Educational Psychology Review

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 355–367 | Cite as

Interleaving Helps Students Distinguish among Similar Concepts

Review Article

Abstract

When students encounter a set of concepts (or terms or principles) that are similar in some way, they often confuse one with another. For instance, they might mistake one word for another word with a similar spelling (e.g., allusion instead of illusion) or choose the wrong strategy for a mathematics problem because it resembles a different kind of problem. By one proposition explored in this review, these kinds of errors occur more frequently when all exposures to one of the concepts are grouped together. For instance, in most middle school science texts, the questions in each assignment are devoted to the same concept, and this blocking of exposures ensures that students need not learn to distinguish between two similar concepts. In an alternative approach described in this review, exposures to each concept are interleaved with exposures to other concepts, so that a question on one concept is followed by a question on a different concept. In a number of experiments that have compared interleaving and blocking, interleaving produced better scores on final tests of learning. The evidence is limited, though, and ecologically valid studies are needed. Still, a prudent reading of the data suggests that at least a portion of the exposures should be interleaved.

Keywords

Interleave Blocked Spacing Math Learning 

References

  1. Austin, S. D. M. (1921). A study in logical memory. The American Journal of Psychology, 32, 370–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bahrick, H. P., & Phelps, E. (1987). Retention of Spanish vocabulary over eight years. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 344–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bird, S. (2010). Effects of distributed practice on the acquisition of second language English syntax. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 31, 635–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bjork, R. A. (1979). Information-processing analysis of college teaching. Educational Psychologist, 14, 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bloom, K. C., & Shuell, T. J. (1981). Effects of massed and distributed practice on the learning and retention of second-language vocabulary. The Journal of Educational Research, 74, 245–248.Google Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carter, J. A., Cuevas, G. J., Day, R., Malloy, C. E., Kersaint, G., Luchin, B. M., et al. (2011). Math Connects Plus: Course 3 (Florida Version). School Education Group (SEG), McGraw-Hill, Glencoe. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  8. 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, 11, 1095–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cepeda, N. J., Mozer, M. C., Coburn, N., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T., & Pashler, H. (2009). Optimizing distributed practice: Theoretical analysis and practical implications. Experimental Psychology, 56, 236–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crowley, K., Shrager, J., & Siegler, R. S. (1997). Strategy discovery as a competitive negotiation between metacognitive and associative mechanisms. Developmental Review, 17, 462–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dempster, F. N. (1989). Spacing effects and their implications for theory and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 309–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dunlosky, J., & Lipko, A. R. (2007). Metacomprehension: A brief history and how to improve its accuracy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 228–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (in press). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest.Google Scholar
  15. Hall, K. G., Domingues, D. A., & Cavazos, R. (1994). Contextual interference effects with skilled baseball players. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 835–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Halpern, D. F. (2008, March). 25 learning principles to guide pedagogy and the design of learning environments. Paper distributed at the keynote address at the Bowling Green State University Teaching and Learning Fair. Bowling Green, OH.Google Scholar
  17. Kang, S. H. K., & Pashler, H. (2012). Learning painting styles: Spacing is advantageous when it promotes discriminative contrast. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 97–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2004). Timing of information presentation in learning statistics. Instructional Science, 32, 233–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Learning concepts and categories: Is spacing the “enemy of induction”? Psychological Science, 19, 585–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. LeBlanc, K., & Simon, D. (2008). Mixed practice enhances retention and JOL accuracy for mathematical skills. Paper presented at the 49th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  21. Mayfield, K. H., & Chase, P. N. (2002). The effects of cumulative practice on mathematics problem solving. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 105–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McCabe, J. (2011). Metacognitive awareness of learning strategies in undergraduates. Memory & Cognition, 39, 462–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Metcalfe, J. (2000). Metamemory: Theory and data. In E. Tulving & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Oxford handbook of memory (pp. 197–211). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mitchell, C. J., 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Robinson, D. H., Levin, J. R., Thomas, G. D., Pituch, K. A., & Vaughn, S. R. (2007). The incidence of “causal” statements in teaching and learning research journals. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 400–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rohrer, D. (2009). The effects of spacing and mixing practice problems. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40, 4–17.Google Scholar
  29. Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2007). Increasing retention without increasing study time. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 183–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2010). Recent research on human learning challenges conventional instructional strategies. Educational Researcher, 39, 406–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rohrer, D., & Taylor, K. (2007). The shuffling of mathematics practice problems boosts learning. Instructional Science, 35, 481–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schwartz, B. L., Son, L. K., Kornell, N., & Finn, B. (2011). Four principles of memory improvement: A guide to improving learning efficiency. International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 21, 7–15.Google Scholar
  33. Seabrook, R., Brown, G. D. A., & Solity, J. E. (2005). Distributed and massed practice: From laboratory to classroom. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Siegler, R. S. (2003). Implications of cognitive science research for mathematics education. In J. Kilpatrick, G. W. Martin, & D. E. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 119–233). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  35. Siegler, R. S., & Shrager, J. (1984). Strategy choices in addition and subtraction: How do children know what to do? In C. Sophian (Ed.), The origins of cognitive skills (pp. 229–293). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Skinner, B. F. (1933). The rate of establishment of a discrimination. The Journal of General Psychology, 9, 302–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Slavin, R. E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Son, L. K., & Kornell, N. (2010). The virtues of ignorance. Behavioral Processes, 83, 207–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Taylor, K., & Rohrer, D. (2010). The effect of interleaving practice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 837–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vlach, H. A., Sandhofer, C. M., & Kornell, N. (2008). The spacing effect in children’s memory and category induction. Cognition, 109, 163–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Willingham, D. T. (2002). Allocating student study time: Massed vs. distributed practice. American Educator, 47, 37–39. Summer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.PsychologyUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations