Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Distributed Learning: Data, Metacognition, and Educational Implications

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A major decision that must be made during study pertains to the distribution, or the scheduling, of study. In this paper, we review the literature on the benefits of spacing, or spreading one's study sessions relatively far apart in time, as compared to massing, where study is crammed into one long session without breaks. The results from laboratory research provide strong evidence for this pervasive “spacing effect,” especially for long-term retention. The metacognitive literature on spacing, however, suggests that massing is the preferred strategy, particularly in young children. Reasons for why this is so are discussed as well as a few recommendations regarding how spacing strategies might be encouraged in real-world learning. While further research and applicability questions remain, the two fields—education and cognitive science—have made huge progress in recent years, resulting in promising new learning developments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The figure also shows the probability correct on the test conditional on each choice. This probability correct is the number given above each bar. Adults chose to re-study—either massed or spaced—those items in which they were not completely confident. Note, also, that the items given the highest judgments that participants chose not to re-study were poorly remembered (0.14 correct). Thus, there is room for improvement even in adults. Even though they declined to study only on very high judgments, nevertheless, they, too, appeared to have opted out of study prematurely.

References

  • Adams, J. A. (1987). Historical review and appraisal of research on the learning, retention, and transfer of human motor skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 41–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, P. K., Karpicke, J. D., Kang, S. H. K., Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (2008). Examining the testing effect with open- and closed-book tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 861–876.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ammons, R. B. (1988). Distribution of practice in motor skill acquisition: A few questions and comments. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 59, 288–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R. (2000). Cognitive psychology and its implications (5th ed.). New York: Worth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, R. (1972). Ingredients for a theory of instruction. American Psychologist, 27, 921–931.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, S. D. M. (1921). A study in logical memory. The American Journal of Psychology, 32(3), 370-403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. D., & Longman, D. J. A. (1978). The influence of length and frequency of training session on the rate of learning to type. Ergonomics, 21, 627–635.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bahrick, L. E. (1987). Infants' intermodal perception of two levels of temporal structure in natural events. Infant Behavior & Development, 10, 387–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bahrick, H. P., Bahrick, L. E., Bahrick, A. S., & Bahrick, P. E. (1993). Maintenance of foreign language vocabulary and the spacing effect. Psychological Science, 4, 316–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balota, D. A., Duchek, J. M., Sergent-Marshall, S. D., & Roediger, H. L. (2006). Does expanded retrieval produce benefits over equal-interval spacing? Explorations of spacing effects in healthy aging and early stage Alzheimer's disease. Psychology and Aging, 21, 19–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battig, W. F. (1966). Facilitation and interference. In E. A. Bilodeau (Ed.), Acquisition of skill. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battig, W. F. (1972). Intratask interference as a source of facilitation on transfer and retention. In E. F. Thompson & J. F. Voss (Eds.), Topics in learning and performance. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, A. S., & Bird, R. (2006). Metacognitive control of the spacing of study repetitions. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 126–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjork, R. A. (1979). Information-processing analysis of college teaching. Educational Psychologist, 14, 15–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjork, R. A. (1988). Retrieval practice and the maintenance of knowledge. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory: Current research and issues (Vol. 1, pp. 396–401). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjork, R. A., & Allen, T. W. (1970). The spacing effect: Consolidation or differential encoding? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 567–572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyce, B. A., & Del Rey, P. (1990). Designing applied research in a naturalistic setting using a contextual interference paradigm. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 18, 189–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bregman, A. S. (1967). Distribution of practice and between-trials interference. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 21, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L., Campione, J. C., & Day, J. D. (2005). On training students to learn from texts. Educational Researcher, 10, 14–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cahill, A., & Toppino, T. C. (1993). Young children's recognition as a function of the spacing of repetitions and the type of study and test stimuli. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31, 481–484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, R. A., & Yaure, R. G. (1990). Practice schedules and the use of component skills in problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 484–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, R. A., Sullivan, M. A., & Schneider, W. (1989). Practice and working memory effects in building procedural skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 517–526.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, S. K., & DeLosh, E. L. (2005). Application of the testing and spacing effects to name learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 619–636.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, S. K., & Pashler, H. (2007). Testing beyond words: Using tests to enhance visuospatial map learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 474–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, S. K., Pashler, H., & Cepeda, N. J. (2009). Using tests to enhance 8th grade students' retention of U.S. history facts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 760–771.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 354–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cepeda, N. J., Vul, E., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T., & Pashler, H. (2008). Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention. Psychological Science, 19, 1095–1102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Challis, B. H. (1993). Spacing effects on cued-memory tests depend on level of processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 389–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Challis, B. H., & Brodbeck, D. R. (1992). Level of processing affects priming in word fragment completion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 595–607.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christina, R. W., & Shea, J. B. (1988). The limitations of generalization based on restricted information. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 59, 291–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commins, S., Cunningham, L., Harvey, D., & Walsh, D. (2003). Massed but not spaced training impairs spatial memory. Behavioral Brain Research, 139, 215–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research. Review of Educational Research, 76, 1–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornell, E. H. (1980). Distributed study facilitates infants' delayed recognition memory. Memory & Cognition, 8, 539–542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowder, R. G. (1976). Principles of learning and memory. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuddy, L. J., & Jacoby, L. L. (1982). When forgetting helps memory: An analysis of repetition effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 451–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cull, W. L. (2000). Untangling the benefits of multiple study opportunities and repeated testing for cued recall. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 215–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cull, W. L., Shaughnessy, J. J., & Zechmeister, E. B. (1996). Expanding understanding of the expanding-pattern-of-retrieval mnemonic: Toward confidence in applicability. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 2, 365–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Culler, E. A. (1912). The effect of distribution of practice upon learning. Journal of Philosophical Psychology, 9, 580–583.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delaney, P. F., Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., & Spirgel, A. (2010). Spacing and testing effects: A deeply critical, lengthy, and at times discursive review of the literature. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 53, pp. 63–147). New York: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dempster, F. N. (1987). Effects of variable encoding and spaced presentations on vocabulary learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 162–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dempster, F. N. (1988). The spacing effect: A case study in the failure to apply the results of psychological research. American Psychologist, 43, 627–634.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dempster, F. N. (1989). Spacing effects and their implications for theory and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 309–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dempster, F. N. (1996). Distributing and managing the conditions of encoding and practice. In E. L. Bjork & R. A. Bjork (Eds.), Handbook of perception and cognition: Memory. San Diego: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donovan, J. J., & Radosevich, D. J. (1999). A meta-analytic review of the distribution of practice effect. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 795–805.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. (1998). What makes people study more? An evaluation of four factors that affect people's self-paced study. Acta Psychologica, 98, 37–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebbinghaus, H. (1885). Über das Gedchtnis. Untersuchungen zur experimentellen Psychologie. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot; The English edition is Ebbinghaus, H. (1913). Memory. A contribution to experimental psychology. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

  • English, H. B., Wellborn, E. L., & Killian, C. D. (1934). Studies in substance memorization. The Journal of General Psychology, 11, 233–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estes, W. K. (1955). Statistical theory of spontaneous recovery and regression. Psychological Review, 62, 145–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galluccio, L., & Rovee-Collier, C. (2006). Nonuniform effects of reinstatement within the time window. Learning and Motivation, 37, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gay, L. R. (1973). Temporal position of reviews and its effect on the retention of mathematical rules. Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 171–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A. M. (1979). Component-levels theory of the effects of spacing of repetitions on recall and recognition. Memory & Cognition, 7, 95–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A. M., & Lehmann, T. S. (1980). Spacing repetitions over 1 week. Memory & Cognition, 8, 528–538.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glover, J. A. (1989). The “testing” phenomenon: Not gone but nearly forgotten. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 392–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glover, J. A., & Corkill, A. J. (1987). Influence of paraphrased repetitions on the spacing effect. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 198–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goode, S., & Magill, R. A. (1986). Contextual interference effects in learning three badminton serves. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 57, 308–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, R. L. (1992). Human memory: Paradigms and paradoxes. Hills-dale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J. G. (1970). Conservation of information-processing capacity in paired-associate memorizing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 581–586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, K. G., Domingues, D. A., & Cavazos, R. (1994). Contextual interference effects with skilled baseball players. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 835–841.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning. Review of Educational Research, 66, 99–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendy, L., & Whitebread, D. (2000). Interpretations of independent learning in the early years. International Journal Early Years Education, 8(3), 245–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintzman, D. L. (1974). Theoretical implications of the spacing effect. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Theories in cognitive psychology: The Loyola symposium (pp. 77–97). Potomac: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintzman, D. L. (1976). Repetition and memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 10). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, L. L., & Dallas, M. (1981). On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 5, 306–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, B. A., & Rogers, W. A. (2000). Age-related effects of blocked and random practice schedules on learning a new technology. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 55B, 343–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. The Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 138–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, A. (1897). Die Assoziationsfestigkeit in ihrer Abha ̈ngigkeit von der Verteilung der Wiederholungen [The strength of associations in their dependence on the distribution of repetitions]. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie und Physiologie der Sinnesorgane, 16, 436–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karpicke, J. D., Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L. (2009). Metacognitive strategies in student learning: Do students practice retrieval when they study on their own? Memory, 17, 471–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A. (2008). Easy comes, easy goes? The link between learning and remembering and its exploitation in metacognition. Memory & Cognition, 36, 416–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Learning concepts and categories: Is spacing the “enemy of induction”? Psychological Science, 19, 585–592.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornell, N., & Son, L. K. (2009). Learners' choices and beliefs about self-testing. Memory, 17, 493–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraft, R. N., & Jenkins, J. J. (1981). The lag effect with aurally presented passages. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 17, 132–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakshmanan, A., Lindsey, C. D., & Krishnan, H. S. (2010). Practice makes perfect? When does massed learning improve product usage proficiency? The Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 599–613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landauer, T. K., & Bjork, R. A. (1978). Optimum rehearsal patterns and name learning. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory (pp. 625–632). London: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lashley, K. S. (1915). The acquisition of skill in archery. Papers from the Department of Marine Biology of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, 7, 105–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Blanc, K. & Simon, D. A. (2008). Mixed practice enhances retention and JOL accuracy for mathematical skills. Poster presented at the 2008 annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Chicago, IL.

  • Lee, T. D., & Genovese, E. D. (1988). Distribution of practice in motor skill acquisition: Learning and performance effects reconsidered. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 59, 277–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, T. D., & Magill, R. A. (1983). The locus of contextual interference in motor-skill acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 730–746.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, T. D., & Simon, D. A. (2004). Contextual interference. In A. M. Williams & N. J. Hodges (Eds.), Skill acquisition in sport: Research, theory and practice (pp. 29–44). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, T. D., & Wishart, L. R. (2005). Motor learning conundrums (and possible solutions). Quest, 57, 67–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magill, R. A., & Hall, K. G. (1990). A review of the contextual interference effect in motor skill acquisition. Human Movement Science, 9, 241–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, J. (2011). Metacognitive awareness of learning strategies in undergraduates. Memory & Cognition, 39, 462–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melton, A. W. (1970). The situation with respect to the spacing of repetitions and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 596–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J., Kornell, N., & Son, L. K. (2007). A cognitive-science based programme to enhance study efficacy in a high and low risk setting. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 743–768.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss, V. D. (1996). The efficacy of masses versus distributed practice as a function of desired learning outcomes and grade level of the student. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 5204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, H. H. (1916). Distributions of practice periods in learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 7, 150–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, K. M., Antoniou, A., & Carlton, L. G. (1988). Massed and distributed practice effects: Phenomena in search of a theory? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 59, 308–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pashler, H., Rohrer, D., Cepeda, N., & Carpenter, S. (2007). Enhancing learning and retarding forgetting: Choices and consequences. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 187–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavlik, P. I., & Anderson, J. R. (2003). An ACT-R model of the spacing effect. In F. Detje, D. Dorner, & H. Schaub (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of Cognitive Modeling (pp. 177–182). Bamberg: Universitats-Verlag Bamberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, N. L. (1914). The value of distributed repetitions in rote learning. British Journal of Psychology, 7, 253–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perruchet, P. (1989). The effect of spaced practice on explicit and implicit memory. British Journal of Psychology, 80, 113–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, L. R., Hillner, K., & Saltzman, D. (1962). Time between pairings and short-term retention. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 550–551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, L. R., Wampler, R., Kirkpatrick, M., & Saltzman, D. (1963). Effect of spacing presentations on retention of a paired associate over short intervals. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 206–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirolli, P., & Anderson, J. R. (1985). The role of practice in fact retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 136–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyc, M. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2010). Toward an understanding of students' allocation of study time: When do they decide to mass or space their practice? Memory & Cognition, 38, 431–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyle, W. H. (1915). Concentrated versus distributed practice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 5, 247–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raaijmakers, J. G. W. (2003). Spacing and repetition effects in human memory: Application of the SAM model. Cognitive Science, 27, 431–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (2005). Rereading effects depend on time of test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 70–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rea, C. P., & Modigliani, V. (1987). The spacing effect in 4- to 9-year-old children. Memory & Cognition, 15, 436–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, J. H., & Glaser, R. (1964). Effects of repetition and spaced review upon retention of a complex learning task. Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 297–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, E. S. (1921). The relative efficiencies of distributed and concentrated study in memorizing. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4, 327–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roediger, H. L., & Challis, B. H. (1992). Effects of exact repetition and conceptual repetition on free recall and primed word fragment completion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roediger, H. L., Agarwal, P. K., Kang, S. H. K., & Marsh, E. J. (2010). Benefits of testing memory: Best practices and boundary conditions. In G. M. Davies & D. B. Wright (Eds.), New frontiers in applied memory (pp. 13–49). Brighton: Psychology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohrer, D. (2009). The effects of spacing and mixing practice problems. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40, 4–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2010). Recent research on human learning challenges conventional instructional strategies. Educational Researcher, 39, 406–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohrer, D., & Taylor, K. (2006). The effects of overlearning and distributed practice on the retention of mathematics knowledge. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 1209–1224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohrer, D., & Taylor, K. (2007). The shuffling of mathematics problems improves learning. Instructional Science, 35, 481–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohrer, D., Taylor, K., Pashler, H., Cepeda, N. J., & Wixted, J. T. (2005). The effect of overlearning on long-term retention. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 361–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruch, T. C. (1928). Factors influencing the relative economy of massed and distributed practice in learning. Psychological Review, 35, 19–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saxon, J. (1982). Incremental development: A breakthrough in mathematics. Phi Delta Kappan, 63, 482–484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3, 207–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (2005). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis (4th ed.). Urbana-Champaign: Human Kinetics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seabrook, R., Brown, G. D. A., & Solity, J. E. (2005). Distributed and massed practice: From laboratory to classroom. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 107–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shea, J. B., & Morgan, R. L. (1979). Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 179–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shea, C. H., Kohl, R., & Indermill, C. (1990). Contextual interference: Contributions of practice. Acta Psychologica, 73, 145–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, D. A., & Bjork, R. A. (2001). Metacognition in motor learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Leaning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 907–912.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sisti, H. M., Glass, A. L., & Shors, T. J. (2007). Neurogenesis and the spacing effect: Learning over time enhances memory and he survival of new neurons. Learning & Memory, 14, 368–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Son, L. K. (2004). Metacognitively controlled spacing of study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 601–604.

    Google Scholar 

  • Son, L. K. (2005). Metacognitive control: Children's short-term versus long-term study strategies. The Journal of General Psychology, 132, 347–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Son, L. K. (2007). Introduction: A metacognition bridge. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 481–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Son, L. K. (2010). Metacognitive control and the spacing effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 255–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Son, L. K., & Kornell, N. (2010). The virtues of ignorance. Behavioral Processes, 83, 207–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spreng, M., Rossier, J., & Shenk, F. (2002). Spaced training facilitates long-term retention of place navigation in adult but not in adolescent rats. Behavioral Brain Research, 128, 103–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, J. W., Lee, S., Lucker, W. G., & Stevenson, H. W. (1982). Curriculum and achievement in mathematics: A study of elementary school children in Japan, Taiwan, and the United States. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 315–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoeger, H., & Ziegler, A. (2005). Evaluation of an elementary classroom self-regulated learning program for gifted mathematics underachievers. International Education Journal, 6, 261–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, K., & Rohrer, D. (2010). The effects of interleaving practice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 837–848.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toppino, T. C. (1991). The spacing effect in young children's free recall: Support for automatic-process explanations. Memory & Cognition, 19, 159–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toppino, T. C. (1993). The spacing effect in preschool children's free recall of pictures and words. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31, 27–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toppino, T. C., & Cohen, M. S. (2010). Metacognitive control and spaced practice: Clarifying what people do and why. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 1480–1492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toppino, T. C., & DeMesquita, M. (1984). Effects of spacing repetitions on children's memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 37, 27–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toppino, T. C., & DiGeorge, W. (1984). The spacing effect in free recall emerges with development. Memory & Cognition, 12, 118–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toppino, T. C., Kasserman, J. E., & Mracek, W. A. (1991). The effect of spacing repetitions on the recognition memory of young children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 51, 123–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toppino, T. C., Cohen, M. S., Davis, M., & Moors, A. (2009a). Metacognitive control over the distribution of practice: When is spacing preferred? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1352–1358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toppino, T. C., Fearnow-Kenney, M. D., Kiepert, M. H., & Teremula, A. C. (2009b). The spacing effect in intentional and incidental free recall by children and adults: Limits on the automaticity hypothesis. Memory & Cognition, 37, 316–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Underwood, B. J. (1970). A breakdown of the total-time law in free-recall learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 573–580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vander Linde, E., Morrongiello, B. A., & Rovee-Collier, C. (1985). Determinants of retention in 8-week old infants. Developmental Psychology, 21, 601–613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vash, C. L. (1989). The spacing effect: A case study in the failure to apply the results of psychological research. American Psychologist, 44, 1547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlach, H. A., & Sandhofer, C. M. (2012). Distributing learning over time: The spacing effect in children’s acquisition and generalization of science concepts. Child Development, 83, 1137–1144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlach, H. A., Sandhofer, C. M., & Kornell, N. (2008). The spacing effect in children's memory and category induction. Cognition, 109, 163–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitten, W. B., & Bjork, R. A. (1977). Learning from tests: Effects of spacing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 465–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, W. P. (1976). Developmental changes in the lag effect: An encoding hypothesis for repeated word recall. Psychological Review, 111, 864–879.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodworth, R. S., & Schlosberg, H. (1954). Experimental psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zechmeister, E. B., & Shaughnessy, J. J. (1980). When you know that you know and when you think that you know but you don't. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 15, 41–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 64–70.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

A large portion of this research was supported by CASL Grant R305H060161 from the Institute of Educational Sciences, Department of Education. The authors are entirely responsible for the results and their interpretation presented herein.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa K. Son.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Son, L.K., Simon, D.A. Distributed Learning: Data, Metacognition, and Educational Implications. Educ Psychol Rev 24, 379–399 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9206-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9206-y

Keywords

Navigation