Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 1323–1330 | Cite as

The benefit of interleaved mathematics practice is not limited to superficially similar kinds of problems

Brief Report

Abstract

Most mathematics assignments consist of a group of problems requiring the same strategy. For example, a lesson on the quadratic formula is typically followed by a block of problems requiring students to use that formula, which means that students know the appropriate strategy before they read each problem. In an alternative approach, different kinds of problems appear in an interleaved order, which requires students to choose the strategy on the basis of the problem itself. In the classroom-based experiment reported here, grade 7 students (n = 140) received blocked or interleaved practice over a nine-week period, followed two weeks later by an unannounced test. The mean test scores were greater for material learned by interleaved practice rather than by blocked practice (72 % vs. 38 %, d = 1.05). This interleaving effect was observed even though the different kinds of problems were superficially dissimilar from each other, whereas previous interleaved mathematics studies had required students to learn nearly identical kinds of problems. We conclude that interleaving improves mathematics learning not only by improving discrimination between different kinds of problems, but also by strengthening the association between each kind of problem and its corresponding strategy.

Keywords

Learning Mathematics Interleaved Spacing Practice 

References

  1. 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. doi:10.3758/s13421-012-0272-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carpenter, S. K., & Mueller, F. E. (2013). The effects of interleaving versus blocking on foreign language pronunciation learning. Memory & Cognition, 41, 671–682. doi:10.3758/s13421-012-0291-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Learning concepts and categories: Is spacing the “enemy of induction”? Psychological Science, 19, 585–592. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02127.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Le Blanc, K., & Simon, D. (2008). Mixed practice enhances retention and JOL accuracy for mathematical skills. Chicago: Paper presented at the 49th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society.Google Scholar
  8. Mayfield, K. H., & Chase, P. N. (2002). The effects of cumulative practice on mathematics problem solving. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 105–123.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Roediger, H. L., III, & Pyc, M. A. (2012). Inexpensive techniques to improve education: Applying cognitive psychology to enhance educational practice. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1, 242–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Rohrer, D. (2012). Interleaving helps students distinguish among similar concepts. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 355–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rohrer, D., & Taylor, K. (2006). The effects of overlearning and distributed practice on the retention of mathematics knowledge. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 1209–1224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rohrer, D., & Taylor, K. (2007). The shuffling of mathematics practice problems boosts learning. Instructional Science, 35, 481–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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. 219–233). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  14. Taylor, K., & Rohrer, D. (2010). The effect of interleaving practice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 837–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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. doi:10.3758/s13421-010-0063-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Yazdani, M. A., & Zebrowski, E. (2006). Spaced reinforcement: An effective approach to enhance the achievement in plane geometry. Journal of Mathematical Sciences and Mathematics Education, 37–43.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Doug Rohrer
    • 1
    • 2
  • Robert F. Dedrick
    • 1
  • Kaleena Burgess
    • 1
  1. 1.University of South FloridaTampaUSA
  2. 2.Psychology PCD4118GUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations