General Learning Strategies

Part IV - General Learning Strategies

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 February 2019

Edited by

John Dunlosky and

Katherine A. Rawson

Show author details

John Dunlosky: Affiliation:
Kent State University, Ohio
Katherine A. Rawson: Affiliation:
Kent State University, Ohio

Book contents

Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Cognition and Education , pp. 409 - 584

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108235631 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abel, M. & Roediger, H. L. (2017). Comparing the testing effect under blocked and mixed practice: The mnemonic benefits of retrieval practice are not affected by practice format. Memory and Cognition, 45(1),81–92. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016–0641-8 Google Scholar

Albaret, J. M. & Thon, B. (1998). Differential effects of task complexity on contextual interference in a drawing task. Acta Psychologica, 100(1–2), 9–24.CrossRef Google Scholar

Al-Mustafa, A. A. (1989). Contextual interference: Laboratory artifact or sport skill learning related? (Doctoral dissertation).Google Scholar

Andrews, S. E. & Frey, S. D. (2015). Studio structure improves student performance in an undergraduate introductory soil science course. Natural Sciences Education, 44(1), 60. https://doi.org/10.4195/nse2014.12.0026 CrossRef Google Scholar

Beilock, S. L., Carr, T. H., MacMahon, C., & Starkes, J. L. (2002). When paying attention becomes counterproductive: Impact of divided versus skill-focused attention on novice and experienced performance of sensorimotor skills. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8(1), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1037//1076-898X.8.1.6 Google Scholar

Best, C. A., Robinson, C. W., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2011). The effect of labels on children’s category learning. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 3332–3336). Austin, TX.Google Scholar

Best, C. A., Yim, H., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2013). The cost of selective attention in category learning: Developmental differences between adults and infants. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(2), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.05.002 Google Scholar

Birnbaum, M. S., Kornell, N., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2013). Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval. Memory and Cognition, 41(3), 392–402. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012–0272-7 Google Scholar

Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In Metcalfe, J. & Shimamura, A. P. (eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185–205). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011–143823 Google Scholar

Carpenter, S. K. & Mueller, F. E. (2013). The effects of interleaving versus blocking on foreign language pronunciation learning. Memory and Cognition, 41(5),671–682. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012–0291-4 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Carter, K., Cushing, K., Sabers, D., Stein, P., & Berliner, D. (1988). Expert-novice differences in perceiving and processing visual classroom information. Journal of Teacher Education, 39(3), 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248718803900306 CrossRef Google Scholar

Carvalho, P. F. & Albuquerque, P. B. (2012). Memory encoding of stimulus features in human perceptual learning. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 24(6), 654–664. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2012.675322 Google Scholar

Carvalho, P. F., Braithwaite, D. W., de Leeuw, J. R., Motz, B. A., & Goldstone, R. L. (2016). An in vivo study of self-regulated study sequencing in introductory psychology courses. Plos One, 11(3), e0152115. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152115 Google Scholar

Carvalho, P. F. & Goldstone, R. L. (2014a). Effects of interleaved and blocked study on delayed test of category learning generalization. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 936. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00936 Google Scholar

Carvalho, P. F. & Goldstone, R. L. (2014b). Putting category learning in order: Category structure and temporal arrangement affect the benefit of interleaved over blocked study. Memory and Cognition, 42(3), 481–495. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013–0371-0 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Carvalho, P. F. & Goldstone, R. L. (2015a). The benefits of interleaved and blocked study: Different tasks benefit from different schedules of study. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 22(1), 281–288. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014–0676-4 Google Scholar

Carvalho, P. F. & Goldstone, R. L. (2015b). What you learn is more than what you see: What can sequencing effects tell us about inductive category learning? Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 505. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00505 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Carvalho, P. F. & Goldstone, R. L. (2017a). The most efficient sequence of study depends on the type of test. Manuscript under review.Google Scholar

Carvalho, P. F. & Goldstone, R. L. (2017b). The sequence of study changes what information is attended to, encoded, and remembered during category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.Google Scholar

Chariker, J. H., Naaz, F., & Pani, J. R. (2011). Computer-based learning of neuroanatomy: A longitudinal study of learning, transfer, and retention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1),19–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021680 Google Scholar

Cook, G. L. & Odom, R. D. (1992). Perception of multidimensional stimuli: A differential-sensitivity account of cognitive processing and development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 54(2), 213–249.Google Scholar

Deng, W. S. & Sloutsky, V. M. (2016). Selective attention, diffused attention, and the development of categorization. Cognitive Psychology, 91, 24–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2016.09.002 Google Scholar

de Zilva, D., Mitchell, C. J., & Newell, B. R. (2013). Eliminating the mere exposure effect through changes in context between exposure and test. Cognition and Emotion, 27(8), 1345–1358. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2013.775110 Google Scholar

Dobson, J. L. (2011). Effect of selected “desirable difficulty” learning strategies on the retention of physiology information. Advances in Physiology Education, 35(4),378–383.Google Scholar

Elio, R. & Anderson, J. R. (1981). The effects of category generalizations and instance similarity on schema abstraction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7(6), 397–417.Google Scholar

Elio, R. & Anderson, J. R. (1984). The effects of information order and learning mode on schema abstraction. Memory and Cognition, 12(1), 20–30.Google Scholar

Engle, R. W. & Kane, M. J. (2003). Executive attention, working memory capacity, and a two-factor theory of cognitive control, 44, 145–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(03)44005-X Google Scholar

Farrow, D. & Maschette, W. (1997). The effects of contextual interference on children learning forehand tennis groundstrokes. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 33, 47–67.Google Scholar

Goldstone, R. L. (1996). Isolated and interrelated concepts. Memory and Cognition, 24(5), 608–628.Google Scholar

Gureckis, T. M. & Markant, D. B. (2012). Self-directed learning: A cognitive and computational perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 7(5), 464–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612454304 Google Scholar

Hatala, R. M., Brooks, L. R., & Norman, G. R. (2003). Practice makes perfect: The critical role of mixed practice in the acquisition of ECG interpretation skills. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 8(1), 17–26.Google Scholar

Hebert, E. P., Landin, D., & Solmon, M. A. (1996). Practice schedule effects on the performance and learning of low- and high-skilled students: An applied study. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 67(1),52–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1996.10607925 Google Scholar

Higgins, E. J. (2017). The complexities of learning categories through comparisons. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 66, 43–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.plm.2016.11.002 Google Scholar

Higgins, E. J. & Ross, B. H. (2011). Comparisons in category learning: How best to compare for what? In Carlson, L., Holscher, C., & Shipley, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1388–1393). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Horn, S. & Hernick, M. (2015). Improving student understanding of lipids concepts in a biochemistry course using test-enhanced learning. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 16(4), 918–928. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00133A CrossRef Google Scholar

Hull, L. (1920). Quantitative aspects of evolution and concepts: An experimental study. The Psychological Monographs, 28(1), 1–86.Google Scholar

Jones, M. & Sieck, W. R. (2003). Learning myopia: An adaptive recency effect in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(4), 626–640.Google Scholar

Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., Tuholski, S. W., Wilhelm, O., Payne, T. W., & Engle, R. W. (2004). The generality of working memory capacity: A latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 133(2), 189–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096–3445.133.2.189 Google Scholar

Kang, S. H. K. & Pashler, H. (2012). Learning painting styles: Spacing is advantageous when it promotes discriminative contrast. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(1), 97–103. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1801 Google Scholar

Karpicke, J. D. & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331(6018), 772–775. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199327 Google Scholar

Kioumourtzoglou, E., Kourtessis, T., Michalopoulou, M., & Derri, V. (1998). Differences in several perceptual abilities between experts and novices in basketball, volleyball and water-polo. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86(3), 899–912. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1998.86.3.899 Google Scholar

Kirchoff, B. K., Delaney, P. F., Horton, M., & Dellinger-Johnston, R. (2014). Optimizing learning of scientific category knowledge in the classroom: The case of plant identification. CBE Life Sciences Education, 13(3), 425–436. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13–11-0224 Google Scholar

Kornell, N. & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Learning concepts and categories: Is spacing the “enemy of induction”? Psychological Science, 19(6), 585–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–9280.2008.02127.x Google Scholar

Kornell, N., Castel, A. D., Eich, T. S., & Bjork, R. A. (2010). Spacing as the friend of both memory and induction in young and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 25(2), 498–503.Google Scholar

Kost, A. S., Carvalho, P. F., & Goldstone, R. L. (2015). Can you repeat that? The effect of item repetition on interleaved and blocked study. In Noelle, D. C., Dale, R., Warlaumont, A. S., Yoshimi, J., Matlock, T., Jennings, C. D., & Maglio, P. P. (eds.), Proceedings of the 37th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1189–1194). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Kurtz, K. H. & Hovland, C. I. (1956). Concept learning with differing sequences of instances. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51(4),239–243. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040295 Google Scholar

Lee, E. S., MacGregor, J. N., Bavelas, A., Mirlin, L., & et al. (1988). The effects of error transformations on classification performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(1), 66–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278–7393.14.1.66 Google Scholar

Lee, T. D. & Magill, R. A. (1985). Can forgetting facilitate skill acquisition? In Goodman, D., Wilberg, R. B., & Franks, I. M. (eds.), Differing perspectives in motor learning, memory, and control (pp. 3–22). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

Li, N., Cohen, W. W., & Koedinger, K. R. (2013). Problem order implications for learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 23(1–4), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-013–0005-5 Google Scholar

Linderholm, T., Dobson, J., & Yarbrough, M. B. (2016). The benefit of self-testing and interleaving for synthesizing concepts across multiple physiology texts. Advances in Physiology Education, 40(3), 329–334. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00157.2015 Google Scholar

Mack, M. L. & Palmeri, T. J. (2015). The dynamics of categorization: Unraveling rapid categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 144(3), 551–569. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039184 Google Scholar

Mack, M. L. & Preston, A. R. (2016). Decisions about the past are guided by reinstatement of specific memories in the hippocampus and perirhinal cortex. Neuroimage, 127, 144–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.12.015 Google Scholar

Markant, D. B. & Gureckis, T. M. (2014). Is it better to select or to receive? Learning via active and passive hypothesis testing. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 143(1), 94–122. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032108 Google Scholar

Markant, D. B., Settles, B., & Gureckis, T. M. (2016). Self-Directed learning favors local, Rather than global, Uncertainty. Cognitive Science, 40(1), 100–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12220 Google Scholar

Markman, A. B. & Ross, B. H. (2003). Category use and category learning. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 592–613. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033–2909.129.4.592 Google Scholar

Mathy, F. & Feldman, J. (2009). A rule-based presentation order facilitates category learning. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 16(6), 1050–1057. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.6.1050 Google Scholar

Mathy, F., Haladjian, H. H., Laurent, E., & Goldstone, R. L. (2013). Similarity-dissimilarity competition in disjunctive classification tasks. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 26. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00026 Google Scholar

McDaniel, M. A., Fadler, C. L., & Pashler, H. (2013). Effects of spaced versus massed training in function learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(5), 1417–1432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032184 Google Scholar

McNamara, D. S. & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22(3), 247–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539609544975 Google Scholar

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(1),237–242.Google Scholar

Monteiro, S., Melvin, L., Manolakos, J., Patel, A., & Norman, G. (2017). Evaluating the effect of instruction and practice schedule on the acquisition of ECG interpretation skills. Perspectives on Medical Education, 6(4), 237–245.Google Scholar

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards: English Language, Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subject. www.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/ELA_Standards1.pdf Google Scholar

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, Crosscutting concepts, and Core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165 Google Scholar

Noh, S. M., Yan, V. X., Bjork, R. A., & Maddox, W. T. (2016). Optimal sequencing during category learning: Testing a dual-learning systems perspective. Cognition, 155, 23–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.06.007 Google Scholar

Ostrow, K., Heffernan, N., Heffernan, C., & Peterson, Z. (2015). Blocking vs. interleaving: Examining single-session effects within middle school math homework. In Conati, C., Heffernan, N., Mitrovic, A., & Verdejo, M. F. (eds.), Artificial intelligence in education, Vol. 9112 (pp. 338–347). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319–19773-9_34 Google Scholar

Paas, F. G. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 429–434. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–0663.84.4.429 Google Scholar

Palmeri, T. J. & Mack, M. L. (2015). How experimental trial context affects perceptual categorization. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 180. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00180 Google Scholar

Pani, J. R., Chariker, J. H., & Naaz, F. (2012). Computer-based learning: Interleaving whole and sectional representation of neuroanatomy. Anatomical Sciences Education, 6(1), 11–18.Google Scholar

Patel, R., Liu, R., & Koedinger, K. (2015). When to block versus interleave practice? Evidence against teaching fraction addition before fraction multiplication. In Papafragou, A., Grodner, D., Mirman, D., & Trueswell, J. C. (eds.), Proceedings of the 38th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2069–2074). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Pigott, R. E. & Shapiro, D. C. (1984). Motor schema: The structure of the variability session. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 55, 41–45.Google Scholar

Pinto-Zipp, G. & Gentile, A. M. (1995). Practice schedules in motor learning: Children vs. adults. Society of Neuroscience: Abstracts, 21, 1620.Google Scholar

Rau, M. A., Aleven, V., & Rummel, N. (2013). Interleaved practice in multi-dimensional learning tasks: Which dimension should we interleave? Learning and Instruction, 23, 98–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.07.003 Google Scholar

Rawson, K. A., Thomas, R. C., & Jacoby, L. L. (2015). The power of examples: Illustrative examples enhance conceptual learning of declarative concepts. Educational Psychology Review, 27(3), 483–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014–9273-3 Google Scholar

Rohrer, D. (2012). Interleaving helps students distinguish among similar concepts. Educational Psychology Review, 24(3), 355–367.Google Scholar

Rohrer, D. (2015). Student instruction should be distributed over long time periods. Educational Psychology Review, 27(4), 635–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015–9332-4 CrossRef Google Scholar

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 and Review, 21(5), 1323–1330. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014–0588-3 Google Scholar

Rohrer, D., Dedrick, R. F., & Stershic, S. (2015). Interleaved practice improves mathematics learning, 107(3), 900–908.Google Scholar

Rohrer, D. & Taylor, K. (2007). The shuffling of mathematics problems improves learning. Instructional Science, 35(6), 481–498.Google Scholar

Ross, B. H. (2000). The effects of category use on learned categories. Memory and Cognition, 28(1), 51–63.Google Scholar

Rozenshtein, A., Pearson, G. D. N., Yan, S. X., Liu, A. Z., & Toy, D. (2016). Effect of massed versus interleaved teaching method on performance of students in radiology. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 13(8), 979–984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2016.03.031 Google Scholar

Sana, F., Yan, V. X., & Kim, J. A. (2016). Study sequence matters for the inductive learning of cognitive concepts. Journal of Educational Psychology.Google Scholar

Sandhofer, C. M. & Doumas, L. A. A. (2008). Order of presentation effects in learning color categories. Journal of Cognition and Development, 9(2), 194–221.Google Scholar

Schlichting, M. L. & Preston, A. R. (2015). Memory integration: Neural mechanisms and implications for behavior. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 1, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2014.07.005 Google Scholar

Shea, C H & Kohl, R. M. (1991). Composition of practice: Influence on the retention of motor skills. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62(2), 187–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1991.10608709 Google Scholar

Shea, C. H., Kohl, R., & Indermill, C. (1990). Contextual interference: Contributions of practice. Acta Psychologica, 73(2), 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001–6918(90)90076-R 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(2), 179–187.Google Scholar

Smith, L. B. & Kemler, D. G. (1978). Levels of experienced dimensionality in children and adults. Cognitive Psychology, 10, 502–532.Google Scholar

Sorensen, L. J. & Woltz, D. J. (2016). Blocking as a friend of induction in verbal category learning. Memory and Cognition, 44(7), 1000–1013. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016–0615-x Google Scholar

Spiering, B. J. & Ashby, F. G. (2008). Initial training with difficult items facilitates information integration, but not rule-based category learning. Psychological Science, 19(11), 1169–1177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–9280.2008.02219.x Google Scholar

Ste-Marie, D. M., Clark, S. E., Findlay, L. C., & Latimer, A. E. (2004). High levels of contextual interference enhance handwriting skill acquisition. Journal of Motor Behavior, 36(1), 115–126.Google Scholar

Stewart, N. & Brown, G. D. A. (2004). Sequence effects in the categorization of tones varying in frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(2), 416–430.Google Scholar

Stewart, N., Brown, G. D. A., & Chater, N. (2002). Sequence effects in categorization of simple perceptual stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(1), 3–11.Google Scholar

Strutt, G. F., Anderson, D. R., & Well, A. D. (1975). A developmental study of the effects of irrelevant information on speeded classification. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 20(1), 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022–0965(75)90032–6 Google Scholar

Tauber, S. K., Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Wahlheim, C. N., & Jacoby, L. L. (2013). Self-regulated learning of a natural category: Do people interleave or block exemplars during study? Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20(2), 3560363.Google Scholar

Taylor, K. & Rohrer, D. (2010). The effects of interleaved practice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(6), 837–848.Google Scholar

Terrace, H. S. (1964). Wavelength generalization after discrimination learning with and without errors. Science, 144(361), 78–80.Google Scholar

Thompson, L. A. & Markson, L. (1998). Developmental changes in the effect of dimensional salience on the discriminability of object relations. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 70(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1998.2445 Google Scholar

Tse, C.-S. & Altarriba, J. (2010). Does survival processing enhance implicit memory? Memory and Cognition, 38(8), 1110–1121.Google Scholar

Unsworth, N. & Engle, R. W. (2007). The nature of individual differences in working memory capacity: active maintenance in primary memory and controlled search from secondary memory. Psychological Review, 114(1), 104–132. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.1.104 Google Scholar

Unsworth, N. & Spillers, G. J. (2010). Variation in working memory capacity and episodic recall: the contributions of strategic encoding and contextual retrieval. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 17(2), 200–205. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.2.200 Google Scholar

Wahlheim, C. N., Dunlosky, J., & Jacoby, L. L. (2011). Spacing enhances the learning of natural concepts: an investigation of mechanisms, metacognition, and aging. Memory and Cognition, 39(5), 750–763. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-010–0063-y Google Scholar

Werner, S. & Thies, B. (2000). Is “change blindness” attenuated by domain-specific expertise? An expert-novices comparison of change detection in football images. Visual Cognition, 7(1–3), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/135062800394748 Google Scholar

Whitman, J. R. & Garner, W. R. (1963). Concept learning as a function of form of internal structure. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2(2), 195–202.Google Scholar

Wulf, G. & Shea, C. H. (2002). Principles derived from the study of simple skills do not generalize to complex skill learning. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9(2), 185–211.Google Scholar

Yamauchi, T. & Markman, A. B. (2000). Inference using categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(3), 776–795.Google Scholar

Yan, V. X., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2016). On the difficulty of mending metacognitive illusions: A priori theories, fluency effects, and misattributions of the interleaving benefit. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(7), 918–933.Google Scholar

Yan, V. X., Soderstrom, N. C., Seneviratna, G. S., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2017). How should exemplars be sequenced in inductive learning? Empirical evidence versus learners’ opinions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: AppliedGoogle Scholar

Zeithamova, D., Schlichting, M. L., & Preston, A. R. (2012). The hippocampus and inferential reasoning: Building memories to navigate future decisions. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 70. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00070 Google Scholar

Zulkiply, N. & Burt, J. S. (2013). The exemplar interleaving effect in inductive learning: moderation by the difficulty of category discriminations. Memory and Cognition, 41(1), 16–27. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012–0238-9 Google Scholar

Zulkiply, N., McLean, J., Burt, J. S., & Bath, D. (2012). Spacing and induction: Application to exemplars presented as auditory and visual text. Learning and Instruction, 22(3), 215–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.11.002 Google Scholar

References

Andre, T. & Thieman, A. (1988). Level of adjunct question, type of feedback, and learning concepts by reading. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13(3), 296–307.Google Scholar

Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 29–58.Google Scholar

Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C. L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213–238.Google Scholar

Beleche, T., Fairris, D., & Marks, M. (2012). Do course evaluations truly reflect student learning? Evidence from an objectively graded post-test. Economics of Education Review, 31(5), 709–719.Google Scholar

Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 417–444.Google Scholar

Butler, A. C., Black-Maier, A. C., Campbell, K., Marsh, E. J., & Persky, A. M. (under review). Stabilizing access to marginal knowledge in a classroom setting.Google Scholar

Butler, A. C., Fazio, L. K., & Marsh, E. J. (2011). The hypercorrection effect persists over a week, but high-confidence errors return. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 18(6), 1238–1244.Google Scholar

Butler, A. C., Godbole, N., & Marsh, E. J. (2013). Explanation feedback is better than correct answer feedback for promoting transfer of learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 290–298.CrossRef Google Scholar

Butler, A. C., Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. III (2007). The effect of type and timing of feedback on learning from multiple-choice tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 13(4), 273–281.Google Scholar

Butler, A. C., Marsh, E. J., Slavinsky, J. P., & Baraniuk, R. G. (2014). Integrating cognitive science and technology improves learning in a STEM classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2), 331–340.Google Scholar

Butler, A. C. & Roediger, H. L. (2008). Feedback enhances the positive effects and reduces the negative effects of multiple-choice testing. Memory and Cognition, 36(3), 604–616.Google Scholar

Butterfield, B. & Metcalfe, J. (2001). Errors committed with high confidence are hypercorrected. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(6), 1491–1494.Google Scholar

Butterfield, B. & Metcalfe, J. (2006). The correction of errors committed with high confidence. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 69–84.Google Scholar

Cantor, A. D., Eslick, A. N., Marsh, E. J., Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (2015). Multiple-choice tests stabilize access to marginal knowledge. Memory and Cognition, 43(2), 193–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014–0462-6 Google Scholar

Carey, S. (1986). Cognitive science and science education. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1123–1130.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(11), 1095–1102.Google Scholar

Chi, M. T. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 161–199.Google Scholar

Chi, M. T., Roscoe, R. D., Slotta, J. D., Roy, M., & Chase, C. C. (2012). Misconceived causal explanations for emergent processes. Cognitive science, 36(1), 1–61.Google Scholar

Clancy, M. (2004). Misconceptions and attitudes that interfere with learning to program. In Fincher, S. & Petre, M. (eds.), Computer science education research (pp. 85–100). CRC Press.Google Scholar

Clarke, L. K. (1988). Invented versus traditional spelling in first graders’ writings: Effects on learning to spell and read. Research in the Teaching of English, 22(3), 281–309.Google Scholar

Cooper, H., Nye, B., Charlton, K., Lindsay, J., & Greathouse, S. (1996). The effects of summer vacation on achievement test scores: A narrative and meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 227–268.Google Scholar

Dibattista, D., Mitterer, J. O., & Gosse, L. (2004). Acceptance by undergraduates of the immediate feedback assessment technique for multiple‐choice testing. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(1), 17–28.CrossRef Google Scholar

Elawar, M. C. & Corno, L. (1985). A factorial experiment in teachers’ written feedback on student homework: Changing teacher behavior a little rather than a lot. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 162–173. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–0663.77.2.162 Google Scholar

Epstein, M. L. & Brosvic, G. M. (2002). Students prefer the immediate feedback assessment technique. Psychological Reports, 90(3, suppl.), 1136–1138.Google Scholar

Epstein, M. L., Epstein, B. B., & Brosvic, G. M. (2001). Immediate feedback during academic testing. Psychological Reports, 88(3), 889–894.Google Scholar

Farragher, P. & Szabo, M. (1986). Learning environmental science from text aided by a diagnostic and prescriptive instructional strategy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(6), 557–569.Google Scholar

Fazio, L. K., Agarwal, P. K., Marsh, E. J., & Roediger, H. L., III (2010). Memorial consequences of multiple-choice testing on immediate and delayed tests. Memory and Cognition, 38(4), 407–418. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.4.407 Google Scholar

Fazio, L. K., Huelser, B. J., Johnson, A., & Marsh, E. J. (2010). Receiving right/wrong feedback: Consequences for learning. Memory, 18(3), 335–350.Google Scholar

Fazio, L. K. & Marsh, E. J. (2009). Surprising feedback improves later memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(1), 88–92.Google Scholar

Ferguson, P. (2011). Student perceptions of quality feedback in teacher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903197883 Google Scholar

Fried, C. B. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computers and Education, 50(3), 906–914.Google Scholar

Gilman, D. A. (1969). Comparison of several feedback methods for correcting errors by computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 60(6, Pt. 1), 503–508.Google Scholar

Goldberg, R. F. & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2009). Developmental “roots” in mature biological knowledge. Psychological Science, 20(4), 480–487.Google Scholar

Graesser, A. C., Chipman, P., Haynes, B. C., & Olney, A. (2005). AutoTutor: An intelligent tutoring system with mixed-initiative dialogue. IEEE Transactions on Education, 48(4), 612–618.Google Scholar

Hart, J. T. (1967). Second-try recall, recognition, and the memory-monitoring process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 58(4), 193–197.Google Scholar

Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hattie, J. (2015). The applicability of visible learning to higher education. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(1), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000021 Google Scholar

Hays, M. J., Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2010). The costs and benefits of providing feedback during learning. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 17(6),797–801.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

Kaiser, M. K., Jonides, J., & Alexander, J. (1986). Intuitive reasoning about abstract and familiar physics problems. Memory and Cognition, 14(4), 308–312.Google Scholar

Karpicke, J. D., Butler, A. C., & Roediger III, H. L. (2009). Metacognitive strategies in student learning: Do students practise retrieval when they study on their own?. Memory, 17(4), 471–479.Google Scholar

Klahr, D. & Carver, S. M. (1988). Cognitive objectives in a LOGO debugging curriculum: Instruction, learning, and transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 20(3), 362–404.Google Scholar

Kornell, N. (2009). Optimising learning using flashcards: Spacing is more effective than cramming. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(9), 1297–1317. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1537 Google Scholar

Kornell, N., Hays, M. J., & Bjork, R. A. (2009). Unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance subsequent learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(4), 989–998. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015729 Google Scholar

Kulhavy, R. W. & Anderson, R. C. (1972). Delay-retention effect with multiple-choice tests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(5), 505–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033243 Google Scholar

Kulhavy, R. W. & Stock, W. A. (1989). Feedback in written instruction: The place of response certitude. Educational Psychology Review, 1(4), 279–308.Google Scholar

Kulhavy, R. W., White, M. T., Topp, B. W., Chan, A. L., & Adams, J. (1985). Feedback complexity and corrective efficiency. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10(3), 285–291.Google Scholar

Kulhavy, R. W., Yekovich, F. R., & Dyer, J. W. (1976). Feedback and response confidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(5), 522–528.Google Scholar

Kulik, J. & Kulik, C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Review of Educational Research, 58(1), 79–97. www.jstor.org/stable/1170349 Google Scholar

Lhyle, K. G. & Kulhavy, R. W. (1987). Feedback processing and error correction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(3), 320.Google Scholar

Lindsey, R. V., Shroyer, J. D., Pashler, H., & Mozer, M. C. (2014). Improving students’ long-term knowledge retention through personalized review. Psychological Science, 25(3), 639–647.Google Scholar

Maier, U., Wolf, N., & Randler, C. (2016). Effects of a computer-assisted formative assessment intervention based on multiple-tier diagnostic items and different feedback types. Computers and Education, 95, 85–98.Google Scholar

Marsh, E. J., Fazio, L. K., & Goswick, A. E. (2012). Memorial consequences of testing school-aged children. Memory, 20(8), 899–906.Google Scholar

Marsh, E. J., Lozito, J. P., Umanath, S., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2012). Using verification feedback to correct errors made on a multiple-choice test. Memory, 20(6), 645–653.Google Scholar

Marsh, E. J., Roediger, H. L., Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (2007). The memorial consequences of multiple-choice testing. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14(2), 194–199.Google Scholar

McDaniel, M. A., Agarwal, P. K., Huelser, B. J., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L., III, (2011). Test-enhanced learning in a middle school science classroom: The effects of quiz frequency and placement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 399–414.Google Scholar

Metcalfe, J. & Finn, B. (2011). People’s hypercorrection of high-confidence errors: Did they know it all along? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(2), 437–448.Google Scholar

Metcalfe, J. & Finn, B. (2012). Hypercorrection of high confidence errors in children. Learning and Instruction, 22(4), 253–261.Google Scholar

More, A. J. (1969). Delay of feedback and the acquisition and retention of verbal materials in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 60(5), 339–342. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028318 Google Scholar

Mullet, H. G., Butler, A. C., Verdin, B., von Borries, R., & Marsh, E. J. (2014). Delaying feedback promotes transfer of knowledge despite student preferences to receive feedback immediately. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3(3), 222–229.Google Scholar

Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), 191–196.Google Scholar

Núñez-Peña, M. I., Bono, R., & Suárez-Pellicioni, M. (2015). Feedback on students’ performance: A possible way of reducing the negative effect of math anxiety in higher education. International Journal of Educational Research, 70, 80–87.Google Scholar

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(1), 3–8.Google Scholar

Peeck, J. (1979). Effects of differential feedback on the answering of two types of questions by fifth‐and sixth‐graders. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 49(1), 87–92.Google Scholar

Potvin, P., Masson, S., Lafortune, S., & Cyr, G. (2015). Persistence of the intuitive conception that heavier objects sink more: A reaction time study with different levels of interference. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(1), 21–43.Google Scholar

Pressley, M., Tanenbaum, R., McDaniel, M. A., & Wood, E. (1990). What happens when university students try to answer prequestions that accompany textbook material? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15(1), 27–35.Google Scholar

Rawson, K. A. & Dunlosky, J. (2007). Improving students’ self-evaluation of learning for key concepts in textbook materials. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19(4–5), 559–579.Google Scholar

Renner, K. E. (1964). Delay of reinforcement: A historical review. Psychological Bulletin, 61(5), 341–361. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048335 Google Scholar

Rich, P. R., Van Loon, M. H., Dunlosky, J., & Zaragoza, M. S. (2017). Belief in corrective feedback for common misconceptions: Implications for knowledge revision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, And Cognition, 43(3), 492–501. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000322 Google Scholar

Roediger, H. L. & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(1), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.003 Google Scholar

Sassenrath, J. M. & Garverick, C. M. (1965). Effects of differential feedback from examinations on retention and transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 56(5), 259–263.Google Scholar

Schmidt, R. & Bjork, R. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3(4), 207–217.Google Scholar

Sinclair, H. K. & Cleland, J. A. (2007). Undergraduate medical students: Who seeks formative feedback? Medical Education, 41(6), 580–582.Google Scholar

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar

Slamecka, N. J. & Katsaiti, L. T. (1987). The generation effect as an artifact of selective displaced rehearsal. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(6), 589–607.Google Scholar

Smith, T. A. & Kimball, D. R. (2010). Learning from feedback: Spacing and the delay–retention effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(1), 80–95. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017407 Google Scholar

Surber, J. R. & Anderson, R. C. (1975). Delay-retention effect in natural classroom settings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(2), 170–173. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077003 Google Scholar

Szpunar, K. K., Moulton, S. T., & Schacter, D. L. (2013). Mind wandering and education: From the classroom to online learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 495.Google Scholar

Terrace, H. S. (1963). Errorless transfer of a discrimination across two continua. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6(2), 223–232.Google Scholar

Tomas, C. (2014). Marking and feedback provision on essay-based coursework: A process perspective. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(5), 611–624. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.860078 Google Scholar

Van Loon, M. H., Dunlosky, J., Van Gog, T., Van Merriënboer, J. J., & De Bruin, A. B. (2015). Refutations in science texts lead to hypercorrection of misconceptions held with high confidence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 39–48.Google Scholar

Walker, M. (2009). An investigation into written comments on assignments: Do students find them usable? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930801895752 Google Scholar

Weaver, M. (2006). Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors’ written responses. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 379–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500353061 Google Scholar

Yeager, D. S. & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 302–314.Google Scholar

Zamary, A., Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2016). How accurately can students evaluate the quality of self-generated examples of declarative concepts? Not well, and feedback does not help. Learning and Instruction, 46, 12–20.Google Scholar

References

Adesope, O. O. & Nesbit, J. C. (2012). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 250–263.Google Scholar

Anderson, L. W., Karthwohl, D. R., & Airasian, P. W. et al. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Ayres, P. (2006). Impact of reducing intrinsic cognitive load on learning in a mathematical domain. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(3), 287–298.Google Scholar

Ayres, P. & Sweller, J. (2014). The split attention principle in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2nd edn (pp. 206–226). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556–559.Google Scholar

Butcher, K. R. (2014). The multimedia principle. In Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2nd edn (pp. 174–205). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Clark, R. C. & Mayer, R. E. (2016). e-Learning and the science of instruction, 4th edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar

Clark, R. E. (2001). Learning from media. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar

Comenius, J. A. (1887). Orbis pictus. Syracuse, NY: Bardeen.Google Scholar

Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information: A meta-analysis of spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16, 511–525.Google Scholar

Ginns, P., Marin, A. J., & Marsh, H. M. (2013). Designing instructional text for conversational style: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 25, 445–472.Google Scholar

Harskamp, E. G., Mayer, R. E., & Suhre, C. (2007). Does the modality principle for multimedia learning apply to science classrooms? Learning and Instruction, 17, 465–477.Google Scholar

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Issa, N., Mayer, R. E., Schuller, S., Wang., E., Shapiro, M. B., & DaRosa, D. A. (2013). Teaching for understanding in medical classrooms using multimedia design principles. Medical Education, 47, 388–396.Google Scholar

Issa, N., Schuller, M., Santacaterina, S., Shapiro, M., Wang, M., Mayer, R. E., & DaRosa, D. A. (2011). Applying multimedia design principles enhances learning in medical education. Medical Education, 45, 818–826.Google Scholar

Jeung, H., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). The role of visual indicators in dual sensory mode instruction. Educational Psychology, 17, 329–433.Google Scholar

Johnson, C. & Mayer, R. E. (2012). An eye movement analysis of the spatial contiguity effect in multimedia learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18, 178–191.Google Scholar

Kalyuga, S. (2014). The expertise reversal principle in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2nd edn (pp. 576–597). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kalyuga, S. & Sweller, J. (2014). The redundancy principle in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2nd edn (pp. 247–262). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Levin, J. R. & Mayer, R. E. (1993). Understanding illustrations in text. In Britton, B. K., Woodworth, A., & Binkley, M. (eds.), Learning from textbooks (pp. 95–113). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Low, R. & Sweller, J. (2014). The modality principle in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2nd edn (pp. 227–246). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lusk, D. L., Evans, A. D., Jeffrey, T. R., Palmer, K. R., Wikstrom, C. S., & Doolittle, P. E. (2009). Multimedia learning and individual differences: Mediating the effects of working memory capacity with segmentation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(4), 636–651.Google Scholar

Mautone, P. D. & Mayer, R. E. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 377–389.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (2008). Multimedia literacy. In Leu, D. J., Coiro, J., Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 359–377). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning, 2nd edn. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (ed.) (2014a). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2nd edn. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (2014b). Principles based on social cues in multimedia learning: Personalization, voice, image, and embodiment principles. In Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2nd edn (pp. 345–368). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (2014c). Computer games for learning: An evidence-based approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. & Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 484–490.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. & Chandler, P. (2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 390–397.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. & DaPra, C. S. (2012). An embodiment effect in computer-based learning with animated pedagogical agent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18, 239–252.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E., Fennell, S., Farmer, L., & Campbell, J. (2004). A personalization effect in multimedia learning: Students learn better when words are in conversational style rather than formal style. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 389–395.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. & Fiorella, L. (2014). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity. In Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2nd edn (pp. 345–368). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E., Griffith, E., Jurkowitz, I. T. N., & Rothman, D. (2008). Increased interestingness of extraneous details in multimedia science presentation leads to decreased learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 329–339.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E., Heiser, H., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 187–198.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. & Johnson, C. I. (2008). Revising the redundancy principle in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 380–386.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E., Mathias, A., & Wetzell, K. (2002). Fostering understanding of multimedia messages through pre-training: Evidence for a two-stage theory of mental model construction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 147–154.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312–320.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E., Moreno, R., Boire, M., & Vagge, S. (1999). Maximizing constructivist learning from multimedia communications by minimizing cognitive load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 638–643.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. & Pilegard, C. (2014). Principles for managing essential processing in multimedia learning: Segmenting, pretraining, and modality principles. In Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2nd edn (pp. 379–315). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E., Sobko, K., & Mautone, P. D. (2003). Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of speaker’s voice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 419–425.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E., Steinhoff, K., Bower, G., & Mars, R. (1995). A generative theory of textbook design: Using annotated illustrations to foster meaningful learning of science text. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43, 31–43.Google Scholar

McGonical, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar

McLaren, B. M., DeLeeuw, K. E., & Mayer, R. E. (2011a). Polite web-based intelligent tutors: Can they improve learning in classrooms? Computers and Education, 56, 574–584.Google Scholar

McLaren, B. M., DeLeeuw, K. E., & Mayer, R. E. (2011b). A politeness effect in learning with web-based intelligent tutors. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 69, 70–79.Google Scholar

Michas, I. C. & Berry, D. (2000). Learning a procedural task: Effectiveness of multimedia presentations. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 555–575.Google Scholar

Moreno, R. & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358–368.Google Scholar

Moreno, R. & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 156–163.Google Scholar

Naumann, J., Richter, T., Flender, J., Cristmann, U., & Groeben, N. (2007). Signaling in expository hypertexts compensates for deficits in reading skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 791–807.Google Scholar

Paivio, A, (1986). Mental representations: A dual-coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learning and Instruction, 12, 61–86.Google Scholar

Prensky, M. (2006). Don’t bother me mom – I’m learning! St. Paul, MN: Paragon House.Google Scholar

Rey, G. D. (2012). A review and meta-analysis of the seductive detail effect. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 216–237.Google Scholar

Schank, R. C. (2002). Designing world-class e-learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Schuler, A., Scheiter, K., Rummer, R., & Gerjets, P. (2012). Explaining the modality effect in multimedia learning: Is it due to a lack of temporal contiguity with written text and pictures? Learning and Instruction, 22, 92–102.Google Scholar

Stull, A. & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 808–820.Google Scholar

Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Tabbers, H. K., Martens, R. L., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2004). Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: Effects of modality and cueing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 71–81.Google Scholar

van Gog, T. (2014). The signaling (or cueing) principle in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2nd edn (pp. 263–278). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wang, N., Johnson, W. L., Mayer, R. E., Rizzo, P., Shaw, E., & Collins, H. (2008). The politeness effect: Pedagogical agents and learning outcomes. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66, 98–112.Google Scholar

Wittrock, M. C. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345–376.Google Scholar

Yeung, A., Schmid, S., George, A. V., & King, M. M. (2009). Using the personalization hypothesis to design e-learning environments. In Gupta-Bhowon, M., Jhaumer-Laulloo, S., Wah, H. K. L., & Ramasami, P. (eds.), Chemistry education is the ICT age (pp. 287–300). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Yue, C. L., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2013). Reducing verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: An undesired desirable difficulty? Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 266–277.Google Scholar

References

Agarwal, P. K., D’Antonio, L., Roediger, H. L., McDermott, K. B., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Classroom-based programs of retrieval practice reduce middle school and high school students’ test anxiety. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3, 131–139.Google Scholar

Agarwal, P. K., Roediger, H. L., McDaniel, M. A., & McDermott, K. B. (2013). How to use retrieval practice to improve learning. Washington: University in St. Louis.Google Scholar

Anderson, R. C. & Biddle, W. B. (1975). On asking people questions about what they are reading. In Bower, G. H. (ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 9 (pp. 89–132). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. L. C. (1991). Effects of frequent classroom testing. The Journal of Educational Research, 85(2), 89–99.Google Scholar

Belluck, P. (2011). To really learn, quit studying and take a test. New York Times. January 20, 2011.Google Scholar

Bjork, R. A. & Bjork, E. L. (1992). A new theory of disuse and an old theory of stimulus fluctuation. In Healy, A., Kosslyn, S., & Shiffrin, R. (eds.), From learning processes to cognitive processes: Essays in honor of William K. Estes, Vol. 2 (pp. 35–67). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Bjork, E. L., Little, J. L., & Storm, B. C. (2014). Multiple-choice testing as a desirable difficulty in the classroom. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3, 165–170.Google Scholar

Bjork, E. L., Soderstrom, N. C., & Little, J. L. (2015). Can multiple-choice testing induce desirable difficulties? Evidence from the laboratory and the classroom. The American Journal of Psychology, 128, 229–239.Google Scholar

Buhay, D. Best, L. A., & McGuire, K. (2010). The effectiveness of library instruction: Do students response systems (clickers) enhance learning? The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1, 5.Google Scholar

Butler, A. C. & Roediger, H. L. (2007). Testing improves long-term retention in a simulated classroom setting. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 514–527.Google Scholar

Butler, A. C. & Roediger, H. L. (2008). Feedback enhances the positive effects and reduces the negative effects of multiple-choice testing. Memory and Cognition, 36, 604–616.Google Scholar

Carey, B. (2010). Forget what you know about good study habits. New York Times. September 6, 2010.Google Scholar

Carpenter, S. K. (2009). Cue strength as a moderator of the testing effect: The benefits of elaborative retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1563–1569.Google Scholar

Carroll, M., Campbell-Ratcliffe, J., Murnane, H., & Perfect, T. (2007). Retrieval-induced forgetting in educational contexts: Monitoring, expertise, text integration, and test format. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 580–606.Google Scholar

Chan, J. C. K. (2009). When does retrieval induce forgetting and when does it induce facilitation? Implications for retrieval inhibition, testing effect, and text processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 153–170.Google Scholar

Chan, J. C. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2006). Retrieval-induced facilitation: Initially nontested material can benefit from prior testing of related material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 553–571.Google Scholar

Dunlosky, J. & Hertzog, C. (1998). Training programs to improve learning in later adulthood: Helping older adults educate themselves. In Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 249–275). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .Google Scholar

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

Fiorella, L. & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Learning as a generative activity: Eight learning strategies that promote understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Glass, A. L., Brill, G., & Ingate, M. (2008). Combined online and in‐class pretesting improves exam performance in general psychology. Educational Psychology, 28, 483–503.Google Scholar

Glenberg, A. M. & Epstein, W. (1985). Calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 11, 702–718.Google Scholar

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

Guynn, M. J. & McDaniel, M. A. (1999). Generate – sometimes recognize, sometimes not. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 398–415.Google Scholar

Guynn, M. J., McDaniel, M. A., Strosser, G. L., Ramirez, J. M., Castleberry, E. H., & Arnett, K. H. (2014). Relational and item-specific influences on generate-recognize processes in recall. Memory and Cognition, 42, 198–211.Google Scholar

Halamish, V. & Bjork, R. A. (2011). When does testing enhance retention? A distribution-based interpretation of retrieval as a memory modifier. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(4), 801–812.Google Scholar

Hamaker, C. (1986). The effects of adjunct question on prose learning. Review of Educational Research, 56, 212–242.Google Scholar

Hartwig, M. K., & Dunlosky, J. (2012). Study strategies of college students: Are self-testing and scheduling related to achievement?. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 19, 126–134.Google Scholar

Jacoby, L. L. & Hollingshead, A. (1990). Toward a generate/recognize model of performance on direct and indirect tests of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 433–454.Google Scholar

Kang, S. H., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L., III (2007). Test format and corrective feedback modify the effect of testing on long-term retention. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 528–558.Google Scholar

Karpicke, J. D. (2009). Metacognitive control and strategy selection: Deciding to practice retrieval during learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 469–486. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017341 Google Scholar

King, J. F., Zechmeister, E. B., & Shaughnessy, J. J. (1980). Judgments of knowing: The influence of retrieval-practice. American Journal of Psychology, 93, 329–343.Google Scholar

Kintsch, W. (1978). More on recognition failure of recallable words: Implications for generation-recognition models. Psychological Review, 85, 470–473.Google Scholar

Koriat, A. & Bjork, R. A. (2006). Illusions of competence during study can be remedied by manipulations that enhance learners’ sensitivity to retrieval conditions at test. Memory and Cognition, 34, 959–972. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193244 Google Scholar

Kornell, N. & Bjork, R. A. (2007). The promise and perils of self-regulated study. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 219–224. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194055 Google Scholar

Kornell, N. & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Optimising self-regulated study: The benefits – and costs – of dropping flashcards. Memory, 16(2), 125–136.Google Scholar

Kornell, N., Bjork, R. A., & Garcia, M. A. (2011). Why tests appear to prevent forgetting: A distribution-based bifurcation model. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 85–97.Google Scholar

Kornell, N. & Rhodes, M. G. (2013). Feedback reduces the metacognitive benefit of tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19, 1–13.Google Scholar

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

Kuo, T. & Hirshman, E. (1997). The role of distinctive perceptual information in memory: Studies of the testing effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 188–201.Google Scholar

Lantz, M. E. & Stawiski, A. (2014). Effectiveness of clickers: Effect of feedback and the timing of questions on learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 280–286.Google Scholar

Larsen, D. P., Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L., III (2008). Test‐enhanced learning in medical education. Medical Education, 42(10), 959–966.Google Scholar

Leeming, F. C. (2002). The exam-a-day procedure improves performance in psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 210–212.Google Scholar

Little, J. L. & Bjork, E. L. (2011). Pretesting with multiple-choice questions facilitates learning. In Carlson, L., Hölscher, C., & Shipley, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 294–299). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Little, J. L. & Bjork, E. L. (2015). Optimizing multiple-choice tests as tools for learning. Memory and Cognition, 43, 14–26.Google Scholar

Little, J. L. & Bjork, E. L. (2016). Multiple-choice pretesting potentiates learning of related information. Memory and Cognition, 44, 1085–1101.Google Scholar

Little, J. L., Bjork, E. L., Bjork, R. A., & Angello, G. (2012). Multiple-choice tests exonerated, at least of some charges fostering test-induced learning and avoiding test-induced forgetting. Psychological Science, 23, 1337–1344.Google Scholar

Little, J. L., Frickey, E. A., & Fung, A. K. (2018). The role of retrieval in answering multiple-choice questions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000638 Google Scholar

Little, J. L. & McDaniel, M. A. (2015). Metamemory monitoring and control following retrieval practice for text. Memory and Cognition, 43, 85–98.Google Scholar

Little, J. L., Storm, B. C., & Bjork, E. L. (2011). The costs and benefits of testing text materials. Memory, 19, 346–359.Google Scholar

Lovelace, E. A. (1984). Metamemory: Monitoring future recallability during study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 756–766.Google Scholar

Lyle, K. B. & Crawford, N. A. (2011). Retrieving essential material at the end of lectures improves performance on statistics exams. Teaching of Psychology, 38, 94–97.Google Scholar

Maki, R. H., Foley, J. M., Kajer, W. K., Thompson, R. C., & Willert, M. G. (1990). Increased processing enhances calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 16, 609–616.Google Scholar

Martin, N. D., Nguyen, K., & McDaniel, M. A. (2016). Structure building differences influence learning from educational text: Effects on encoding, retention, and metacognitive control. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46, 52–60.Google Scholar

Mawhinney, V. T., Bostow, D. E., Laws, D. R., Blumenfeld, G. J., & Hopkins, B. L. (1971). A comparison of students studying-behavior produced by daily, weekly, and three-week testing schedules. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 4, 257–264.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E., Stull, A., DeLeeuw, K., Almeroth, K., Bimber, B., Chun, D., Bulger, M., Campbell, J., Knight, A., & Zhang, H. (2009). Clickers in college classrooms: Fostering learning with questioning methods in large lecture classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 51–57.Google Scholar

McDaniel, M. A., Agarwal, P. K., Huelser, B. J., McDermott, K. B., & RoedigerIII, H. L. (2011). Test-enhanced learning in a middle school science classroom: The effects of quiz frequency and placement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 399–414.Google Scholar

McDaniel, M. A., Anderson, J. L., Derbish, M. H., & Morrisette, N. (2007). Testing the testing effect in the classroom. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19(4–5), 494–513.Google Scholar

McDaniel, M. A., Bugg, J. M., Liu, Y., & Brick, J. (2015). When does the test-study-test sequence optimize learning and retention? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 21, 370–382.Google Scholar

McDaniel, M. A., Howard, D. C., & Einstein, G. O. (2009). The read-recite-review study strategy effective and portable. Psychological Science, 20(4), 516–522.Google Scholar

McDaniel, M. A. & Masson, M. E. (1985). Altering memory representations through retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11(2), 371–385.Google Scholar

McDaniel, M. A., Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (2007). Generalizing test-enhanced learning from the laboratory to the classroom. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14(2), 200–206.Google Scholar

McDaniel, M. A., Wildman, K. M., & Anderson, J. L. (2012). Using quizzes to enhance summative-assessment performance in a web-based class: An experimental study. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1(1), 18–26.Google Scholar

McDermott, K. B., Agarwal, P. K., D’Antonio, L., Roediger, H. L., III & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Both multiple-choice and short-answer quizzes enhance later exam performance in middle and high school classes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20, 3–21Google Scholar

Metcalfe, J. & Kornell, N. (2005). A region of proximal learning model of study time allocation. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 463–477.Google Scholar

Nelson, T. O. & Dunlosky, J. (1991). When people’s judgments of learning (JOLs) are extremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall: The “delayed-JOL effect.” Psychological Science, 2, 267–270.Google Scholar

Newble, D. I., Baxter, A., & Elmslie, R. G. (1979). A comparison of multiple-choice tests and free-response tests in examinations of clinical competence. Medical Education, 13, 263–268.Google Scholar

Peterson, D. J. & Mulligan, N. W. (2013). The negative testing effect and the multifactor account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1287–1293.Google Scholar

Pyc, M. A. & Rawson, K. A. (2010). Why testing improves memory: Mediator effectiveness hypothesis. Science, 330, 335.Google Scholar

Raaijmakers, J. G. & Shiffrin, R. M. (1981). Search of associative memory. Psychological Review, 88(2), 93–134.Google Scholar

Rawson, K. A., Dunlosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2000). The rereading effect: Metacomprehension accuracy improves across reading trials. Memory and Cognition, 28, 1004–1010.Google Scholar

Roediger, H. L. & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 20–27.Google Scholar

Roediger, H. L. & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 181–210.Google Scholar

Roediger, H. L., III, Putnam, A. L., & Smith, M. A. (2011). Ten benefits of testing and their applications to educational practice. In Mestre, J. P. & Ross, B. H. (eds.), Psychology of learning and motivation: Cognition in education, Vol. 55 (pp. 1–36). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Rowland, C. A. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: A meta-analytic review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1432–1463.Google Scholar

Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K., Guild, N., & Su, T. T. (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science, 323(5910), 122–124.Google Scholar

Soderstrom, N. C. & Bjork, R. A. (2014). Testing facilitates the regulation of subsequent study time. Journal of Memory and Language, 73, 99–115.Google Scholar

Thomas, A. K. & Mcdaniel, M. A. (2007). Metacomprehension for educationally relevant materials: Dramatic effects of encoding-retrieval interactions. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 212–218.Google Scholar

Trumbo, M. C., Leiting, K. A., McDaniel, M. A., & Hodge, G. K. (2016). Effects of reinforcement on test-enhanced learning in a large, diverse introductory college psychology course. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied.Google Scholar

Tullis, J. G., Finley, J. R., & Benjamin, A. S. (2013). Metacognition of the testing effect: Guiding learners to predict the benefits of retrieval. Memory and Cognition, 41, 429–442.Google Scholar

References

Andersson, J. & Rönnberg, J. (1995). Recall suffers from collaboration: Joint recall effects of friendship and task complexity. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9(3), 199–211.Google Scholar

Arthur, W. Jr., Day, E. A., Bennett, W. Jr., McNelly, T. L., & Jordan, J. A. (1997). Dyadic versus individual training protocols: Loss and reacquisition of a complex skill. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 783–791.Google Scholar

Barber, S. J., Rajaram, S., & Aron, A. (2010). When two is too many: Collaborative encoding impairs memory. Memory and Cognition, 38(3), 255–264.Google Scholar

Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403–436.Google Scholar

Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359.Google Scholar

Basden, B. H., Basden, D. R., Bryner, S., & Thomas III, R. L. (1997). A comparison of group and individual remembering: Does collaboration disrupt retrieval strategies? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(5), 1176–1189.Google Scholar

Basden, D. R., Basden, B. H., & Galloway, B. C. (1977). Inhibition with part-list cuing: Some tests of the item strength hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 3, 100–108.Google Scholar

Bloodgood, J. W. (2002). Quintilian: A classic educator speaks to the writing process. Reading, Research, and Instruction, 42(1), 30–43.Google Scholar

Blumen, H. M. & Stern, Y. (2011). Short-term and long-term collaboration benefits on individual recall in younger and older adults. Memory and Cognition, 39(1), 147–154.Google Scholar

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.Google Scholar

Buchs, C., Butera, F., Mugny, G., & Darnon, C. (2004). Conflict elaboration and cognitive outcomes. Theory into Practice, 43, 23–30.Google Scholar

Butera, F. & Darnon, C. (2017). Competence assessment, social comparison, and conflict regulation. In Elliot, A. J. & Dweck, C. S. (eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and application (pp. 192–213). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Canham, M. S., Wiley, J., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). When diversity in training improves dyadic problem solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 421–430.Google Scholar

Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105.Google Scholar

Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.Google Scholar

Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.Google Scholar

Chi, M. T. H. & Wiley, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243Google Scholar

Clark, H. H. & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In Resnick, L. B., Levine, J. M., & Teasley, S. D. (eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar

Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Apfel, N., & Master, A. (2006). Reducing the racial achievement gap: A social-psychological intervention. Science, 313, 1307–1310.Google Scholar

Collaros, P. A. & Anderson, L. R. (1969). Effect of perceived expertness upon creativity of members of brainstorming groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53(2), 159–163.Google Scholar

Congleton, A. R. & Rajaram, S. (2011). The influence of learning methods on collaboration: Prior repeated retrieval enhances retrieval organization, abolishes collaborative inhibition, and promotes post-collaborative memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(4), 535–551.Google Scholar

Crooks, S. M., Klein, J. D., Savenye, W., & Leader, L. (1998). Effects of cooperative and individual learning during learner-controlled computer-based instruction. The Journal of Experimental Education, 66(3), 223–244.Google Scholar

Darnon, C., Buchs, C., Butera, F. (2002). Epistemic and relational conflicts in sharing identical vs. complementary information during cooperative learning. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 61(3), 139–151.Google Scholar

Darnon, C., Muller, D., Schrager, S. M., Pannuzzo, N., & Butera, F. (2006). Mastery and performance goals predict epistemic and relational conflict regulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 766–776.Google Scholar

De Dreu, C. K. & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749.Google Scholar

Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human relations, 2, 129–152.Google Scholar

Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Diehl, M. & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497–509.Google Scholar

Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In Spada, E. & Reiman, P. (eds.), Learning in humans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Doise, W. & Mugny, G. (1984). The social development of the intellect. International Series in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 10. London: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar

Engle, R. A. & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483.Google Scholar

Ericsson, K. A. & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211–245.Google Scholar

Finlay, F., Hitch, G. J., & Meudell, P. R. (2000). Mutual inhibition in collaborative recall: Evidence for a retrieval-based account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(6), 1556–1567.Google Scholar

Gadgil, S. & Nokes‐Malach, T. J. (2012). Overcoming collaborative inhibition through error correction: A classroom experiment. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(3), 410–420.Google Scholar

Geen, R. G. (1983). Evaluation apprehension and the social facilitation/inhibition of learning. Motivation and Emotion, 7(2), 203–212.Google Scholar

Goldbeck, S. L. & El-Moslimany, H. (2013). Developmental approaches to collaborative learning. In Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Chinn, A., Chan, C. K. K., & O’Donnel, A. M. (eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 41–56). New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53, 5–26.Google Scholar

Greeno, J. & The Middle-School Mathematics through Applications Project Group (MMAP). (1997). Theories and practices of thinking and learning to think. American Journal of Education, 106(1), 85–126.Google Scholar

Hadwin, A. F., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2011). Self-regulated, co-regulated, and socially shared regulation of learning. Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance, 30, 65–84.Google Scholar

Hakkarainen, K., Paavola, S., Kangas, K., & Seitama-Hakkarainen, P. (2013). Sociocultural perspectives on collaborative learning: Toward collaborative knowledge creation. In Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Chinn, C., Chan, C. K. K., & O’Donnell, A. M. (eds.), International handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 57–73). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Harkins, S. G. & Petty, R. E. (1982). Effects of task difficulty and task uniqueness on social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(6), 1214–1229.Google Scholar

Harris, C. B., Barnier, A. J., & Sutton, J. (2013). Shared encoding and the costs and benefits of collaborative recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(1), 183.Google Scholar

Harris, C. B., Paterson, H. M., & Kemp, R. I. (2008). Collaborative recall and collective memory: What happens when we remember together? Memory, 16(3), 213–230.Google Scholar

Harris, A., Yuill, N., & Luckin, R. (2008). The influence of context-specific and dispositional achievement goals on children’s paired collaborative interaction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(3), 355–374.Google Scholar

Harris, C. B., Keil, P. G., Sutton, J., Barnier, A. J., & McIlwain, D. J. F. (2011). We remember, we forget: Collaborative remembering in older couples. Discourse Processes, 48, 267–303.Google Scholar

Hill, G. W. (1982). Group versus individual performance: Are n + 1 heads better than one. Psychological Bulletin, 91(3), 517–539.Google Scholar

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Chinn, C. A., Chan, C. K. K., & O’Donnell, A. (eds.). (2013). The international handbook of collaborative learning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Jeong, H. (2013). Verbal data analysis for understanding interactions. In Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Chinn, C., Chan, C. K. K., & O’Donnell, A. M. (eds.), International handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 57–73). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.Google Scholar

Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning, 4th edn. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar

Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 39(5), 365–379.Google Scholar

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.Google Scholar

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 15–29.Google Scholar

Karau, S. J. & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681–706.Google Scholar

Kelley, M. R. & Wright, D. B. (2010). Obtaining representative nominal groups. Behavior Research Methods, 42(1), 36–41.Google Scholar

Kerr, N. L. & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 623–655.Google Scholar

Kim, Y. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 114–130.Google Scholar

Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009a). A cognitive load approach to collaborative learning: United brains for complex tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1), 31–42.Google Scholar

Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009b). Individual and group based learning from complex cognitive tasks: Effects on retention and transfer efficiency. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 306–314.Google Scholar

Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2011). Task complexity as a driver for collaborative learning efficiency: the collective working-memory effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(4), 615–624.Google Scholar

Kolloffel, B., Eysink, T. H., & de Jong, T. (2011). Comparing the effects of representational tools in collaborative and individual inquiry learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(2), 223–251.Google Scholar

Kravitz, D. A. & Martin, B. (1986). Ringelmann rediscovered: The original article. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(5), 936–941.Google Scholar

Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 822–832.Google Scholar

Laughlin, P. R., Carey, H. R., & Kerr, N. L. (2008). Group-to-individual problem-solving transfer. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 11(3), 319–330.Google Scholar

Laughlin, P. R., Hatch, E. C., Silver, J. S., & Boh, L. (2006). Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: Effects of group size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 644–651.Google Scholar

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Leidner, D. E. & Fuller, M. (1997). Improving student learning of conceptual information: GSS supported collaborative learning vs. individual constructive learning. Decision Support Systems, 20(2), 149–163.Google Scholar

Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflict. New York: Harper.Google Scholar

Lorge, I., Fox, D., Davitz, J., & Brenner, M. (1958). A survey of studies contrasting the quality of group performance and individual performance. Psychological Bulletin, 55, 337–372.Google Scholar

Matsui, T., Kakuyama, T., & Onglatco, M. U. (1987). Effects of goals and feedback on performance in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 407–415.Google Scholar

Meade, M. L., Nokes, T. J., & Morrow, D. G. (2009). Expertise promotes facilitation on a collaborative memory task. Memory, 17(1), 39–48.Google Scholar

Meade., M. L. & Roediger, H. L. (2002). Explorations in the social contagion of memory. Memory and Cognition, 30 (7), 995–1009.Google Scholar

Mevarech, Z. R. (1985). The effects of cooperative mastery learning strategies on mathematics achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 78(6), 372–377.Google Scholar

Mugny, G., De Paolis, P., & Carugati, F. (1984). Social regulations in cognitive development. ln Doise, W. & Palmonari, A. (eds.), Social interaction in individual development (pp. 127–146). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mullen, B. (1983). Operationalizing the effect of the group on the individual: A self-attention perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19(4), 295–322.Google Scholar

Mullen, B. (1987). Self-attention theory. In Mullen, B. & Goethals, G. R. (eds.), Theories of group behaviour (pp. 125–146). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

Nokes-Malach, T. J., Meade, M. L., & Morrow, D. G. (2012). The effect of expertise on collaborative problem solving. Thinking and Reasoning, 18(1), 32–58.Google Scholar

Nokes-Malach, T. J., Richey, J. E., & Gadgil, S. (2015). When is it better to learn together? Insights from research on collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 27(4), 645–656.Google Scholar

O’Donnell, A. M. (1999). Structuring dyadic interaction through scripted cooperation. In O’Donnell, A. M. & King, A. (eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 179–196). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

O’Donnell, A. M. & Hmelo-Silver, H. E. (2013). What is collaborative learning: An overview. In Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Chinn, C. A., Chan, C. K. K., & O’Donnell, A. (eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 1–15). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Okada, T. & Simon, H. A. (1997). Collaborative discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 109–146.Google Scholar

Pereira-Pasarin, L. & Rajaram, S. (2011). Study repetition and divided attention: Effects of encoding manipulations on collaborative inhibition in group recall. Memory and Cognition, 39, 968–976.Google Scholar

Petty, R. E., Harkins, S. G., Williams, K. D., & Latane, B. (1977). The effects of group size on cognitive effort and evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3(4), 579–582.Google Scholar

Piaget, J. (1932). The language and thought of the child, 2nd edn. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Piaget, J. (1975/1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures: The central problem of intellectual development. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Paulus, P. B. & Yang, H. C. (2000). Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 76–87.Google Scholar

Poortvliet, P. M., Janssen, O., Van Yperen, N. W., & Van de Vliert, E. (2007). Achievement goals and interpersonal behavior: How mastery and performance goals shape information exchange. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(10), 1435–1447.Google Scholar

Rajaram, S. & Pereira-Pasarin, L. P. (2010). Collaborative memory: Cognitive research and theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(6), 649–663.Google Scholar

Ringelmann, M. (1913). Recherches sur les moteurs animes: Travail de rhomme [Research on animate sources of power: The work of man]. Annales de I’lnstitut National Agronomique, 12, 1–40.Google Scholar

Roediger, H. L. & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(1), 20–27.Google Scholar

Roediger, H. L. & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 181–210.Google Scholar

Roediger, H. L., Meade, M. L., & Bergman, E. T. (2001). Social contagion of memory. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 8(2), 365–371.Google Scholar

Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 235–276.Google Scholar

Roschelle, J. & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In O’Malley, C. (ed.), Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 69–197). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

Rummel, N. & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 201–241.Google Scholar

Sampson, V. & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448–484.Google Scholar

Sawyer, R. D. (2013). Learning to walk the talk: Designing a teacher leadership EdD program as a laboratory of practice. Planning and Changing, 44(3/4), 208–220.Google Scholar

Schwartz, D. L. (1995). The emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 321–354.Google Scholar

Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., & Biezuner, S. (2000). Two wrongs may make a right … if they argue together! Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 461–494.Google Scholar

Sherman, D. K., Hartson, K. A., Binning, K. R., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Garcia, J., Taborsky-Barba, S., … Cohen, G. L. (2013). Deflecting the trajectory and changing the narrative: How self-affirmation affects academic performance and motivation under identity threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(4), 591–618.Google Scholar

Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice, 2nd edn. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar

Slavin, R., Leavey, M., & Madden, N. (1984). Combining cooperative learning and individualized instruction: Effects on student mathematics achievement, attitudes, and behaviors. Elementary School Journal, 84, 409–422.Google Scholar

Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21–51.Google Scholar

Souvignier, E. & Kronenberger, J. (2007). Cooperative learning in third graders’ jigsaw groups for mathematics and science with and without questioning training. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(4), 755–771.Google Scholar

Steiner, I. D. (1966). Models for inferring the relationships between group size and potential group productivity. Behavioral Science, 11, 273–283.Google Scholar

Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group processes and productivity. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Stevens, R. J. & Slavin, R. E. (1995). Effects of a cooperative learning approach in reading and writing on academically handicapped students. The Elementary School Journal, 95(3), 241–262.Google Scholar

Stevens, R. J., Slavin, R. E., & Farnish, A. M. (1991). The effects of cooperative learning and direct instruction in reading comprehension strategies on main idea identification. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 8–16.Google Scholar

Stewart, G. L. (2006). A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. Journal of management, 32(1), 29–55.Google Scholar

Teasley, S. D. (1995). The role of talk in children’s peer collaborations. Developmental Psychology, 31 (2), 207–220.Google Scholar

Teasley, S. D. & Roschelle, J. (1993). Constructing a joint problem space: The computer as a tool for sharing knowledge. In Lajoie, S. P. & Derry, S. J. (eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 229–258). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Tudge, J. (1989). When collaboration leads to regression: Some negative consequences of socio-cognitive conflict. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19(2), 123–138.Google Scholar

Tudge, J. R. H. & Winterhoff, P. A. (1993). Vygotsky, Piaget, and Bandura: Perspectives on the relations between the social world and cognitive development. Human Development, 36, 61–81.Google Scholar

Vanderlinde, R. & van Braak, J. (2010). The gap between educational research and practice: Views of teachers, school leaders, intermediaries and researchers, British Educational Research Journal, 36(2), 299–316.Google Scholar

Voiklis, J. & Corter, J. E. (2012). Conventional wisdom: Negotiating conventions of reference enhances category learning. Cognitive Science, 36(4), 607–634.Google Scholar

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Webb, N. M., Troper, J. D., & Fall, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 406–423.Google Scholar

Weigold, A., Russell, E. J., & Natera, S. N. (2014). Correction of false memory for associated word lists by collaborating groups. The American Journal of Psychology, 127(2), 183–190.Google Scholar

Weldon, M.S. & Bellinger, K.D. (1997). Collective memory: Collaborative and individual processes in remembering. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 1160–1175.Google Scholar

Wright, D. B. (2007). Calculating nominal group statistics in collaboration studies. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 460–470.Google Scholar

References

Adams, D. M., McLaren, B. M., Durkin, K., Mayer, R. E., Rittle-Johnson, B., Isotani, S., & van Velsen, M. (2014). Using erroneous examples to improve mathematics learning with a web-based tutoring system. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 401–411.Google Scholar

Ainsworth, S. & Loizou, A. T. (2003). The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cognitive Science, 27, 669–681.Google Scholar

Aleven, V. A. & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor. Cognitive Science, 26, 147–179.Google Scholar

Anderson, J. R., Fincham, J. M., & Douglass, S. (1997). The role of examples and rules in the acquisition of a cognitive skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 932–945.Google Scholar

Atkinson, R. K., Renkl, A., & Merrill, M. M. (2003). Transitioning from studying examples to solving problems: Combining fading with prompting fosters learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 774–783.Google Scholar

Berthold, K., Eysink, T. H., & Renkl, A. (2009). Assisting self-explanation prompts are more effective than open prompts when learning with multiple representations. Instructional Science, 37, 345–363.Google Scholar

Berthold, K. & Renkl, A. (2009). Instructional aids to support a conceptual understanding of multiple representations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 70–87.Google Scholar

Bielaczyc, K., Pirolli, P. L., & Brown, A. L. (1995). Training in self-explanation and self-regulation strategies: Investigating the effects of knowledge acquisition activities on problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 221–252.Google Scholar

Booth, J. L., Lange, K. E., Koedinger, K. R., & Newton, K. J. (2013). Using example problems to improve student learning in algebra: Differentiating between correct and incorrect examples. Learning and Instruction, 25, 24–34.Google Scholar

Busch, C., Renkl, A., & Schworm, S. (2008). Towards a generic self-explanation training intervention for example-based learning. In Kirschner, P. A., Prins, F., Jonker, V., & Kanselaar, G. (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the Learning Sciences 2008 (CD-ROM version only). Utrecht: International Conference of the Learning Science.Google Scholar

Chi, M. & VanLehn, K. (2010). Meta-cognitive strategy instruction in intelligent tutoring systems: How, when, and why. Educational Technology and Society, 13, 25–39.Google Scholar

Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In Glaser, R. (ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 161–238). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Chi, M. T. H. & Bassok, M. (1989). Learning from examples via self-explanations. In Resnick, L. B. (ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 251–282). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Chi, M. T., deLeeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self‐explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.Google Scholar

Chi, M. T. H. & VanLehn, K. A. (2012). Seeing deep structure from the interactions of surface features. Educational Psychologist, 47, 177–188.Google Scholar

Cho, Y. H. & Lee, S. E. (2013). The role of co-explanation and self-explanation in learning from design examples of PowerPoint presentation slides. Computers and Education, 69, 400–407.Google Scholar

Clark, R. C. & Mayer, R. E. (2016). e-Learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning, 4th edn. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.Google Scholar

Clark, R. C., Nguyen, F., & Sweller, (2006). Efficiency in learning: Evidence‐based guidelines to manage cognitive load. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.Google Scholar

Conati, C. & VanLehn, K. (2000). Further results from the evaluation of an intelligent computer tutor to coach self-explanation. In Gauthier, G., Frasson, C., & VanLehn, K. (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 304–313). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Cooper, G. & Sweller, J. (1987). Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 347–362.Google Scholar

Curry, L. A. (2004). The effects of self-explanations of correct and incorrect solutions on algebra problem-solving performance. In Forbus, K., Gentner, D., & Regier, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the 26th conference of the Cognitive Science Society (p. 1548). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

De Caro, M. S. & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2012). Exploring mathematics problems prepares children to learn from instruction. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113, 552–568.Google Scholar

De Koning, B. B, Tabbers, H. K, Rikers, R. M. J. P, & Paas, G. W. C. (2011). Improved effectiveness of cueing by self-explanations when learning from a complex animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 183–194.Google Scholar

Didierjean, A. & Cauzinille-Marmèche, E. (1998). Reasoning by analogy: Is it schema-mediated or case-based?. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 13, 385–398.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Durkin, K. & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2012). The effectiveness of using incorrect examples to support learning about decimal magnitude. Learning and Instruction, 22, 206–214.Google Scholar

Fiorella, L. & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Learning as a generative activity: Eight learning strategies that promote understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gartmeier, M., Bauer, J., Gruber, H., & Heid, H. (2010). Workplace errors and negative knowledge in elder care nursing. Human Resource Development International, 13, 5–25.Google Scholar

Große, C. S. & Renkl, A. (2006). Effects of multiple solution methods in mathematics learning. Learning and Instruction, 16, 122–138.Google Scholar

Große, C. S. & Renkl, A. (2007). Finding and fixing errors in worked examples: Can this foster learning outcomes? Learning and Instruction, 17, 612–634.Google Scholar

Hefter, M. H., Berthold, K., Renkl, A., Riess, W., Schmid, S., & Fries, S. (2014). Effects of a training intervention to foster argumentation skills while processing conflicting scientific positions. Instructional Science, 42, 929–947.Google Scholar

Hilbert, T. S. & Renkl, A. (2009). Learning how to use a computer-based concept-mapping tool: Self-explaining examples helps. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 267–274.Google Scholar

Hilbert, T. S., Renkl, A., Schworm, S., Kessler, S., & Reiss, K. (2008). Learning to teach with worked-out examples: A computer-based learning environment for teachers. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 24, 316–332.Google Scholar

Hodds, M., Alcock, L., & Inglis, M. (2014). Self-explanation training improves proof comprehension. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45, 62–101.Google Scholar

Hoogerheide, V., Deijkers, L., Loyens, S. M., Heijltjes, A., & van Gog, T. (2016). Gaining from explaining: Learning improves from explaining to fictitious others on video, not from writing to them. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44, 95–106.Google Scholar

Johnson, C. I. & Mayer, R. E. (2010). Applying the self-explanation principle to multimedia learning in a computer-based game-like environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1246–1252.Google Scholar

Kalyuga, S. & Renkl, A. (2010). Expertise reversal effect and its instructional implications: Introduction to the special issue. Instructional Science, 38, 209–215.Google Scholar

Kalyuga, S. & Singh, A. M. (2016). Rethinking the boundaries of cognitive load theory in complex learning. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 831–852.Google Scholar

Keil, F. C. (2006). Explanation and understanding. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 227–254.Google Scholar

Kelley, H. H. (1971). Attribution in social interaction. New York: General Learning Press.Google Scholar

Kiel, E. (1999). Erklären als didaktisches Handeln [Explaining as instructional action]. Würzburg: Ergon.Google Scholar

Koedinger, K. R. & Aleven, V. (2007). Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 239–264.Google Scholar

Koedinger, K. R. & Corbett, A. T. (2006). Cognitive tutors: Technology bringing learning sciences to the classroom. In Sawyer, R. K. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 61–78). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lombrozo, T. (2012). Explanation and abductive inference. In Holyoak, K. J. & Morrison, R. G. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 260–276). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Matthews, P. & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2009). In pursuit of knowledge: Comparing self-explanations, concepts, and procedures as pedagogical tools. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 104, 1–21.Google Scholar

McEldoon, K. L., Durkin, K. L., & Rittle‐Johnson, B. (2013). Is self‐explanation worth the time? A comparison to additional practice. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 615–632.Google Scholar

McNamara, D. S. (2004). SERT: Self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38, 1–30.Google Scholar

Moreno, R. & Valdez, A. (2007). Immediate and delayed effects of using a classroom case exemplar in teacher education: The role of presentation format. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 194–206.Google Scholar

Morrison, J. R., Bol, L., Ross, S. M., & Watson, G. S. (2015). Paraphrasing and prediction with self-explanation as generative strategies for learning science principles in a simulation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63, 861–882.Google Scholar

Nokes-Malach, T. J., VanLehn, K., Belenky, D. M., Lichtenstein, M., & Cox, G. (2013). Coordinating principles and examples through analogy and self-explanation. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28, 1237–1263.Google Scholar

Oser, F. & Spychiger, M. (2005). Lernen ist schmerzhaft: Zur Theorie des Negativen Wissens und zur Praxis der Fehlerkultur [Learning is painful: On a theory of negative knowledge and on the practice of error management]. Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar

Pashler, H., Bain, P. M., Bottge, B. A., Graesser, A., Koedinger, K., McDaniel, M., & Metcalfe, J. (2007). Organizing instruction and study to improve student learning. IES Practice Guide. NCER 2007–2004. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research.Google Scholar

Pirolli, P. & Recker, M. (1994). Learning strategies and transfer in the domain of programming. Cognition & Instruction, 12, 235–275.Google Scholar

Renkl, A. (1997). Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences. Cognitive Science, 21, 1–29.Google Scholar

Renkl, A. (2014a). Theoretische Konzepte und Prinzipien auf den Schulalltag beziehen: Ein wenig Theorie and darauf begründete Vorschläge für die Referendariatsausbildung [Relating theoretical concepts and principles to classroom practice: A bit of theory and delineated recommendations for teacher education]. Seminar, 2(2014), 9–16.Google Scholar

Renkl, A. (2014b). Towards an instructionally-oriented theory of example-based learning. Cognitive Science, 38, 1–37.Google Scholar

Renkl, A. (2015). Different roads lead to Rome: The case of principle-based cognitive skills. Learning: Research & Practice, 1, 79–90.Google Scholar

Renkl, A. (2017a). Instruction based on examples. In Mayer, R. E. & Alexander, P. A. (eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction, 2nd edn (pp. 325–348). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Renkl, A. (2017b). Learning from worked-examples in mathematics: Students relate procedures to principles. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49, 571–584.Google Scholar

Renkl, A. & Atkinson, R. K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skills acquisition: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychologist, 38, 15–22.Google Scholar

Renkl, A., Hilbert, T., & Schworm, S. (2009). Example-based learning in heuristic domains: A cognitive load theory account. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 67–78.Google Scholar

Renkl, A., Solymosi, J., Erdmann, M., & Aleven, V. (2013). Training principle-based self-explanations: Transfer to new learning contents. In Knauff, M., Pauen, M., Sebanz, N., & Wachsmuth, I. (eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1205–1210). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Renkl, A., Stark, R., Gruber, H., & Mandl, H. (1998). Learning from worked-out examples: The effects of example variability and elicited self-explanations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 90–108.Google Scholar

Rittle-Johnson, B. & Loehr, A. M. (2017). Eliciting explanations: Constraints on when self-explanation aids learning. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 24, 1501–1510.Google Scholar

Rittle-Johnson, B., Loehr, A. M., & Durkin, K. (2017). Promoting self-explanation to improve mathematics learning: A meta-analysis and instructional design principles. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49, 599–611.Google Scholar

Ross, B. H. (1989). Remindings in learning and instruction. In Vosniadou, S. & Ortony, A. (eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 438–469). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Rummel, N., Spada, H., & Hauser, S. (2009). Learning to collaborate while being scripted or by observing a model. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 69–92.Google Scholar

Salden, R., Aleven, V., Renkl, A., & Schwonke, R. (2009). Worked examples and tutored problem solving: Redundant or synergistic forms of support? Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 203–213.Google Scholar

Salden, R., Koedinger, K. R., Renkl, A., Aleven, V., & McLaren, B. M. (2010). Accounting for beneficial effects of worked examples in tutored problem solving. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 379–392.Google Scholar

Schalk, L., Saalbach, H., & Stern, E. (2016). Approaches to foster transfer of formal principles: Which route to take? PloS One, 11, e0148787.Google Scholar

Schunk, D. H. & Zimmerman, B. J. (2007). Influencing children’s self-efficacy and self-regulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 23, 7–25.Google Scholar

Schwonke, R., Renkl, A., Krieg, K., Wittwer, J., Aleven, V., & Salden, R. (2009). The worked-example effect: Not an artefact of lousy control conditions. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 258–266.Google Scholar

Schworm, S. & Renkl, A. (2006). Computer-supported example-based learning: When instructional explanations reduce self-explanations. Computers and Education, 46, 426–445.Google Scholar

Schworm, S. & Renkl, A. (2007). Learning argumentation skills through the use of prompts for self-explaining examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 285–296.Google Scholar

Seidel, T., Blomberg, G., & Renkl, A. (2013). Instructional strategies for using video in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 56–65.Google Scholar

Siegler, R. S. (2002). Microgenetic studies of self-explanation. In Granott, N. & Parziale, J. (eds.), Microdevelopment: Transition Processes in Development and Learning (pp. 31–58). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Siegler, R. S. & Chen, Z. (2008). Differentiation and integration: Guiding principles for analyzing cognitive change. Developmental Science, 11, 433–448.Google Scholar

Singer, M. (1994). Discourse inference processes. In Gernsbacher, M. A. (ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 479–515). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Stark, R., Mandl, H., Gruber, H., & Renkl, A. (2002). Conditions and effects of example elaboration. Learning and Instruction, 12, 39–60.Google Scholar

Sweller, J. (2006). The worked example effect and human cognition. Learning and Instruction, 16, 165–169.Google Scholar

Sweller, J. & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 59–89.Google Scholar

Van der Meij, J. & de Jong, T. (2011). The effects of directive self‐explanation prompts to support active processing of multiple representations in a simulation‐based learning environment. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 27, 411–423.Google Scholar

Van Gog, T. & Rummel, N. (2010). Example-based learning: Integrating cognitive and social-cognitive research perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 155–174.Google Scholar

VanLehn, K. (1996). Cognitive skill acquisition. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 513–539.Google Scholar

VanLehn, K., Jones, R. M., & Chi, M. T. (1992). A model of the self-explanation effect. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 1–59.Google Scholar

Weinstein, C. E. & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In Wittrock, M. (ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 315–327). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Wong, R. M. F., Lawson, M. J., & Keeves, J. (2002). The effects of self-explanation training on student’s problem solving in high-school mathematics. Learning and Instruction, 12, 233–262.Google Scholar

Wylie, R. & Chi, M. T. H. (2014). The self-explanation principle in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2nd edn (pp. 413–432). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wylie, R., Koedinger, K., & Mitamura, T. (2010). Analogies, explanations, and practice: Examining how task types affect second language grammar learning. In Aleven, V., Kay, J., & Mostow, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 214–223). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Wylie, R., Sheng, M., Mitamura, T., & Koedinger, K. R. (2011). Effects of adaptive prompted self-explanation on robust learning of second language grammar. In Biswas, G., Bull, S., Kay, J., & Mitrovic, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 588–590). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1962). Strengthening the behavioral sciences. Science, 136(3512), 233–241. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.136.3512.233 Google Scholar

Arthur, W. Jr., Day, E. A., Villado, A. J., Boatman, P. R., Kowollik, V., Bennett, W. Jr., & Bhupatkar, A. (2007). Decay, transfer, and the reacquisition of a complex skill: An investigation of practice schedules, observational rehearsal, and individual differences. Woburn, MA: Aptima.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(8), 627–635. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140137808931764 Google Scholar

Baldree, C. L. (2003). The effectiveness of two mathematical instructional programs on the mathematics growth of eighth grade students. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Georgia, Athens, GA.Google Scholar

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 Nairne, J. S. (ed.), The foundations of remembering (pp. 83–105). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Balota, D. A., Duchek, J. M., Sergent-Marshall, S. D., & Roediger III, 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(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882–7974.21.1.19 Google Scholar

Bare, C. E. & Mitchell, R. R. (1972). Experimental evaluation of sensitivity training. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 8(3), 263–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/002188637200800301 Google Scholar

Benjamin, A. S. & Tullis, J. (2010). What makes distributed practice effective? Cognitive Psychology, 61(3), 228–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.05.004 Google Scholar

Bird, S. (2010). Effects of distributed practice on the acquisition of second language English syntax. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31(4), 635–650. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716410000172 Google Scholar

Bjerrum, A. S., Eika, B., Charles, P., & Hilberg, O. (2016). Distributed practice. The more the merrier? A randomised bronchoscopy simulation study. Medical Education Online, 21(1), 30517. https://doi.org/10.3402/meo.v21.30517 Google Scholar

Bjork, E. L. & Bjork, R. A. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In Gernsbacher, M. A., Pew, R. W., Hough, L. M., & Pomerantz, J. R. (eds.), Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society (pp. 56–64). New York: Worth Publishers.Google Scholar

Bloom, K. C. & Shuell, T. J. (1981). Effects of massed and distributed practice on the learning and retention of second-language vocabulary. Journal of Educational Research, 74(4), 245–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1981.10885317 Google Scholar

Budé, L., Imbos, T., van de Wiel, M. W., & Berger, M. P. (2011). The effect of distributed practice on students’ conceptual understanding of statistics. Higher Education, 62(1), 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010–9366-y Google Scholar

Calder, K. M. & Gabriel, D. A. (2007). Adaptations during familiarization to resistive exercise. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 17(3), 328–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2006.02.006 Google Scholar

Carpenter, S. K., Cepeda, N. J., Rohrer, D., Kang, S. K., & Pashler, H. (2012). Using spacing to enhance diverse forms of learning: Review of recent research and implications for instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 24(3), 369–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012–9205-z Google Scholar

Carpenter, S. K. & DeLosh, E. L. (2005). Application of the testing and spacing effects to name-learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(5), 619–636. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1101 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(6), 760–771. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1507 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(3), 354–380. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033–2909.132.3.354 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(11), 1095–1102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–9280.2008.02209.x Google Scholar

Cermak, L. S., Verfaellie, M., Lanzoni, S., Mather, M., & Chase, K. A. (1996). Effect of spaced repetitions on amnesia patients’ recall and recognition performance. Neuropsychology, 10(2), 219. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894–4105.10.2.219 Google Scholar

Christina, W. B. (1974). The effects of massed and distributed practice on the performance of a gross motor skill. (Master’s thesis). The College at Brockport, New York.Google Scholar

Cull, W. L. (2000). Untangling the benefits of multiple study opportunities and repeated testing for cued recall. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14(3), 215–235. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099%960720(200005/06)14:3 %3C215::AID-ACP640%3E3.0.CO;2%961 Google Scholar

Dail, T. K. & Christina, R. W. (2004). Distribution of practice and metacognition in learning and long-term retention of a discrete motor task. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75(2), 148–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2004.10609146 Google Scholar

Delaney, P. F., Verkoeijen, P. P., & Spirgel, A. (2010). Spacing and testing effects: A deeply critical, lengthy, and at times discursive review of the literature. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 53, 63–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(10)53003–2 Google Scholar

Dempster, F. N. (1987). Time and the production of classroom learning: Discerning implications from basic research. Educational Psychologist, 22(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2201_1 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(8), 627–634. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.43.8.627 Google Scholar

Descours, K. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions of critical thinking. (Unpublished master’s thesis). York University, Toronto, ON.Google Scholar

Diekelmann, S., Wilhelm, I., & Born, J. (2009). The whats and whens of sleep-dependent memory consolidation. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 13, 309–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2008.08.002 Google Scholar

Donovan, J. J. & Radosevich, D. J. (1999). A meta-analytic review of the distribution of practice effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(5), 795–805. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021–9010.84.5.795 Google Scholar

Drake, J. B. (1981). The theory of distributed practice as related to acquisition of psychomotor skills by adolescents in a selected curricular field. The High School Journal, 65(1), 26–32.Google Scholar

Drake, J. B. (1987). Effects of distributed practice theory on arc welding skill development of agriculture students. Journal of the American Association of Teacher Educators in Agriculture, 28(3), 16–21. https://doi.org/10.5032/jaatea.1987.03016 Google Scholar

Dritsas, A. (1950). A study to determine the effectiveness of a relative massing time pattern as compared with an additive time pattern on skill development in typewriting. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Boston University, Boston, MA.Google Scholar

Ebbinghaus, H. (1885/1964). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology (trans. H. A. Ruger, C. E. Bussenius, & E. R. Hilgar). New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar

El-Shamy, S. E. (1976). The effects of time-spacing on outcomes in assertion training for women: The effectiveness of a workshop model (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar

Estes, W. K. (1955). Statistical theory of distributional phenomena in learning. Psychological Review, 62(5), 369–377. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046888 Google Scholar

Farr, R. G., Dey, M. K., & Bloch, E. (1956). The airplane control test: A compensatory pursuit task. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 6(3), 77–80. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1956.6.3.77 Google Scholar

Fishman, E. J., Keller, L., & Atkinson, R. C. (1968). Massed versus distributed practice in computerized spelling drills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 59(4), 290–296. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0020055 Google Scholar

Fitzgerald, M. A. (1952). The effect of two time patterns on developing a secondary motor skill. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Boston University, Boston, MA.Google Scholar

Fleishman, E. A. & Parker Jr, J. F. (1962). Factors in the retention and relearning of perceptual-motor skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(3), 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041220 Google Scholar

Foot, V. (2016). Judging Credibility: Can spaced lessons help students think more critically online? (Unpublished master’s thesis). York University, Toronto, ON.Google Scholar

Gagné, R. M. (1977). The conditions of learning, 3rd edn. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar

Gagné, R. M. (1984). Learning outcomes and their effects. American Psychologist, 39(4), 377–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.377 Google Scholar

Gallagher, A. G., Jordan-Black, J. A., & O’Sullivan, G. C. (2012). Prospective, randomized assessment of the acquisition, maintenance, and loss of laparoscopic skills. Annals of Surgery, 256(2), 387–393. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318251f3d2 Google Scholar

Glenberg, A. M. (1976). Monotonic and nonmonotonic lag effects in paired-associate and recognition memory paradigms. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(76)90002–5 Google Scholar

Glenberg, A. M. (1979). Component-levels theory of the effects of spacing of repetitions on recall and recognition. Memory and Cognition, 7(2), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197590 Google Scholar

Gluckman, M., Vlach, H. A., & Sandhofer, C. M. (2014). Spacing simultaneously promotes multiple forms of learning in children’s science curriculum. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(2), 266–273. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2997 Google Scholar

Goossens, N. A. M. C., Camp, G., Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L. et al. (2016). Distributed practice and retrieval practice in primary school vocabulary learning: A multi-classroom study. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(5), 700–712. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3245 Google Scholar

Goverover, Y., Hillary, F. G., Chiaravalloti, N., Arango-Lasprilla, J. C., & DeLuca, J. (2009). A functional application of the spacing effect to improve learning and memory in persons with multiple sclerosis. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 31(5), 513–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803390802287042 Google Scholar

Green, J. L., Weston, T., Wiseheart, M., & Rosenbaum, R. S. (2014). Long-term spacing effect benefits in developmental amnesia: Case experiments in rehabilitation. Neuropsychology, 28(5), 685. https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000070 Google Scholar

Griffin, C. S. (2009). A comparison of the effectiveness and efficiency of traditional phonics-distributed practice, traditional phonics-massed practice, and incremental rehearsal on kindergarten students’ letter-sound correspondence performance. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar

Grote, M. G. (1995). Distributed versus massed practice in high school physics. School Science and Mathematics, 95(2), 97–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949–8594.1995.tb15736.x Google Scholar

Harden, R. M. & Stamper, N. (1999). What is a spiral curriculum? Medical Teacher, 21(2), 141–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421599979752 Google Scholar

Hattie, J. (2015). The applicability of visible learning to higher education. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(1), 79. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000021 Google Scholar

Hawley, K. S. (2002). Spaced-retrieval effects on name-face recognition in older adults with probable Alzheimer’s disease. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA.Google Scholar

Hertenstein, E. J. (2000). The interaction between learning goal orientation and differentially distributed-practice training designs in labor education. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL.Google Scholar

Hintzman, D. L. (1974). Theoretical implications of the spacing effect. In Solso, R. L. (ed.), Theories in cognitive psychology: The Loyola Symposium (pp. 77–99). Potomac, MD: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Hintzman, D. L., Block, R. A., & Summers, J. J. (1973). Modality tags and memory for repetitions: Locus of the spacing effect. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12(2), 229–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(73)80013–1 Google Scholar

Hood, T. & Ivie, S. D. (2003). Is Saxon Math the answer? Journal of Philosophy and History of Education, 53, 64–82.Google Scholar

Hovland, C. I. (1939). Experimental studies in rote-learning theory. V. Comparison of distribution of practice in serial and paired-associate learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25(6), 622–633. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062807 Google Scholar

Hunt, B. J. (1969). The effects of massed and distributed practice on problem solving (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.Google Scholar

Johnson, D. M. & Smith, B. (1987). An evaluation of Saxon’s algebra text. The Journal of Educational Research, 81(2), 97–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1987.10885804 Google Scholar

Jost, A. (1897). Die Assoziationsfestigkeit in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der Verteilung der Wiederholungen [The strength of associations in their dependence on the distribution of repetitions]. Zeitschrift für Psychologie und Physiologie der Sinnesorgane, 14, 436–472.Google Scholar

Joy, J. M., Oliver, J. M., McCleary, S. A., Lowery, R. P., & Wilson, J. M. (2013). Power output and electromyography activity of the back squat exercise with cluster sets. Journal of Sports Sciences, 1, 37–45.Google Scholar

Kang, S. H., Lindsey, R. V., Mozer, M. C., & Pashler, H. (2014). Retrieval practice over the long term: Should spacing be expanding or equal-interval? Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 21(6), 1544–1550. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014–0636-z Google Scholar

Kapler, I. V., Weston, T., & Wiseheart, M. (2015). Long-term retention benefits from the spacing effect in a simulated undergraduate classroom using simple and complex curriculum material. Learning and Instruction, 36, 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.11.001 Google Scholar

Kauffeld, S. & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2010). Sales training: effects of spaced practice on training transfer. Journal of European Industrial Training, 34(1), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090591011010299 Google Scholar

Kerfoot, B. P., Shaffer, K., McMahon, G. T., Baker, H., Kirdar, J., Kanter, S., Jr. Corbett, E. Berkow, C., Krupat, R., E., & Armstrong, E. G. (2011). Online “spaced education progress-testing” of students to confront two upcoming challenges to medical schools. Academic Medicine, 86(3), 300–306. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182087bef Google Scholar

Kiepert, M. H. (2009). An examination of repetition and the spacing effect in the classroom: A self-report survey of teachers. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar

Kim, C. (2003). Cumulative review: Effects of random alternation of review items on mathematics problem solving. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.Google Scholar

Kleinman, M. (1976). The effects of practice distribution on the acquisition of three discrete motor skills. Research Quarterly. American Alliance for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 47(4), 672–677.Google Scholar

Klingele, W. E. & Reed, B. W. (1984). An Examination of an incremental approach to mathematics. Phi Delta Kappan, 65(10), 712–13.Google Scholar

Knapp, C. G. & Dixon, W. R. (1950). Learning to juggle: I. A study to determine the effect of two different distributions of practice on learning efficiency. Research Quarterly. American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 21(3), 331–340.Google Scholar

Korben, D. L. (1976). The effects of distributed practice versus massed practice, and behavioral modeling versus script modeling, on assertive training with females. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar

Kornell, N. (2009). Optimizing learning using flashcards: spacing is more effective than cramming. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(9), 1297–1317. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1537 Google Scholar

Kornell, N. & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Optimising self-regulated study: The benefits – and costs – of dropping flashcards. Memory, 16(2), 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210701763899 Google Scholar

Kornell, N. & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Learning concepts and categories is spacing the “enemy of induction”? Psychological science, 19(6), 585–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–9280.2008.02127.x Google Scholar

Kreutzer, A. (2014). Acute kinematic, kinetic, and hormonal responses to cluster sets in parallel back squat exercise in trained and untrained young men utilizing hypertrophic intensities. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX.Google Scholar

Küpper-Tetzel, C. E. (2014). Strong effects on weak theoretical grounds: Understanding the distributed practice effect. Zeitschrift für Psychologie [Journal of Psychology], 222, 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151–2604/a000168 Google Scholar

Küpper-Tetzel, C. E. & Erdfelder, E. (2012). Encoding, maintenance, and retrieval processes in the lag effect: A multinomial processing tree analysis. Memory, 20(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2011.631550 Google Scholar

Küpper-Tetzel, C. E., Erdfelder, E., & Dickhauser, O. (2014). The lag effect in secondary school classrooms: Enhancing students’ memory for vocabulary. Instructional Science, 42(3), 373–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013–9285-2 Google Scholar

Küpper-Tetzel, C. E., Kapler, I. V., & Wiseheart, M. (2014). Contracting, equal, and expanding learning schedules: The optimal distribution of learning sessions depends on retention interval. Memory and Cognition. 42(5), 729–741. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014–0394-1 Google Scholar

Laing, R. A. & Peterson, J. C. (1973). Assignments: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow – Today. The Mathematics Teacher, 66(6), 508–518.Google Scholar

LaRocco, A. J. (2008). An investigation of the repeated reading intervention for improving reading fluency: A doctoral dissertation. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.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

Lawrence, D. H. (1949). Acquired distinctiveness of cues: I. Transfer between discriminations on the basis of familiarity with the stimulus. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39(6), 770–784. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0058097 Google Scholar

Lawton, T. W., Cronin, J. B., & Lindsell, R. P. (2006). Effect of interrepetition rest intervals on weight training repetition power output. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20(1), 172–176.Google Scholar

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(4), 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1988.10609373 Google Scholar

Liang, R. A. (1970). Relative effects of massed and distributed scheduling of topics on homework assignments of eighth grade mathematics students. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar

Lindsey, R., Mozer, M. C., Cepeda, N. J., & Pashler, H. (2009). Optimizing memory retention with cognitive models. In Howes, A., Peebles, D., & Cooper, R. (eds.), Proceedings of the ninth international conference on cognitive modeling (ICCM). Manchester: University of Manchester.Google Scholar

Lu, P. K. (1978). Three integrative models of kinetic structure in teaching astronomy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15(4), 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660150403 Google Scholar

Lynch, G. I. S. (1971). Effects of three practice conditions on the acquisition of golf skill. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX.Google Scholar

Mackay, S., Morgan, P., Datta, V., Chang, A., & Darzi, A. (2002). Practice distribution in procedural skills training. Surgical Endoscopy, 16(6), 957–961. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-001–9132-4 Google Scholar

Mayfield, K. H. & Chase, P. N. (2002). The effects of cumulative practice on mathematics problem solving. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35(2), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2002.35–105 Google Scholar

McCabe, J. (2011). Metacognitive awareness of learning strategies in undergraduates. Memory and Cognition, 39(3), 462–476. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-010–0035-2 Google Scholar

McGuigan, F. J. & MacCaslin, E. F. (1955). Whole and part methods in learning a perceptual motor skill. The American Journal of Psychology, 68(4), 658–661. https://doi.org/10.2307/1418796 Google Scholar

Miller, A. G. (1948). The effect of various interpolated time patterns on motor learning. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Boston University, Boston, MA.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(5), 596–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(70)80107–4 Google Scholar

Mitchell, E. L., Lee, D. Y., Sevdalis, N., Partsafas, A. W., Landry, G. J., Liem, T. K., & Moneta, G. L. (2011). Evaluation of distributed practice schedules on retention of a newly acquired surgical skill: a randomized trial. The American Journal of Surgery, 201(1), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2010.07.040 Google Scholar

Moss, V. D. (1995). The efficacy of massed versus distributed practice as a function of desired learning outcomes and grade level of the student. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Utah State University, Logan, UT.Google Scholar

Moulton, C. E., Dubrowski, A., Macrae, H., Graham, B., Grober, E., & Reznick, R. (2006). Teaching surgical skills: What kind of practice makes perfect? Annals of Surgery, 244(3), 400–409. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000234808.85789.6a Google Scholar

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 Bengio, Y., Schuurmans, D., Lafferty, J., Williams, C. K. I., & Culotta, A. (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Systems 22. San Diego, CA: Neural Information Processing Systems Foundation.Google Scholar

Murray, J. T. (1983). Spacing phenomena in human memory: A study phase retrieval interpretation. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar

Murphree, T. R. (1971). Effects of massed and distributed practice upon motor learning and retention of a novel gross motor task. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). North Texas State University, Denton, TX.Google Scholar

Murphy, H. H. (1916). Distribution of practice periods in learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 7(3), 150–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0074113 Google Scholar

Oliver, J. M. (2012). Intra-set rest intervals in hypertrophic training: Effects on hypertrophy, strength, power, and myosin heavy chain composition (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.Google Scholar

Pamplona, C., Ysunza, A., Patiño, C., Ramírez, E., Drucker, M., & Mazón, J. J. (2005). Speech summer camp for treating articulation disorders in cleft palate patients. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 69(3), 351–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2004.10.012 Google Scholar

Pashler, H., Bain, P. M., Bottge, B. A., Graesser, A., Koedinger, K., McDaniel, M., & Metcalfe, J. (2007). Organizing instruction and study to improve student learning (NCER 2007–2004). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, and US Department of Education. http://ncer.ed.gov.Google Scholar

Peterson, J. C. (1971). Four organizational patterns for assigning mathematics homework. School Science and Mathematics, 71(7), 592–596. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949–8594.1971.tb13760.x 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(2), 206–209. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046694 Google Scholar

Raaijmakers, J. G. (2003). Spacing and repetition effects in human memory: Application of the SAM model. Cognitive Science, 27(3), 431–452. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2703_5 Google Scholar

Rasch, B. & Born, J. (2013). About sleep’s role in memory. Physiological Reviews, 93(2), 681–766. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00032.2012 Google Scholar

Rawson, K. A. & Kintsch, W. (2005). Rereading effects depend on time of test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 70–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–0663.97.1.70 Google Scholar

Rea, C. P. & Modigliani, V. (1987). The spacing effect in 4- to 9-year-old children. Memory and Cognition, 15(5), 436–443. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197733 Google Scholar

Revak, M. (1997). Distributed practice: More bang for your homework buck. Florida Journal of Educational Research, 37(1), 36–48.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(5), 297–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040734 Google Scholar

Riches, N. G., Tomasello, M., & Conti-Ramsden, G. (2005). Verb learning in children with SLI: Frequency and spacing effects. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48(6), 1397–1411. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092–4388(2005/097)Google Scholar

Robinson, E. S. (1921). The relative efficiencies of distributed and concentrated study in memorizing. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4(5), 327–343. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0073490 Google Scholar

Rogers, D. (2004). Evaluating spacing of practice effects on the learning of shortcut keys (Unpublished master’s thesis). San Jose State University, San Jose, CA.Google Scholar

Rohrer, D. & Taylor, K. (2006). The effects of overlearning and distributed practise on the retention of mathematics knowledge. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 1209–1224. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1266 Google Scholar

Rohrer, D. & Taylor, K. (2007). The shuffling of mathematics problems improves learning. Instructional Science, 35(6), 481–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007–9015-8 Google Scholar

Rovee-Collier, C., Evancio, S., & Earley, L. A. (1995). The time window hypothesis: Spacing effects. Infant Behavior and Development, 18(1), 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/0163–6383(95)90008-X Google Scholar

Rowe, M. K. & Craske, M. G. (1998). Effects of an expanding-spaced vs massed exposure schedule on fear reduction and return of fear. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36(7–8), 701–717. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(97)10016-X Google Scholar

Rubin-Rabson, G. (1940). Studies in the psychology of memorizing piano music: II. A comparison of massed and distributed practice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 31(4), 270–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061174 Google Scholar

Ruch, T. C. (1928). Factors influencing the relative economy of massed and distributed practice in learning. Psychological Review, 35(1), 19–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0074423 Google Scholar

Saxon, J. (1982). Incremental development: A breakthrough in mathematics. The Phi Delta Kappan, 63(7), 482–484.Google Scholar

Seabrook, R., Brown, G. D. A., & Solity, J. E. (2005). Distributed and massed practice: From laboratory to classroom. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(1), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1066 Google Scholar

Scheel, M. H. (2007). Massing practice increases rate and errors on a virtual water jar task. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV.Google Scholar

Schendel, J. D. & Hagman, J. D. (1980). On sustaining procedural skills over prolonged retention intervals (Research Report No. 1298). Alexandria, VA: Army Research Institution for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (Accession No. AD-A120 758)Google Scholar

Scott, M. G. (1954). Learning rate of beginning swimmers. Research Quarterly. American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 25(1), 91–99.Google Scholar

Shea, C. H., Lai, Q., Black, C., & Park, J. H. (2000). Spacing practice sessions across days benefits the learning of motor skills. Human Movement Science, 19(5), 737–760. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9457(00)00021-X Google Scholar

Simmons, A. (2012). Distributed practice and procedural memory consolidation in musicians’ skill learning. Journal of Research in Music Education, 59(4), 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429411424798 Google Scholar

Simone, P. M., Bell, M. C., & Cepeda, N. J. (2013). Diminished but not forgotten: Effects of aging on magnitude of spacing effect benefits. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 68(5), 674–680. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbs096 Google Scholar

Singer, R. N. (1965). Massed and distributed practice effects on the acquisition and retention of a novel basketball skill. Research Quarterly. American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 36(1), 68–77.Google Scholar

Smith, S. M. & Rothkopf, E. Z. (1984). Contextual enrichment and distribution of practice in the classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 1(3), 341–358. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0103_4 Google Scholar

Sobel, H. S., Cepeda, N. J., & Kapler, I. V. (2011). Spacing effects in real-world classroom vocabulary learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), 763–767. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1747 Google Scholar

Son, L. K. & Simon, D. A. (2012). Distributed learning: Data, metacognition, and educational implications. Educational Psychology Review, 24(3), 379–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012–9206-y Google Scholar

Spruit, E. N., Band, G. P., & Hamming, J. F. (2015). Increasing efficiency of surgical training: effects of spacing practice on skill acquisition and retention in laparoscopy training. Surgical Endoscopy, 29(8), 2235–2243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014–3931-x Google Scholar

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

Tobias, J. V. (1976). Massed versus distributed practice in learned improvement of speech intelligibility (Report No. FAA-AM-76–3). Oklahoma City, OK: FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute, Office of Aviation Medicine, Federal Aviation Administration.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(1), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022–0965(91)90079–8 Google Scholar

Tran, O. T. K. (2007). Promoting social and emotional learning in schools: An investigation of massed versus distributed practice schedules and social validity of the Strong Kids curriculum in late elementary aged students. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.Google Scholar

Ukrainetz, T. A., Ross, C. L., & Harm, H. M. (2009). An investigation of treatment scheduling for phonemic awareness with kindergartners who are at risk for reading difficulties. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40(1), 86–100. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161–1461(2008/07–0077)Google Scholar

Urwiller, S. L. (1971). A comparative study of achievement, retention, and attitude toward mathematics between students using spiral homework assignments and students using traditional homework assignments in second year algebra. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE.Google Scholar

Vash, C. L. (1989). Comment on Dempster. American Psychologist, 44(12), 1547. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.12.1547.a Google Scholar

Verdaasdonk, E. G. G., Stassen, L. P. S., Van Wijk, R. P. J., & Dankelman, J. (2007). The influence of different training schedules on the learning of psychomotor skills for endoscopic surgery. Surgical Endoscopy, 21(2), 214–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005–0852-8 Google Scholar

Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Ozsoy, B. (2008). Distributed rereading can hurt the spacing effect in text memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(5), 685–695. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1388 Google Scholar

Vlach, H. A. (2014). The spacing effect in children’s generalization of knowledge: allowing children time to forget promotes their ability to learn. Child Development Perspectives, 8(3), 163–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12079 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(4), 1137–1144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–8624.2012.01781.x Google Scholar

Weaver, J. R. (1976). The relative effects of massed versus distributed practice upon the learning and retention of eighth grade mathematics. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK.Google Scholar

Webb, C. L. (2011). Schedule distribution and motor learning guided treatment with childhood apraxia of speech. (Unpublished master’s thesis). East Carolina University, Greenville, NC.Google Scholar

Willardson, J. M. & Burkett, L. N. (2006). The effect of rest interval length on the sustainability of squat and bench press repetitions. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20(2), 400–403.Google Scholar

Wineland, J. N. & Stephens, L. (1995). Effects of spiral testing and review on retention and mathematical achievement for below‐average eighth‐and ninth‐grade students. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 26(2), 227–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739950260207 Google Scholar

Wiseheart, M., D’Souza, A. A., & Chae, J. (2017). Lack of spacing effects during piano learning. PLoS ONE, 12, e0182986. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182986 Google Scholar

Wogalter, M. S., Jarrard, S. W., & Cayard, J. A. (1991). Massed versus distributed exposure and imaging of faces: Changing the test view. Current Psychology, 10(4), 281–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686900 Google Scholar

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, 1(1), 37–43.Google Scholar

Young, O. G. (1954). Rate of learning in relation to spacing of practice periods in archery and badminton. Research Quarterly. American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 25(2), 231–243.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(1), 41–44. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03329756Google Scholar

Book contents

Part IV - General Learning Strategies

Summary

Access options

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive