Contracting, equal, and expanding learning schedules: The optimal distribution of learning sessions depends on retention interval

Abstract

In laboratory and applied learning experiments, researchers have extensively investigated the optimal distribution of two learning sessions (i.e., initial learning and one relearning session) for the learning of verbatim materials. However, research has not yet provided a satisfying and conclusive answer to the optimal scheduling of three learning sessions (i.e., initial learning and two relearning sessions) across educationally relevant time intervals. Should the to-be-learned material be repeated at decreasing intervals (contracting schedule), constant intervals (equal schedule), or increasing intervals (expanding schedule) between learning sessions? Different theories and memory models (e.g., study-phase retrieval theory, contextual variability theory, ACT-R, and the Multiscale Context Model) make distinct predictions about the optimal learning schedule. We discuss the extant theories and derive clear predictions from each of them. To test these predictions empirically, we conducted an experiment in which participants studied and restudied paired associates with a contracting, equal, or expanding learning schedule. Memory performance was assessed immediately, 1 day, 7 days, or 35 days later with free- and cued-recall tests. Our results revealed that the optimal learning schedule is conditional on the length of the retention interval: A contracting learning schedule was beneficial for retention intervals up to 7 days, but both equal and expanding learning schedules were better for a long retention interval of 35 days. Our findings can be accommodated best by the contextual variability theory and indicate that revisions are needed to existing memory models. Our results are practically relevant, and their implications for real-world learning are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Xs indicate different learning sessions, and Test represents the final test session. Subscripts symbolize the contextual components stored in memory and present at the final test. Hyphens represent time.

  2. 2.

    Of the 25 participants who did not complete all experimental sessions, six were in the expanding–35-day RI condition, five were in the equal–7-day RI condition, and four were in the expanding–0-day RI condition. The rest were evenly distributed (one or two per condition) across all other conditions, except for the expanding–7-day RI condition, which had no dropouts.

  3. 3.

    Free-recall performance at the end of the initial learning session also did not differ between the three learning schedules (contracting, M = 53 %, SD = 18 %; equal, M = 51 %, SD = 19 %; expanding, M = 52 %, SD = 18 %), F(2, 207) = 0.13, p = .875, η p 2 = .001.

  4. 4.

    To revisit, the lags between the initial learning session and Learning Session 2 were 5, 3, and 1 day(s) for the contracting, equal, and expanding learning schedules, respectively. The lags between Learning Session 2 and Learning Session 3 were 1, 3, and 5 day(s) for the contracting, equal, and expanding learning schedules, respectively.

  5. 5.

    Whenever Levene’s test indicated that the assumption of homogeneity of variances had been violated, the degrees of freedom were adjusted accordingly to account for unequal variances.

  6. 6.

    We created two meaningful contrasts that were tailored to our hypotheses. The first contrast was contracting = –2, equal = 1, and expanding = 1, and the second contrast was contracting = 0, equal = –1, and expanding = 1.

References

  1. Bahrick, H. P., & Hall, L. K. (1991). Lifetime maintenance of high school mathematics content. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 20–33. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.120.1.20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Balota, D. A., Duchek, J. M., & Logan, J. M. (2007). Is expanded retrieval practice a superior form of spaced retrieval? A critical review of the extant literature. In J. S. Nairne (Ed.), The foundations of remembering: Essays in honor of Henry L. Roediger III (pp. 83–105). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bellezza, F. S., & Young, D. R. (1989). Chunking of repeated events in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 990–997. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.15.5.990

    Google Scholar 

  4. Braun, K., & Rubin, D. C. (1998). The spacing effect depends on an encoding deficit, retrieval, and time in working memory: Evidence from once-presented words. Memory, 6, 37–65. doi:10.1080/741941599

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Carpenter, S. K., & DeLosh, E. L. (2005). Application of the testing and spacing effects to name learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 619–636. doi:10.1002/acp.1101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cepeda, N. J., Coburn, N., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T., Mozer, M. C., & Pashler, H. (2009). Optimizing distributed practice: Theoretical analysis and practical implications. Experimental Psychology, 56, 236–246. doi:10.1027/1618-3169.56.4.236

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354

    PubMed  Article  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, 19, 1095–1102. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02209.x

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cull, W. L. (2000). Untangling the benefits of multiple study opportunities and repeated testing for cued recall. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 215–235. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(200005/06)14:3<215::AID-ACP640>3.0.CO;2-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.2.4.365

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ebbinghaus, H. (1964). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology. Oxford, UK: Dover. Original work published 1885.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Estes, W. K. (1955). Statistical theory of distributional phenomena in learning. Psychological Review, 62, 369–377. doi:10.1037/h0046888

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gerbier, E., & Koenig, O. (2012). Influence of multiple-day temporal distribution of repetitions on memory: A comparison of uniform, expanding, and contracting schedules. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 514–525. doi:10.1080/17470218.2011.600806

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Glenberg, A. M. (1979). Component-levels theory of the effects of spacing of repetitions on recall and recognition. Memory & Cognition, 7, 95–112. doi:10.3758/BF03197590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Glenberg, A. M., & Lehmann, T. S. (1980). Spacing repetitions over 1 week. Memory & Cognition, 8, 528–538. doi:10.3758/BF03213772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999152X

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Karpicke, J. D., & Bauernschmidt, A. (2011). Spaced retrieval: Absolute spacing enhances learning regardless of relative spacing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 1250–1257. doi:10.1037/a0023436

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Karpicke, J. D., Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2009). Metacognitive strategies in student learning: Do students practise retrieval when they study on their own? Memory, 17, 471–479. doi:10.1080/09658210802647009

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2007). Expanding retrieval practice promotes short-term retention, but equally spaced retrieval enhances long-term retention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 704–719. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.4.704

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2010). Is expanding retrieval a superior method for learning text materials? Memory & Cognition, 38, 116–124. doi:10.3758/MC.38.1.116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Küpper-Tetzel, C. E., & Erdfelder, E. (2012). Encoding, maintenance, and retrieval processes in the lag effect: A multinomial processing tree analysis. Memory, 20, 37–47. doi:10.1080/09658211.2011.631550

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Küpper-Tetzel, C. E., Erdfelder, E., & Dickhäuser, O. (2013). The lag effect in secondary school classrooms: Enhancing students’ memory for vocabulary. Instructional Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s11251-013-9285-2

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

    Google Scholar 

  25. Lindsey, R., Mozer, M. C., Cepeda, N. J., & Pashler, H. (2009). Optimizing memory retention with cognitive models. In A. Howes, D. Peebles, & R. Cooper (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Cognitive Modeling (ICCM 2009) (pp. 74–79). Manchester, UK: ICCM.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Logan, J. M., & Balota, D. A. (2008). Expanded vs. equal interval spaced retrieval practice: Exploring different schedules of spacing and retention interval in younger and older adults. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 15, 257–280. doi:10.1080/13825580701322171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mozer, M. C., Pashler, H., Cepeda, N. J., Lindsey, R., & Vul, E. (2009). Predicting the optimal spacing of study: A multiscale context model of memory. In Y. Bengio, D. Schuurmans, J. Lafferty, C. K. I. Williams, & A. Culotta (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems (pp. 1321–1329). La Jolla, CA: NIPS Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Pashler, H., Cepeda, N. J., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2005). When does feedback facilitate learning of words? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 3–8. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.31.1.3

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Pashler, H., Rohrer, D., Cepeda, N. J., & Carpenter, S. K. (2007). Enhancing learning and retarding forgetting: Choices and consequences. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 187–193. doi:10.3758/BF03194050

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Pavlik, P. I., & Anderson, J. R. (2008). Using a model to compute the optimal schedule of practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 101–117. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.14.2.101

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Raaijmakers, J. G. (2003). Spacing and repetition effects in human memory: Application of the SAM model. Cognitive Science, 27, 431–452. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2703_5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Staddon, J. E. R., Chelaru, I. M., & Higa, J. J. (2002). Habituation, memory and the brain: The dynamics of interval timing. Behavioural Processes, 57, 71–88. doi:10.1016/S0376-6357(02)00006-2

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Thios, S. J., & D’Agostino, P. R. (1976). Effects of repetition as a function of study-phase retrieval. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 15, 529–536. doi:10.1016/0022-5371(76)90047-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Toppino, T. C., Hara, Y., & Hackman, J. (2002). The spacing effect in the free recall of homogeneous lists: Present and accounted for. Memory & Cognition, 30, 601–606. doi:10.3758/BF03194961

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Tsai, L. S. (1927). The relation of retention to the distribution of relearning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 10, 30–39. doi:10.1037/h0071614

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author Note

The first author acknowledges support from the Ontario/Baden-Württemberg Faculty Mobility Program of the Ministry for Science, Research, and Arts of Baden-Württemberg, Germany, and from a postdoc fellowship from the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG). We are grateful to the Faculty of Health at York University in Toronto, Canada, for supporting this project with a Minor Research Grant and an SSHRC Small Grant. We thank Masa Calic, Suzette Fernandez, and Ariella Winter for their assistance with data collection, and Tina Weston for helpful comments on a previous draft of this article.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carolina E. Küpper-Tetzel.

Appendix

Appendix

Fig. 4
figure4

Mean percentages of correctly recalled word pairs on the free-recall (top) and cued-recall (bottom) tests at the ends of Learning Sessions 2 and 3, as a function of learning schedule

Fig. 5
figure5

Mean percentages of correctly recalled word pairs on the cued-recall test in the final test session, as a function of learning schedule and Rl

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Küpper-Tetzel, C.E., Kapler, I.V. & Wiseheart, M. Contracting, equal, and expanding learning schedules: The optimal distribution of learning sessions depends on retention interval. Mem Cogn 42, 729–741 (2014). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0394-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Memory
  • Memory models
  • Long-term retention
  • Distributed practice
  • Learning schedule
  • Theory evaluation