When spacing is embedded into a course, spaced practice retains a robust but numerically smaller effect (g = 0.24) than for isolated material.¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 In the 17-study course-embedded subset (26 effect sizes), spaced versus massed practice yields g = 0.24 with a confidence interval excluding zero; the difference from the isolated subset is not significant (β=0.136, SE=0.120, p=.148). → Murray 2023

Evidence¶

Murray 2023¶

Murray, E., Horner, A. J., & Göbel, S. M. (2023). A Meta-analytic Review of the Effectiveness of Spacing and Retrieval Practice for Mathematics Learning. https://osf.io/

q3 · i1 · quant-synthesis · r3

Meta-analysis of the course-embedded subset (17 studies, 26 effect sizes), mostly classroom or homework settings in the USA. The weighted mean was "g = 0.24 (se 0.038)"; removal of no single study dropped the lower confidence limit below zero.

"The overall weighted mean effect size of spaced versus massed practice for cumulative material is g = 0.24 (se 0.038) (95% confidence interval [0.155, 0.324])."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• For isolated mathematics material, spaced practice shows a larger but less precise effect (g = 0.38) than the overall spacing effect. — related
• Publication-bias evidence differs by subset: significant funnel-plot asymmetry for course-embedded spacing studies but no strong evidence of bias for isolated-material studies. — related
• Spaced practice produces a robust small-to-medium retention advantage over massed practice for mathematics learning overall (g = 0.26). — a broader claim this one bears on