All 48 reviewed spacing studies obtained the spacing effect using rest-from-deliberate-learning periods¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In a systematic review, all 48 studies classified as spacing studies obtained the spacing effect and used rest-from-deliberate-learning periods ranging from 30 s to days or months. → Ouhao Chen & Fred Paas & John Sweller 2021

Evidence¶

Ouhao Chen & Fred Paas & John Sweller 2021¶

Ouhao Chen & Fred Paas & John Sweller. (2021). Spacing and Interleaving Effects Require Distinct Theoretical Bases: a Systematic Review Testing the Cognitive Load and Discriminative-Contrast Hypotheses. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09613-w

q2 · i? · review · r2

Systematic review analysis of 48 studies coded as spacing studies, all of which included rest-from-deliberate-learning. The review reports that "All of the 48 spaced practice studies (see Table1) obtained the spacing effect" with rest periods from 30 s to days. Effect sizes in Table 1 ranged widely, e.g. d = .26 to 2.98.

"All of the 48 spaced practice studies (see Table1) obtained the spacing effect and used a rest-from-deliberate-learning period either by distributing learning sessions across multiple days or months or by inserting rest-from-deliberate-learning activities between learning sessions for 30 s to hours or days."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Distributed practice benefits L2 learning, and one review argues that spreading it over years can be worse than over months — related
• The discriminative-contrast hypothesis treats spacing and interleaving as distinct effects, with interleaving benefits more likely for similar than dissimilar interleaved tasks — related
• Five null studies with spacing but no rest and dissimilar materials showed neither spacing nor interleaving effects — related