Advertisement

Why does interleaving improve math learning? The contributions of discriminative contrast and distributed practice

  • Nathaniel L. FosterEmail author
  • Michael L. Mueller
  • Christopher Was
  • Katherine A. Rawson
  • John Dunlosky
Article
  • 56 Downloads

Abstract

Interleaved practice involves studying exemplars from different categories in a non-systematic, pseudorandom order under the constraint that no two exemplars from the same category are presented consecutively. Interleaved practice of materials has been shown to enhance test performance compared to blocked practice in which exemplars from the same category are studied together. Why does interleaved practice produce this benefit? We evaluated two non-mutually exclusive hypotheses, the discriminative-contrast hypothesis and the distributed-practice hypothesis, by testing participants’ performance on calculating the volume of three-dimensional geometric shapes. In Experiment 1, participants repeatedly practiced calculating the volume of four different-sized shapes according to blocked practice, interleaved practice, or remote-interleaved practice (which involved alternating the practice of volume calculation with non-volume problems, like permutations and fraction addition). Standard interleaving enhanced performance compared to blocked practice but did not produce enhanced performance compared to remote interleaving. In Experiment 2, we replicated this pattern and extended the results to include a remote-blocked group, which involved blocking volume calculation with non-volume problems. Performance on key measures was better for remote-interleaved groups compared to remote-blocked groups, a finding that supports the distributed-practice hypothesis.

Keywords

Interleaved practice Distributed practice effect Math learning Practice schedules 

Notes

References

  1. Benjamin, A. S., & Tullis, J. (2010). What makes distributed practice effective? Cognitive Psychology, 61(3), 228–247.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Birnbaum, M. S., Kornell, N., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2013). Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval. Memory & Cognition, 41, 392–402.Google Scholar
  3. Carvalho, P. F., & Goldstone, R. L. (2014). Putting category learning in order: Category structure and temporal arrangement affect the benefit of interleaved over blocked study. Memory & Cognition, 42, 481–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carvalho, P. F., & Goldstone, R. L. (2015). What you learn is more than what you see: What can sequencing effects tell us about inductive category learning? Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 505.Google Scholar
  5. Carvalho, P. F., & Goldstone, R. L. (2019). When does interleaving practice improve learning? In J. Dunlosky & K. A. Rawson (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Cognition and Education (pp. 411–436). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354–380.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Donovan, J. J., & Radosevich, D. J. (1999). A meta-analytic review of the distribution of practice effect: Now you see it, now you don't. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 308–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14, 4–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research and Methods, 39, 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hintzman, D. (1974). Theoretical implications of the spacing effect. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Theories in cognitive psychology: The Loyola Symposium (pp. 77–99). Potomac, MD: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Hintzman, D. L., Summers, J. J., & Block, R. A. (1975). Spacing judgments as an index of study-phase retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 104, 31–40.Google Scholar
  12. Jacoby, L. L. (1978). On interpreting the effects of repetition: Solving a problem versus remembering a solution. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 649–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Janiszewski, C., Noel, H., & Sawyer, A. G. (2003). A meta-analysis of the spacing effect in verbal learning: Implications for research on advertising repetition and consumer memory. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 138–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jarosz, A. F., & Wiley, J. (2014). What are the odds? A practical guide to computing and reporting Bayes factors. Journal of Problem Solving, 7, 2–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability (3rd Ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kang, S. H. K., & Pashler, H. (2012). Learning painting styles: Spacing is advantageous when it promotes discriminative contrast. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 97–103.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Learning concepts and categories is spacing the “Enemy of Induction”? Psychological Science, 19, 585–592.Google Scholar
  18. Kornell, N., Castel, A. D., Eich, T., & Bjork, R. A. (2010). Spacing as the friend of both memory and induction in young and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 25, 498-503.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Love, J., Selker, R., Verhagen, J., Marsman, M., Gronau, Q. F., Jamil, T., Smira, M., Epskamp, S., Wild, A., Morey, R., Rouder, J. & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2015). JASP (Version 0.6)[Computer software].Google Scholar
  20. Mitchell, C., Nash, S., & Hall, G. (2008). The intermixed–blocked effect in human perceptual learning is not the consequence of trial spacing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 237–242.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Morey, R. D. & Rouder, J. N. (2015). BayesFactor (Version 0.9.10-2)[Computer software].Google Scholar
  22. Rafferty, A. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rohrer, D. (2012). Interleaving helps students distinguish among similar concepts. Educational Psychological Review, 24(3), 355–367.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9201-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rohrer, D., Dedrick, R.F., & Burgess, K. (2014). The benefit of interleaved mathematics practice is not limited to superficially similar kinds of problems. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 1323–1330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rohrer, D., Dedrick, R.F., & Stershic, S. (2015). Interleaved practice improves mathematics learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 21, 1323–1330.Google Scholar
  26. Rohrer, D., & Taylor, K. (2007). The shuffling of mathematics practice problems boosts learning. Instructional Science, 35, 481–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rouder, J. N., Morey, R. D., Speckman, P. L., Province, J. M. (2012). Default Bayes factors for ANOVA designs. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 56, 356–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sana, F., Yan, V. X., & Kim, J. A. (2017). Study sequence matters for the inductive learning of cognitive concepts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109, 84–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schutte, G. M., Duhon, G. J., Solomon, B. G., Poncy, B. C., Moore, K., & Story, B. (2015). A comparative analysis of massed vs. distributed practice on basic math fact fluency growth rates. Journal of School Psychology, 53, 149–159.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Taylor, K., & Rohrer, D. (2010). The effects of interleaved practice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 837–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wahlheim, C. N., Dunlosky, J., & Jacoby, L. L. (2011). Spacing enhances the learning of natural concepts: An investigation of mechanisms, metacognition, and aging. Memory & Cognition, 39, 750–763.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-010-0063-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Watkins, O. C., & Watkins, M. J. (1975). Buildup of proactive inhibition as a cue-overload effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 104, 442–452.Google Scholar
  33. Wulf, G., & Shea, C. H. (2002). Principles derived from the study of simple skills do not generalize to complex skill learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 185–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zulkiply, N. & Burt, J. S. (2013). The exemplar interleaving effect in inductive learning: Moderation by the difficulty of category discriminations. Memory & Cognition, 41, 16–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nathaniel L. Foster
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michael L. Mueller
    • 2
  • Christopher Was
    • 2
  • Katherine A. Rawson
    • 2
  • John Dunlosky
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologySt. Mary’s College of MarylandSt. Mary’s CityUSA
  2. 2.Kent State UniversityKentUSA

Personalised recommendations