Promote spaced practice for mathematics learning, and design future studies to control whether learners must retrieve during practice¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 8 claims (8 for) · 11 studies (7 quant-synthesis, 3 causal, 1 review), q3–q4 · 7 of 11 report an effect size · 6 claims rest on one study

Description¶

Based on the robust spacing findings, the article concludes "there is sufficient evidence to promote the use of spacing for mathematics learning as a means to improve mathematics learning". For research design, it recommends that future studies "control, or directly vary, whether participants have to retrieve the information during practice or have it available to them", and that course-based studies structure questions so interleaving can be separated from spacing. It also calls for more testing-effect studies using best practices rather than pushing the effect to find boundary conditions.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Course-based implementations should structure practice questions so that whether retrieval was required, and the order of practice, can be extracted or manipulated.

Constraints¶

• The article states there is insufficient evidence to answer whether retrieval practice is effective for mathematics learning or how spacing and testing interact; benefits of testing may only appear after a delay of at least one day.

Target Learners¶

• Mathematics learners across primary, secondary and university settings

Target Learning Goals¶

• Retention of mathematics material on delayed tests

Claims¶

• When spacing is embedded into a course, spaced practice retains a robust but numerically smaller effect (g = 0.24) than for isolated material. [+M]
• Spaced practice produces a robust small-to-medium retention advantage over massed practice for mathematics learning overall (g = 0.26). [+M]
• For isolated mathematics material, spaced practice shows a larger but less precise effect (g = 0.38) than the overall spacing effect. [+M]
• Spaced Practice Improves Retention [+S]
• Retrieval interval length may moderate the testing effect in mathematics: restricting to intervals over one day raises the effect to g = 0.378 (exploratory). [+W]
• The testing effect for mathematics learning (testing versus restudy, g = 0.22) is not robust, as its 95% confidence interval crosses zero. [+W]
• Retrieval practice improves long-term retention [+S]
• Testing benefits retention over a conservative restudy control, establishing the testing effect as robust [+M]

Related Strategies¶

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• 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/