Talk:Spacing effect

Suggest merging with Distributed learning

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Archived: The merge was carried out in this edit last week. Moonraker12 (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The two concepts seem sufficiently closely related that a single article is appropriate. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"Distributed and massed learning" might be a better title for the merged article (thanks Tony). Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Distributed learning should be merged into Spacing effect because the former is easily confusable with distance learning. 99.38.150.200 (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If any merge is needed, I would lean toward the "Memory" topic as it relates to Long-term memory retention. At the very least, this topic should be a related topic link under "Memory." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.161.121.117 (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course Distributed learning should be merged with Spacing effect. They both mean the same thing.

Also, there maybe should be a subtopic section created at Memory but there should not be a merger of that page with this one.

If this issue has not been resolved as of yet then anyone who sees this should feel free to resolve it by performing the merger themselves. makeswell (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Spacing effect should be the primary name; I did a bunch of reading for http://www.gwern.net/Spaced%20repetition#literature-review and I hardly ever ran into 'distributed learning'. --Gwern (contribs) 19:38 29 October 2011 (GMT)

I agree with Gwern. The phrase 'distributed learning' is extremely uncommon. Kadesoto (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Merged with this edit on 11 February 2013. Archived today. Moonraker12 (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggest rephrase of spacing effect definition

I suggest that the first sentence exclude "animals (including humans)". The target audience for the spacing effect is humans and does not need to be explicitly stated. It might be better to say, "The spacing effect is the phenomenon that when repeatedly learning information spaced out over a period of time makes learned items easier to remember." Jh470 (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I would be careful about labeling it as "easier to remember" as the learning itself will be harder. Rather it's more likely to be remembered. Elizareader (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence is confusing. Elizareader (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Does this make sense? "Long term memory of information can be improved by spaced learning contributing to the spacing effect."Jh470 (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference to distributed practice

The distributed practice page is very similar to this page, with many overlapping paragraphs. At the very least, distributed practice should be linked at the bottom of the page in "see also." I'd also like to mention that spaced effects can be evaluated by lag effects, which varies on how long the spacing is in between learning sessions. Longer lag yields better long-term memory, while short term lag is no more effective than massed practice. Samliu365 (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Introduce a couple related studies

Kornell and Bjork(2008) study on Learning Concepts and categories shows that in inductive learning - learning from observing examplars - spaced practice was more effective than massed practice. Participants were asked to judge a number of paintings and identify the artist based on certain artist's painting characteristics. Massed study feels easier and more fluent, yet the difficulties presented to the participants were desirable difficulties that resulted in better learning. Another study (Bude, Imbos, Van de Wiel, Berger 2011) comparing a statistics course taught at Maastricht University over 6 months and 8 weeks showed a distinct advantage when material was spaced over 6 months. I found this helpful source of information http://www.indiana.edu/~pcl/rgoldsto/courses/dunloskyimprovinglearning.pdf Samliu365 (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it would definitely be helpful to include a discussion of some studies related to the spacing effect, and the ones you found would all be great. However, since primary sources are unable to be used because of potential biases the experimenters might have, it would be a good idea to use secondary sources like reviews of the studies or textbooks, rather than the studies themselves. Darcy.watts (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Just as the comment above states, I think that by adding in studies to support the evidence of the effectiveness of the spacing effect would be very advantageous and bolster the process. As another example, you can add in making cumulative finals and mixing units together, so not all of one topic is learned at a time. It would probably be better to look up science magazine articles on these types of studies so you can include them in your page. Ashley (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)