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¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (3 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i1–i2
Currency · newest study 2013 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 3 of 3 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 A significant interaction between presentation order (interleaved vs. blocked) and presentation mode (contiguous vs. spaced) was obtained. → Monica S. Birnbaum 2013 q3 i2 With contiguous presentation, interleaving was superior to blocking (d = 0.678); with spaced presentation, interleaving did not differ significantly from blocking. → Monica S. Birnbaum 2013 (2) q3 i1 Spacing was beneficial for blocked presentation (d = .379), contrary to Kang and Pashler's prior null finding. → Monica S. Birnbaum 2013 (3)

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 2: a 2×2 mixed ANOVA with 114 UCLA undergraduates studying 16 butterfly species (order within participants, mode between), in which spacing was created by inserting trivia questions between successive exemplars. The omnibus interaction was significant, "F(1, 112) 0 10.909, p< .01", with effect size η²p = .089, plus a main advantage of interleaving, F(1, 112) = 12.34, p < .001.

"a significant interaction between presentation order (interleaved vs. blocked) and presentation mode (contiguous vs. spaced) was also obtained, F(1, 112) 0 10.909, p< .01, η2 p ¼ :089"

Monica S. Birnbaum 2013 (2)¶

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

Planned comparison in the contiguous condition of the same 2×2 mixed experiment: interleaved means .36 vs. blocked .21, "t(56) 0 4.794, p< .0001", effect size d = 0.678. In the spaced condition the means (.29 vs. .28) did not differ significantly.

"in the absence of spacing, the induction learning produced by interleaving was superior to that produced by blocking,t(56) 0 4.794, p< .0001, d 0 0.678"

Monica S. Birnbaum 2013 (3)¶

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 · i1 · causal · r2

Planned comparison within the blocked condition of the same experiment showed spacing helped, "t(112) 0 2.018, p< .05", effect size d = .379, whereas Kang and Pashler (2012) had found no significant effect of spacing during blocked learning. The subadditivity holds for spacing made with trivia questions, which broke the juxtaposition of categories. In Experiment 3 of the same paper (53 undergraduates), all exemplars were interleaved and spacing was varied by lag instead (3 vs. 15 intervening exemplars of other species, juxtaposition held constant); larger spacing improved induction (M = .42 vs. .29, t(51) = 2.74, p = .008, d = 0.752), so spacing can benefit interleaved learning when it does not disrupt between-category juxtaposition.

"A planned comparison of performance in the spaced versus contiguous conditions, limited to only the blocked condition, showed that spacing was beneficial for this type of presentation, t(112) 0 2.018, p< .05, d 0 .379"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

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

Related Claims¶

• Spaced Practice Improves Retention — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• Inserting trivia questions between interleaved exemplars impairs inductive learning when it disrupts juxtaposition of categories, with total spacing held constant — related
• When exemplars are already interleaved, larger temporal spacing between same-category exemplars yields better inductive learning than smaller spacing — reports the opposite
• Learners overwhelmingly judge blocking more effective than interleaving even when their test performance favors interleaving — related
• The interleaving benefit is not caused by spacing, and the benefit extends to delayed tests — related
• The discriminative-contrast hypothesis treats spacing and interleaving as distinct effects, with interleaving benefits more likely for similar than dissimilar interleaved tasks — related
• Interleaving is more effective for materials with a low degree of discriminability — related