When exemplars are already interleaved, larger temporal spacing between same-category exemplars yields better inductive learning than smaller spacing`
`status`	`review`
`evidence_strength`	`moderate`
`newest_evidence`	`2013`
`source_checked`	`2026-10-20`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-10-15`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
`sources`	1 — `monica-s-birnbaum-2013`

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.