For isolated mathematics material, spaced practice shows a larger but less precise effect (g = 0.38) than the overall spacing effect.¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 In the 8-study isolated-material subset (23 effect sizes), spaced versus massed practice yields g = 0.384, with a confidence interval whose lower limit is close to zero. → 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 · r2

Meta-analysis of the isolated-material subset (8 studies, 23 effect sizes) under controlled conditions. The weighted mean was "g = 0.384 (se = 0.123)"; difference-in-fit analyses showed two influential studies but confidence intervals remained above zero when either was removed.

"The overall weighted mean effect size of spaced versus massed practice for isolated material is g = 0.384 (se = 0.123) (95% confidence interval [0.085, 0.683])."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

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