Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Learners’ Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Spaced Learning Schedule in L2 Vocabulary Learning:

Learners’ Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Spaced Learning Schedule in L2 Vocabulary Learning: The spacing effect is a ubiquitous phenomenon, whereby memory is enhanced for the information that is learned across different points in time rather than being learned at once. A considerable amount of research has focused on the nature of the spacing effect, and there is general acceptance that spacing learning events out in time promotes learning. However, fewer studies have been conducted in educational settings. The aim of this study is to explore learners’ perceptions of different spacing schedules (massed vs. spaced). To achieve the purpose of the study, we taught 30 children 24 English–Farsi word pairs utilizing different spacing schedules. Later, we administered a questionnaire to explore leaarners’ perceptions of both massed and spaced schedules. The results revealed that the children percieved spaced practice to be more effective than massed practice. Keywords spacing, spaced learning, massed learning, vocabulary learning, memory, perceptions There are also questions about how learners perceive the Introduction use of different learning/teaching schedules. Therefore, it is An extensive body of experimental research has demon- important to investigate learners’ perceptions because it does strated that spacing learning opportunities across time leads not matter whether a specific teaching methodology (e.g., to better memory than massing these learning opportunities spaced methodology) is practical, interesting, or authentic, (for a review, see e.g., Seabrook, Brown, & Solity, 2005; Son but whether it is perceived as such by second language (L2) & Simon, 2012; Rohrer, 2015; Toppino & Gerbier, 2014). learners. According to Gardner (1985), perception, attitude, For example, learners spending 5 minutes learning a list of and other affective variables are as important as aptitude for words on 3 consecutive days perform better on retention tests second/foreign language learning. Gardner (2005) also than learners spending 15 minutes learning the same list of believed that the level of motivation often provides impor- words at once. This phenomenon, called the spacing effect, tant insights into the learners’ perceptions, attitudes, and has been an active research direction in experimental psy- beliefs. Brown (2000) stated that positive attitudes and chology and has been extended to educational settings within beliefs increase learners’ level of motivation, whereas nega- recent years. tive attitudes and beliefs may reduce the learners’ level of The research on spacing effect has gone beyond the motivation. Therefore, it is important to investigate how to limits of laboratory research to domains such as educa- incorporate spaced-retrieval techniques in the classrooms tional research to test theories and ideas in the field of and how learners perceive the use of these techniques in sec- second language learning. For instance, several studies ond language learning contexts. have demonstrated the existence of spacing effect when To date, several studies have been conducted in authen- words were used as stimuli (e.g., Bloom & Shuell, 1981; tic educational settings in an attempt to demonstrate the Carpenter, Pashler, & Cepeda, 2009; Goossens, Camp, Verkoeijen, Tabbers, & Zwaan, 2012; Kornell, 2009; Sobel, Cepeda, & Kapler, 2011). Despite the fact that the 1 English Department, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, efficacy of spaced practice has been demonstrated for Najafabad, Isfahan, Iran vocabulary learning within recent years, there are still Corresponding Author: questions about how to use spaced practice as a standard Hadi Salehi, English Department, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad teaching methodology while taking into account how the University, Najafabad, Isfahan, Iran. spacing effect works. Email: hadisalehi1358@yahoo.com Creative Commons CC-BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). 2 SAGE Open advantageous effects of spaced practice over massed prac- given Japanese words. In the massed group, learners studied tice in word learning (e.g., Bloom & Shuell, 1981; Gerbier, word pairs 4 times without any intertrial interval. However, Toppino, & Koenig, 2015; Goossens et al., 2012; Kornell, in the short, medium, and long-spacing groups, participants 2009; Schuetze, 2015; Sobel et al., 2011; Zigterman, studied each word pair 4 times separated by 1, 2, and 5 min- Simone, & Bell, 2015). For instance, Kornell (2009) ute intertrial intervals, respectively. On completion of post- reported an experiment in which undergraduate students tests, a 7-point scale questionnaire explored participants’ learned words using flash cards. They studied 40 flash perceived effects of different learning schedules. The results cards under two learning conditions (massed and spaced). showed that the participants’ perceived spacing schedules At first, participants went through a learning phase. In the (equal vs. expanding) to be equally effective. However, they learning phase, participants studied four stacks of five flash perceived spaced schedules to be more effective than massed cards 8 times in uninterrupted succession in one single ses- schedule. sion under a spaced condition. In the massed condition, par- Numerous additional studies have clearly demonstrated ticipants distributed their study sessions across 4 the greater learning potential of spaced study over massed consecutive days and each participant studied 20 flash study. These studies have shown the effectiveness of spaced cards twice within each learning session. One day after the study in the acquisition of syntactical features (Ambridge, completion of the learning phase, participants went through Theakston, Lieven, & Tomasello, 2006), in learning of gram- a testing phase. The performance of the participants on the mar (Miles, 2014), in learning of word pairs (de Jonge, final cued-recall test was higher for the participants in the Tabbers, Pecher, & Zeelenberg, 2012), and in learning of spaced condition than for the participants in the massed phonics reading skills (Seabook, Brown, & Solity, 2005). condition. Given the beneficial effects of spaced-retrieval practice In another attempt, Sobel et al. (2011) examined whether for vocabulary learning, it is surprising that teachers might or not spacing can be generalized to vocabulary learning of not wish to incorporate spaced-retrieval techniques into middle school children in an authentic educational setting. classroom learning. One reason for this is the lack of stan- For this aim, they had middle school students learn the defi- dard methodology as how to successfully put the findings of nitions of eight uncommon English words under two learn- experimental research into practice. Another reason might be ing conditions. The study encompassed two learning that it is not known whether L2 learners perceive these learn- sessions. The two learning sessions took place either back to ing techniques as being effective. The aim of this study was back (massed) or separated by one week (spaced). Five to illuminate the efficacy of spaced practice in L2 vocabulary weeks after the completion of learning trials, children took a teaching and to investigate learners’ perception of spaced retention test. The results showed that the participants per- methodology in a classroom setting. In line with prior find- formed vastly better under the spaced condition than the ings, we expected that the spaced practice would result in massed condition. better performance than massed practice. However, we also Similar studies have supported the existence of spacing expected that children generally would prefer spaced prac- effect in vocabulary learning in a primary school context. In tice to massed practice. Therefore, the following research one recent study, Goossens et al. (2012) taught primary questions were addressed in this study: school children 15 unfamiliar words in a massed fashion and 15 other unfamiliar words in a spaced fashion. The study Research Question 1: Does spacing L2 learners’ vocabu- consisted of six sessions, four learning sessions and two test lary sessions lead to better retention compared with mass- sessions, over six weeks. In the massed condition, children ing those learning sessions? learned three sets of five thematic words, and each set was Research Question 2: How do L2 learners perceive the practiced in one of the three study sessions. In the spaced use of spaced-retrieval methodology? condition, however, participants studied a set of 15 words once in each of the three study sessions. The children took a Method test after a 1-week and a 5-week break; the results showed that the children who were taught in the spaced fashion per- Participants formed considerably better than the children who were taught in the massed fashion. Thirty male Iranian elementary school children were In a recent study, Nakata (2015) explored learners’ per- recruited from two classrooms in an English language insti- ceived effects of different spacing schedules (i.e., relative tute located in an urban environment in Isfahan, Iran. All the spacing, absolute spacing, and feedback timing) on L2 participants were native Farsi speakers. By the time of the vocabulary learning. To this aim, he had 226 Japanese col- study, these children had all studied the first two levels of lege students study English–Japanese word pairs using com- the six-level English Time (Rivers & Toyama, 2011) series puter software. He assigned participants to one of four study and the two-level Magic Time (Kampa & Vilina, 2011), groups: massed, short, medium, and long spacing. The treat- which is followed by the English Time course. At the time of ment involved typing of English words as a response to the study, all children were studying English Time book Lotfolahi and Salehi 3 Table 1. Procedure of the Study. Learning phase Test phase Study Session 1 Study Session 2 Test Session 1 Test Session 2 Presentation of Items 1-12 Presentation of Items 13-24 Retention test (Items 1-24) Retention test (Items 1-24) Items 1-12 page 1 Items 13-24 page 1 Items 1-12 page 2 Items 13-24 page 2 Items 1-12 page 3 Items 13-24 page 3 (spaced) Study Session 2 Presentation of Items 1-12 Items 1-12 page 1 Items 1-12 page 2 Items 1-12 page 3 (massed) Study Session 1 Presentation of Items 13-24 Items 13-24 page 1 Items 13-24 page 2 Items 13-24 page 3 Level 3. It is worth mentioning that children’s English completed their learning trials all in one day with a 1-minute knowledge was limited to the above mentioned introductory intertrial interval. In the spaced condition, children com- books. In addition, it should be noted that English is not a pleted their learning trials in two sessions with a 7-day break compulsory subject at primary schools in Iran, and Iranian in between. Both the order of the lists in the learning phase children officially start learning English at the secondary and the order of the tests in the test phase were counterbal- school. Before starting the secondary school, children can anced. Table 1 shows the procedure of the study. learn English in private language institutes, which was the The study started with a fast-paced mode PowerPoint pre- case in the present study. Therefore, their vocabulary knowl- sentation of 12 English–Farsi vocabulary words, accompa- edge was not profound, which indeed enhances the reliability nied with examples. Each learning session encompassed of the results. In many previous studies (e.g., studies con- study-test-study-test trials in which the children learned the ducted on adult participants), it was not clear whether or not words. In total, participants completed four consecutive participants had any earlier experience with target language study trials, which took about 25 minutes to be completed. (e.g., relevant background knowledge about stimuli words). Each learning trial proceeded through the learning phase as The age of participants ranged from 8 to 12 years old. follows: At first, all 24 English–Farsi word pairs were pre- sented to the children one by one with a portable projector. The experimenter read aloud the English words, their Farsi Materials and Instruments translations, and their sample sentences along with To gather data, we used 24 English–Farsi word pairs. Twenty- PowerPoint slides. Children were instructed to quietly four new English words were selected from the English Time rehearse the words along with their teacher. They were not book Level 4. In addition, a 15-item 5-point Likert-type scale allowed to read the words aloud or to take notes. Then, learn- questionnaire explored children’s perceptions of spaced ers were asked to turn to page one of the booklet. Page one methodology. The questionnaire is included in Farsi and consisted of two rows of six L2 words each, and children English in Appendices A and B, respectively. were allotted six minutes to write down the meaning of each L2 word in Farsi. Next, children were allotted six minutes to practice page two. Page two of the booklet contained all 12 Procedure English–Farsi word pairs and a sample sentence for each Prior to the start of the study, a pretest was administered to one. Teacher molded the word pairs and sample sentences, make sure whether children had any background knowledge and children repeated them chorally. In addition, children about the target words. The pretest showed that children did were given five minutes to practice the meaning of new not have any prior knowledge about 24 stimuli words. The words. Finally, children were given four minutes to practice study encompassed two learning sessions that occurred last page of the booklet by writing down the meaning of each either in an immediate succession or in a spaced fashion. The English word in the provided space. On completion of all first two learning sessions were tutorial sessions on the learning trials, the booklets were collected. Following English–Farsi word pairs. In the massed condition, children 1-minute break, the second learning session took place in a 4 SAGE Open massed fashion. In the massed condition, children carried out Table 2. Items of the Questionnaire. exactly the same learning trials as the first learning session. No. Items After a short break of 10 minutes, children participated in the spaced condition. In the spaced condition, the learning 1 Spaced repetition makes me to remember words better. trials were the same as those children conducted during the 2 Spaced learning lessons allow me to store more massed sessions, except that participants learned 12 other information. word pairs. Spaced instruction encompassed two study epi- 3 Spaced learning lessons allow me to retain more sodes, with a break of seven days, while the massed instruc- information. tion encompassing two study sessions took place on the same 4 I can recall spaced words better on tests. day with a break of one minute. The second learning session 5 By spaced repetitions, I can see my vocabulary in spaced condition would be similar to its first learning ses- improving. sion as well. Once all the instruction in the learning phase 6 I have a better understanding when lessons are had been completed, the children were informally asked spaced out. about the efficacy of both learning schedules. They generally 7 I learn quicker when lessons are spaced out. believed that they benefit more from massed schedule than 8 I have higher attention when topics are spaced out. spaced schedule. However, the children’s responses were 9 I feel more motivated when lessons are spaced out. elicited verbally, and we do not have survey results to con- 10 I get less bored when learning topics are spaced out. 11 I’m glad because by spaced practice, I actually enjoy firm exactly how many students felt this way. After comple- vocabulary learning. tion of the last learning session, children went through the 12 Learning vocabulary is more fun when lessons are retention interval phase (one week vs. five weeks). spaced out. The test sessions occurred seven days and 35 days after 13 I feel pleasure from doing something over and over the second study session. Children were instructed that they again had to retrieve the meaning of words from memory and 14 From now on, I’d rather learn words by spaced teacher would not help them. In the first test session, one practice. week after the second learning session, the children were 15 Generally, I agree with spacing learning lessons. given a test that required them to write down the definition of each word in the provided space. In the second test session, five weeks after the second learning session, children had difficulty with understanding some of the items of the received the same test again. In the test phase, children were questionnaire and to eliminate the sense of ambiguity, the instructed which one of the lists was taught in a massed fash- idea behind all the items was explained to the respondents. ion and which one of the lists was taught in a spaced fashion. Children were not told about the superiority of spaced learn- Results ing over mass learning schedule and vice versa. On completion of the final test session, children responded Retention Tests to a questionnaire in Farsi. Prior to distribution of the ques- We computed the mean percentage of items correctly recalled tionnaires, the children were instructed by the experimenter during the retention test. Mean and standard deviation of per- that they should provide their answers with regard to the per- centage recall for two conditions are presented in Table 3. A ceptions they have of massed and spaced schedules. The 2 × 2 (Learning Condition × Retention Interval) repeated- questionnaire was self-developed, and it consisted of 15 state- measures ANOVA, with the number of correct items as the ments which attempted to investigate children’s attitudes with dependent variable, confirmed a significant main effect of regard to affective and cognitive states (e.g., levels of atten- η = .. 90 learning condition, F(1, 29) = 254.018, p < .001, tion, interest, anxiety, rehearsal, motivation) while being Therefore, children in the spaced condition recalled more taught by spaced-retrieval techniques. All 15 statements words than children in the massed condition. There was also were answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale. All the state- a main effect of retention interval, F(1, 29) = 54.650, p < ments were clear and concise and most of the sentences had .001, η = .653 , indicating that recall scores were lower on fewer than 15 words (for an overview of the statements, see the 5-week test, compared with recall on the 1-week test. The Table 2). In addition, to ensure the validity of the question- interaction between type of learning and length of delay was naire, some colleagues were asked to read the questionnaire not significant F(1, 29) = 0.813, p = .375. and to give their opinions on whether they saw any problem or not. Moreover, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was cal- culated for the questionnaire to assess the internal reliability Survey Questionnaire of the questionnaire. The coefficient was found to be 0.76 indicating the satisfactory internal reliability for the ques- The results of what the 30 respondents believed about tionnaire. Furthermore, because some of the younger children spaced learning schedules are presented in this section. In Lotfolahi and Salehi 5 Table 3. Mean Percentage of Correct Recall of Massed and respondents (76.67%) agreed with Item three (“Spaced learn- Spaced Words With Standard Deviation. ing lessons allow me to retain more information”). Item four (“I can recall spaced words better on tests”) had about three Test phase fourth of children (76.67%) agreeing with this statement. Six Test 1 Test 2 of the participants (20%) had no idea about this item, and only one of the participants (3.33%) disagreed with this item. Condition M SD M SD Item five (“By spaced repetitions, I can see my vocabulary Massed 33.33 13.49 26.38 12.59 improving”) had about 73% of the children agreeing with Spaced 61.66 14.78 53.05 12.47 this statement. Item six (“I have a better understanding when lessons are spaced out”) had 22 of the responding children (73.33%) agreeing with this statement. Seven of the respond- the section concerning children’s perceptions of vocabulary ing children (23.33%) showed neither agreement nor dis- learning scheduled by spaced repetitions, children were agreement, and only one of the participants disagreed with required to select one from the five scales (1 = Strongly this item. Concerning Item seven (“I learn quicker when les- Disagree or SD, 2 = Disagree or D, 3 = No Idea or N, 4 = sons are spaced out”), children mostly selected either strongly Agree or A, 5 = Strongly Agree or SA). After obtaining the agree (33.33%) or agree (40%) while strongly disagree had respondents’ responses, we used a one-sample t test to com- the lowest rate (3.33%). In addition, two of the respondents pare the mean response of each of the survey items with the (6.67%) selected no idea. The majority of responding chil- midpoint of the scale (M = 3). The results of which have dren agreed with Item eight (“I have higher attention when been illustrated in the Table 4. The results of one-sample t topics are spaced out”), 17 of the respondents showed a com- test in Table 4 demonstrated that the average response score plete agreement (30%) or agreement (26.67%). Furthermore, for all 15 items on a 5-point scale was above the midpoint six of the participants (20%) had no idea about Item eight. value. As it is shown in the Table 4, there was not a signifi- Items one to eight elicited children’s cognitive processes cant difference between the average score for Item 10, “I get involved in vocabulary learning concerning spaced-retrieval less bored when learning topics are spaced out,” with mean methodology. In general, children had a positive attitude score of 3.37 ± 1.33, and Item 11, “I’m glad because by toward using spaced methodology. Children strongly agreed spaced practice, I actually enjoy vocabulary learning,” with that spacing improves learning. More specifically, they mean score of 3.40 ± 1.33, and the midpoint of the scale believed that spacing leads to better recall than massing does. (p > 0.05). This indicated that the learners’ agreement with In the present study, all learning sessions were similar. The Items 10 and 11 was about the average. That is, children only thing that was different between learning conditions found the spaced-retrieval techniques used in this study nei- was the amount of time between the two study sessions. At ther boring nor enjoyable. Regarding other items of the the test phase, children were surprised because they could questionnaire, the mean score was above the midpoint value remember words of one of the lists (spaced words) vastly of the scale, and the difference between the mean score and better than the words of the other list (massed words). This the midpoint value was significant (p < 0.05). In general, indicates that the children could clearly differentiate between children’s agreement on all items of the questionnaire was the two learning schedules, and therefore were able to judge above the average. This indicated that in general, children accurately the effectiveness of the two different learning perceived spaced approach to be more effective than the approaches on the scale. massed approach. The remaining items elicited children’s responses in rela- Items one to eight examined the respondents’ responses tion to various affective states. With regard to Item nine (“I toward cognitive states. Item one (”Spaced repetition makes feel more motivated when lessons are spaced out”), children me remember words better”) showed a strong tendency of mostly selected either agree (50%) or strongly agree agreement. Twenty-six of the responding children (86.67%) (16.67%). However, six of the respondents showed a com- either agreed or strongly agreed with this item. This indicates pletely opposite view as they either disagreed (16.67%) or that spaced repetitions made them remember words better. strongly disagreed (3.33%). Also, four children (13.33%) Three of the respondents (10%) had no idea about Item one. selected no idea. In relation to Item 10 (I get less bored when Only one (3.33%) of the respondents disagreed with the learning topics that are spaced out), less than half of the par- item. Item two (“Spaced learning lessons allow me to store ticipants (43.33%) agreed with this item, 23.33% disagreed, more information”) gained such high agreement among the and 33.33% had no idea. In response to Item 11 (“I’m glad responding children. Most respondents either strongly agreed because by spaced practice, I actually enjoy vocabulary (60%) or agreed (26.67%) with the item. However, the learning”), more than half of the participants either agreed or remaining children (13.33%) had no idea about Item two. In strongly agreed, less than 25% had no idea, although 20% addition, it should be noted that the highest mean score either disagreed or strongly disagreed. Regarding Item 12, obtained was related to Item two. About three fourth of the more than two third of the respondents (70%) agreed or 6 SAGE Open Table 4. Results of Learner’s Perceptions of Spaced Methodology. SD D N A SA F % F % F % F % F % M SD p 1. Spaced repetition makes me remember words better. 0 0.00 1 3.33 3 10.00 11 36.67 15 50.00 4.33 0.80 .000** 2. Spaced learning lessons allow me to store more information. 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 13.33 8 26.67 18 60.00 4.47 0.73 .000** 3. Spaced learning lessons allow me to retain more information. 0 0.00 1 3.33 6 20.00 14 46.67 9 30.00 4.03 0.81 .000** 4. I can recall spaced words better on tests. 0 0.00 1 3.33 6 20.00 9 30.00 14 46.67 4.20 0.89 .000** 5. By spaced repetitions, I can see my vocabulary improving. 0 0.00 0 0.00 8 26.67 12 40.00 10 33.33 4.07 0.78 .000** 6. I have a better understanding when lessons are spaced out. 1 3.33 0 0.00 7 23.33 15 50.00 7 23.33 3.90 0.88 .000** 7. I learn quicker when lessons are spaced out. 1 3.33 2 6.67 5 16.67 12 40.00 10 33.33 3.93 1.05 .000** 8. I have higher attention when topics are spaced out. 3.33 6 20.00 6 20.00 8 26.67 9 30.00 3.60 1.22 .012* 9. I feel more motivated when lessons are spaced out. 1 3.33 5 16.67 4 13.33 15 50.00 5 16.67 3.60 1.07 .005** 10. I get less bored when learning topics are spaced out. 1 3.33 6 20.00 10 33.33 7 23.33 6 20.00 3.37 1.13 .086 11. I’m glad because by spaced practice, I actually enjoy vocabulary learning. 5 16.67 1 3.33 7 23.33 11 36.67 6 20.00 3.40 1.33 .110 12. Learning vocabulary is more fun when lessons are spaced out. 0 0.00 4 13.33 5 16.67 11 36.67 10 33.33 3.90 1.03 .000** 13. I feel pleasure from doing something over and over again. 2 6.67 2 6.67 5 16.67 6 20.00 15 50.00 4.00 1.26 .000** 14. From now on, I’d rather learn words by spaced practice. 2 6.67 3 10.00 5 16.67 9 30.00 11 36.67 3.80 1.24 .001** 15. Generally, I agree with spacing learning lessons. 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 6.67 16 53.33 12 40.00 4.33 0.61 .000** Note. 1 = strongly disagree or SD; 2 = disagree or D; 3 = no idea or N; 4 = agree or A; 5 = strongly agree or SA. *Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .01 level. strongly agreed with the statement, “Learning vocabulary is they generally perceived spaced learning as an effective more fun when lessons are spaced out,” whereas only 13.33% learning methodology. However, children’s responses to of the respondents showed disagreement. In response to Item Items 10 and 11 were about the average. That is, children 13 (“I feel pleasure from doing something over and over found teaching and learning techniques used in this study again”), 21 respondents either agreed (20%) or strongly neither boring nor enjoyable. agreed (50%) with this item, while four respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement (13.34%), Conclusion and six said they had no idea. In relation to Item 14, less The results confirmed both of our predictions. The primary than three fourth of the respondents (66.67%) showed either agreement or strong agreement with the statement aim of this study was to see whether or not children perceive “From now on, I’d rather learn words by spaced practice”. spaced methodology as an effective approach compared with However, the remaining respondents either disagreed or massed methodology. For this reason, we taught 30 L2 learn- had no idea. Finally, regarding Item 15, almost all the ers the meaning of 24 English words by two different spaced respondents (93.33%) agreed with the statement “Generally, schedules (massed vs. spaced), and we assessed recalling one I agree with spacing learning lessons”. This indicates that week and five weeks after the second learning session. The Lotfolahi and Salehi 7 results of the final tests showed that spacing effect emerged Concerning the findings of this study, a number of limita- tions requires consideration. In this study, we made the learn- when learning sessions were spread over time. This was in ing sessions identical in both learning conditions to ensure line with other recent previous studies (e.g., Goossens et al., the benefits of spacing. The only thing that was different 2012; Sobel et al., 2011). For instance, in the study by Sobel between conditions was the amount of time between the et al. (2011), the recall for the spaced words was 177% higher learning sessions. However, by having both learning sessions than the recall for the massed words. Furthermore, we admin- identical, naturally, the massed words would be far less inter- istered a survey questionnaire to explore learners’ perceived esting. To do two identical sessions with a small break effectiveness of these learning schedules. In general, children between the two would be far more boring than the spaced perceived spaced practice to be more effective than massed presentation, which separated the sessions by a week. practice. The questionnaire was developed to elicit children’s Therefore, children may have preferred the spaced session responses in relation to cognitive and affective states. In gen- for this reason. In the future research, it would be a good idea eral, children highly believed that spaced learning leads to to use different exercises to keep the lessons from becoming better recall than massed learning does. However, the ques- boring. Furthermore, according to the study-phase retrieval tionnaire showed less agreement toward the affective states of account of the spacing effect (for a review, see Thios & learners. For instance, the children perceived the learning D’Agostino, 1976), in order for spacing effect to work, the activities used in this study neither enjoyable nor boring. materials need to be seen at least twice. It needs to be learned The present study extends the findings of Nakata (2015) during Study Session 1 and retrieved/updated (thus, memory who explored learners’ perceived effectiveness of different trace strengthened) during Study Session 2. However, to spacing schedules. In his study, college students practiced make sure that the children can appreciate the difference in English–Japanese word pairs using computer software. spaced learning versus massed learning when there were Moreover, the spacing gaps between trials were limited to a only two learning sessions, we administered the question- few minutes. In our study, the children practiced English– naire after the final test session. In this way, the children Farsi word pairs in a classroom setting by using education- could make accurate judgments about the effectiveness of ally related materials and with educationally meaningful both learning schedules. In the future research, it would be spacing and testing gaps. Furthermore, the questionnaire in interesting to give the questionnaire before and after the test our study elicited children’s perceptions of their affective session. states. Appendix A Survey Questionnaire in Farsi 15 8 SAGE Open Appendix B Translation of Survey Questionnaire in English Age: Gender: Column Please choose the one that best describes your idea. Strongly agree Agree No idea Disagree Strongly disagree 1 Spaced repetition makes me remember words better. 2 Spaced learning lessons allow me to store more information. 3 Spaced learning lessons allow me to retain more information. 4 I can recall spaced words better on tests. 5 By spaced repetitions, I can see my vocabulary improving. 6 I have a better understanding when lessons are spaced out. 7 I learn quicker when lessons are spaced out. 8 I have higher attention when topics are spaced out. 9 I feel more motivated when lessons are spaced. 10 I get less bored when learning topics are spaced out. 11 I’m glad because by spaced practice, I actually enjoy vocabulary learning. 12 Learning vocabulary is more fun when lessons are spaced out. 13 I feel pleasure from doing something over and over again. 14 From now on, I’d rather learn words by spaced practice. 15 Generally, I agree with spacing learning lessons. Declaration of Conflicting Interests language and linguistics (2nd ed., Vol. 8, pp. 348-355). Oxford, England: Elsevier. The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect Gerbier, E., Toppino, T. C., & Koenig, O. (2015). Optimising to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. retention through multiple study opportunities over days: The benefit of an expanding schedule of repetitions. Memory, 23, Funding 943-954. Goossens, N. A., Camp, G., Verkoeijen, P. P., Tabbers, H. K., & The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or Zwaan, R. A. (2012). Spreading the words: A spacing effect authorship of this article. in vocabulary learning. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 24, 965-971. References Kampa, K., & Vilina, C. (2011). Magic time. Oxford, UK: Oxford Ambridge, B., Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V., & Tomasello, M. University Press. (2006). The distributed learning effect for children’s acquisition Kornell, N. (2009). Optimizing learning using flashcards: Spacing is of an abstract syntactic construction. Cognitive Development, more effective than cramming. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 174-193. 23, 1297-1317. Bloom, K. C., & Shuell, T. J. (1981). Effects of massed and distrib- Miles, S. W. (2014). Spaced vs. massed distribution instruction for uted practice on the learning and retention of second-language L2 grammar learning. System, 42, 412-428. vocabulary. Journal of Educational Research, 74, 245-248. Nakata, T. (2015). Are learners aware of effective ways to learn Brown, H.D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching second language vocabulary from retrieval? Perceived effects (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. of relative spacing, absolute spacing, and feedback timing on Carpenter, S. K., Pashler, H., & Cepeda, N. J. (2009). Using tests vocabulary learning. Vocabulary Learning and Instruction, 4, to enhance 8th grade students’ retention of US history facts. 66-73. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 760-771. Rivers, S., & Toyama, S. (2011). English time. Oxford, UK: Oxford de Jonge, M., Tabbers, H. K., Pecher, D., & Zeelenberg, R. (2012). University Press. The effect of study time distribution on learning and reten- Rohrer, D. (2015). Student instruction should be distributed over tion: A Goldilocks principle for presentation rate. Journal of long time periods. Educational Psychology Review, 27, Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 635-643. 38, 405-412. Schuetze, U. (2015). Spacing techniques in second language vocab- Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language ulary acquisition: Short-term gains vs. long-term memory. learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Language Teaching Research, 19(1), 28-42. Edward Arnold. Seabrook, R., Brown, G. D., & Solity, J. E. (2005). Distributed Gardner, R. C. (2005). “Motivation and attitudes in second and massed practice: From laboratory to classroom. Applied language learning.” In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 107-122. Lotfolahi and Salehi 9 Sobel, H. S., Cepeda, N. J., & Kapler, I. V. (2011). Spacing effects Author Biographies in real-world classroom vocabulary learning. Applied Cognitive Amir Reza Lotfolahi received his MA in TEFL from Najafabad Psychology, 25, 763-767. Branch, Islamic Azad University, where he first became involved in Son, L. K., & Simon, D. A. (2012). Distributed learning: Data, educational research. He is interested in factors that may help learn- metacognition, and educational implications. Educational ers to increase the efficiency of their learning. He is also interested Psychology Review, 24, 379-399. in how the findings of cognitive psychology can be applied to real- Thios, S. J., & D’Agostino, P. R. (1976). Effects of repetition as a world classroom learning. function of study-phase retrieval. Journal of Verbal Learning Hadi Salehi is an assistant professor in the Faculty of Humanities, and Verbal Behavior, 15, 529-536. Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Iran where he teaches Toppino, T. C., & Gerbier, E. (2014). About practice: Repetition, undergraduate and postgraduate courses. He received his PhD in spacing, and abstraction. The Psychology of Learning and TESL from National University of Malaysia. His main research inter- Motivation, 60, 113-189. ests include Language Learning Strategies, Materials Development, Zigterman, J. R., Simone, P. M., & Bell, M. C. (2015). Within- Language Assessment, ICT, E-Learning and Washback of High- session spacing improves delayed recall in children. Memory, stakes Tests. 23, 625-632. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png SAGE Open SAGE

Learners’ Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Spaced Learning Schedule in L2 Vocabulary Learning:

Lotfolahi, Amir Reza; Salehi, Hadi
SAGE Open , Volume 6 (2): 1 – May 26, 2016
Download PDF
9 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/learners-perceptions-of-the-effectiveness-of-spaced-learning-schedule-4Fns4MYphF

References (25)

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
Copyright © 2022 by SAGE Publications Inc, unless otherwise noted. Manuscript content on this site is licensed under Creative Commons Licenses.
ISSN
2158-2440
eISSN
2158-2440
DOI
10.1177/2158244016646148
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The spacing effect is a ubiquitous phenomenon, whereby memory is enhanced for the information that is learned across different points in time rather than being learned at once. A considerable amount of research has focused on the nature of the spacing effect, and there is general acceptance that spacing learning events out in time promotes learning. However, fewer studies have been conducted in educational settings. The aim of this study is to explore learners’ perceptions of different spacing schedules (massed vs. spaced). To achieve the purpose of the study, we taught 30 children 24 English–Farsi word pairs utilizing different spacing schedules. Later, we administered a questionnaire to explore leaarners’ perceptions of both massed and spaced schedules. The results revealed that the children percieved spaced practice to be more effective than massed practice. Keywords spacing, spaced learning, massed learning, vocabulary learning, memory, perceptions There are also questions about how learners perceive the Introduction use of different learning/teaching schedules. Therefore, it is An extensive body of experimental research has demon- important to investigate learners’ perceptions because it does strated that spacing learning opportunities across time leads not matter whether a specific teaching methodology (e.g., to better memory than massing these learning opportunities spaced methodology) is practical, interesting, or authentic, (for a review, see e.g., Seabrook, Brown, & Solity, 2005; Son but whether it is perceived as such by second language (L2) & Simon, 2012; Rohrer, 2015; Toppino & Gerbier, 2014). learners. According to Gardner (1985), perception, attitude, For example, learners spending 5 minutes learning a list of and other affective variables are as important as aptitude for words on 3 consecutive days perform better on retention tests second/foreign language learning. Gardner (2005) also than learners spending 15 minutes learning the same list of believed that the level of motivation often provides impor- words at once. This phenomenon, called the spacing effect, tant insights into the learners’ perceptions, attitudes, and has been an active research direction in experimental psy- beliefs. Brown (2000) stated that positive attitudes and chology and has been extended to educational settings within beliefs increase learners’ level of motivation, whereas nega- recent years. tive attitudes and beliefs may reduce the learners’ level of The research on spacing effect has gone beyond the motivation. Therefore, it is important to investigate how to limits of laboratory research to domains such as educa- incorporate spaced-retrieval techniques in the classrooms tional research to test theories and ideas in the field of and how learners perceive the use of these techniques in sec- second language learning. For instance, several studies ond language learning contexts. have demonstrated the existence of spacing effect when To date, several studies have been conducted in authen- words were used as stimuli (e.g., Bloom & Shuell, 1981; tic educational settings in an attempt to demonstrate the Carpenter, Pashler, & Cepeda, 2009; Goossens, Camp, Verkoeijen, Tabbers, & Zwaan, 2012; Kornell, 2009; Sobel, Cepeda, & Kapler, 2011). Despite the fact that the 1 English Department, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, efficacy of spaced practice has been demonstrated for Najafabad, Isfahan, Iran vocabulary learning within recent years, there are still Corresponding Author: questions about how to use spaced practice as a standard Hadi Salehi, English Department, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad teaching methodology while taking into account how the University, Najafabad, Isfahan, Iran. spacing effect works. Email: hadisalehi1358@yahoo.com Creative Commons CC-BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). 2 SAGE Open advantageous effects of spaced practice over massed prac- given Japanese words. In the massed group, learners studied tice in word learning (e.g., Bloom & Shuell, 1981; Gerbier, word pairs 4 times without any intertrial interval. However, Toppino, & Koenig, 2015; Goossens et al., 2012; Kornell, in the short, medium, and long-spacing groups, participants 2009; Schuetze, 2015; Sobel et al., 2011; Zigterman, studied each word pair 4 times separated by 1, 2, and 5 min- Simone, & Bell, 2015). For instance, Kornell (2009) ute intertrial intervals, respectively. On completion of post- reported an experiment in which undergraduate students tests, a 7-point scale questionnaire explored participants’ learned words using flash cards. They studied 40 flash perceived effects of different learning schedules. The results cards under two learning conditions (massed and spaced). showed that the participants’ perceived spacing schedules At first, participants went through a learning phase. In the (equal vs. expanding) to be equally effective. However, they learning phase, participants studied four stacks of five flash perceived spaced schedules to be more effective than massed cards 8 times in uninterrupted succession in one single ses- schedule. sion under a spaced condition. In the massed condition, par- Numerous additional studies have clearly demonstrated ticipants distributed their study sessions across 4 the greater learning potential of spaced study over massed consecutive days and each participant studied 20 flash study. These studies have shown the effectiveness of spaced cards twice within each learning session. One day after the study in the acquisition of syntactical features (Ambridge, completion of the learning phase, participants went through Theakston, Lieven, & Tomasello, 2006), in learning of gram- a testing phase. The performance of the participants on the mar (Miles, 2014), in learning of word pairs (de Jonge, final cued-recall test was higher for the participants in the Tabbers, Pecher, & Zeelenberg, 2012), and in learning of spaced condition than for the participants in the massed phonics reading skills (Seabook, Brown, & Solity, 2005). condition. Given the beneficial effects of spaced-retrieval practice In another attempt, Sobel et al. (2011) examined whether for vocabulary learning, it is surprising that teachers might or not spacing can be generalized to vocabulary learning of not wish to incorporate spaced-retrieval techniques into middle school children in an authentic educational setting. classroom learning. One reason for this is the lack of stan- For this aim, they had middle school students learn the defi- dard methodology as how to successfully put the findings of nitions of eight uncommon English words under two learn- experimental research into practice. Another reason might be ing conditions. The study encompassed two learning that it is not known whether L2 learners perceive these learn- sessions. The two learning sessions took place either back to ing techniques as being effective. The aim of this study was back (massed) or separated by one week (spaced). Five to illuminate the efficacy of spaced practice in L2 vocabulary weeks after the completion of learning trials, children took a teaching and to investigate learners’ perception of spaced retention test. The results showed that the participants per- methodology in a classroom setting. In line with prior find- formed vastly better under the spaced condition than the ings, we expected that the spaced practice would result in massed condition. better performance than massed practice. However, we also Similar studies have supported the existence of spacing expected that children generally would prefer spaced prac- effect in vocabulary learning in a primary school context. In tice to massed practice. Therefore, the following research one recent study, Goossens et al. (2012) taught primary questions were addressed in this study: school children 15 unfamiliar words in a massed fashion and 15 other unfamiliar words in a spaced fashion. The study Research Question 1: Does spacing L2 learners’ vocabu- consisted of six sessions, four learning sessions and two test lary sessions lead to better retention compared with mass- sessions, over six weeks. In the massed condition, children ing those learning sessions? learned three sets of five thematic words, and each set was Research Question 2: How do L2 learners perceive the practiced in one of the three study sessions. In the spaced use of spaced-retrieval methodology? condition, however, participants studied a set of 15 words once in each of the three study sessions. The children took a Method test after a 1-week and a 5-week break; the results showed that the children who were taught in the spaced fashion per- Participants formed considerably better than the children who were taught in the massed fashion. Thirty male Iranian elementary school children were In a recent study, Nakata (2015) explored learners’ per- recruited from two classrooms in an English language insti- ceived effects of different spacing schedules (i.e., relative tute located in an urban environment in Isfahan, Iran. All the spacing, absolute spacing, and feedback timing) on L2 participants were native Farsi speakers. By the time of the vocabulary learning. To this aim, he had 226 Japanese col- study, these children had all studied the first two levels of lege students study English–Japanese word pairs using com- the six-level English Time (Rivers & Toyama, 2011) series puter software. He assigned participants to one of four study and the two-level Magic Time (Kampa & Vilina, 2011), groups: massed, short, medium, and long spacing. The treat- which is followed by the English Time course. At the time of ment involved typing of English words as a response to the study, all children were studying English Time book Lotfolahi and Salehi 3 Table 1. Procedure of the Study. Learning phase Test phase Study Session 1 Study Session 2 Test Session 1 Test Session 2 Presentation of Items 1-12 Presentation of Items 13-24 Retention test (Items 1-24) Retention test (Items 1-24) Items 1-12 page 1 Items 13-24 page 1 Items 1-12 page 2 Items 13-24 page 2 Items 1-12 page 3 Items 13-24 page 3 (spaced) Study Session 2 Presentation of Items 1-12 Items 1-12 page 1 Items 1-12 page 2 Items 1-12 page 3 (massed) Study Session 1 Presentation of Items 13-24 Items 13-24 page 1 Items 13-24 page 2 Items 13-24 page 3 Level 3. It is worth mentioning that children’s English completed their learning trials all in one day with a 1-minute knowledge was limited to the above mentioned introductory intertrial interval. In the spaced condition, children com- books. In addition, it should be noted that English is not a pleted their learning trials in two sessions with a 7-day break compulsory subject at primary schools in Iran, and Iranian in between. Both the order of the lists in the learning phase children officially start learning English at the secondary and the order of the tests in the test phase were counterbal- school. Before starting the secondary school, children can anced. Table 1 shows the procedure of the study. learn English in private language institutes, which was the The study started with a fast-paced mode PowerPoint pre- case in the present study. Therefore, their vocabulary knowl- sentation of 12 English–Farsi vocabulary words, accompa- edge was not profound, which indeed enhances the reliability nied with examples. Each learning session encompassed of the results. In many previous studies (e.g., studies con- study-test-study-test trials in which the children learned the ducted on adult participants), it was not clear whether or not words. In total, participants completed four consecutive participants had any earlier experience with target language study trials, which took about 25 minutes to be completed. (e.g., relevant background knowledge about stimuli words). Each learning trial proceeded through the learning phase as The age of participants ranged from 8 to 12 years old. follows: At first, all 24 English–Farsi word pairs were pre- sented to the children one by one with a portable projector. The experimenter read aloud the English words, their Farsi Materials and Instruments translations, and their sample sentences along with To gather data, we used 24 English–Farsi word pairs. Twenty- PowerPoint slides. Children were instructed to quietly four new English words were selected from the English Time rehearse the words along with their teacher. They were not book Level 4. In addition, a 15-item 5-point Likert-type scale allowed to read the words aloud or to take notes. Then, learn- questionnaire explored children’s perceptions of spaced ers were asked to turn to page one of the booklet. Page one methodology. The questionnaire is included in Farsi and consisted of two rows of six L2 words each, and children English in Appendices A and B, respectively. were allotted six minutes to write down the meaning of each L2 word in Farsi. Next, children were allotted six minutes to practice page two. Page two of the booklet contained all 12 Procedure English–Farsi word pairs and a sample sentence for each Prior to the start of the study, a pretest was administered to one. Teacher molded the word pairs and sample sentences, make sure whether children had any background knowledge and children repeated them chorally. In addition, children about the target words. The pretest showed that children did were given five minutes to practice the meaning of new not have any prior knowledge about 24 stimuli words. The words. Finally, children were given four minutes to practice study encompassed two learning sessions that occurred last page of the booklet by writing down the meaning of each either in an immediate succession or in a spaced fashion. The English word in the provided space. On completion of all first two learning sessions were tutorial sessions on the learning trials, the booklets were collected. Following English–Farsi word pairs. In the massed condition, children 1-minute break, the second learning session took place in a 4 SAGE Open massed fashion. In the massed condition, children carried out Table 2. Items of the Questionnaire. exactly the same learning trials as the first learning session. No. Items After a short break of 10 minutes, children participated in the spaced condition. In the spaced condition, the learning 1 Spaced repetition makes me to remember words better. trials were the same as those children conducted during the 2 Spaced learning lessons allow me to store more massed sessions, except that participants learned 12 other information. word pairs. Spaced instruction encompassed two study epi- 3 Spaced learning lessons allow me to retain more sodes, with a break of seven days, while the massed instruc- information. tion encompassing two study sessions took place on the same 4 I can recall spaced words better on tests. day with a break of one minute. The second learning session 5 By spaced repetitions, I can see my vocabulary in spaced condition would be similar to its first learning ses- improving. sion as well. Once all the instruction in the learning phase 6 I have a better understanding when lessons are had been completed, the children were informally asked spaced out. about the efficacy of both learning schedules. They generally 7 I learn quicker when lessons are spaced out. believed that they benefit more from massed schedule than 8 I have higher attention when topics are spaced out. spaced schedule. However, the children’s responses were 9 I feel more motivated when lessons are spaced out. elicited verbally, and we do not have survey results to con- 10 I get less bored when learning topics are spaced out. 11 I’m glad because by spaced practice, I actually enjoy firm exactly how many students felt this way. After comple- vocabulary learning. tion of the last learning session, children went through the 12 Learning vocabulary is more fun when lessons are retention interval phase (one week vs. five weeks). spaced out. The test sessions occurred seven days and 35 days after 13 I feel pleasure from doing something over and over the second study session. Children were instructed that they again had to retrieve the meaning of words from memory and 14 From now on, I’d rather learn words by spaced teacher would not help them. In the first test session, one practice. week after the second learning session, the children were 15 Generally, I agree with spacing learning lessons. given a test that required them to write down the definition of each word in the provided space. In the second test session, five weeks after the second learning session, children had difficulty with understanding some of the items of the received the same test again. In the test phase, children were questionnaire and to eliminate the sense of ambiguity, the instructed which one of the lists was taught in a massed fash- idea behind all the items was explained to the respondents. ion and which one of the lists was taught in a spaced fashion. Children were not told about the superiority of spaced learn- Results ing over mass learning schedule and vice versa. On completion of the final test session, children responded Retention Tests to a questionnaire in Farsi. Prior to distribution of the ques- We computed the mean percentage of items correctly recalled tionnaires, the children were instructed by the experimenter during the retention test. Mean and standard deviation of per- that they should provide their answers with regard to the per- centage recall for two conditions are presented in Table 3. A ceptions they have of massed and spaced schedules. The 2 × 2 (Learning Condition × Retention Interval) repeated- questionnaire was self-developed, and it consisted of 15 state- measures ANOVA, with the number of correct items as the ments which attempted to investigate children’s attitudes with dependent variable, confirmed a significant main effect of regard to affective and cognitive states (e.g., levels of atten- η = .. 90 learning condition, F(1, 29) = 254.018, p < .001, tion, interest, anxiety, rehearsal, motivation) while being Therefore, children in the spaced condition recalled more taught by spaced-retrieval techniques. All 15 statements words than children in the massed condition. There was also were answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale. All the state- a main effect of retention interval, F(1, 29) = 54.650, p < ments were clear and concise and most of the sentences had .001, η = .653 , indicating that recall scores were lower on fewer than 15 words (for an overview of the statements, see the 5-week test, compared with recall on the 1-week test. The Table 2). In addition, to ensure the validity of the question- interaction between type of learning and length of delay was naire, some colleagues were asked to read the questionnaire not significant F(1, 29) = 0.813, p = .375. and to give their opinions on whether they saw any problem or not. Moreover, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was cal- culated for the questionnaire to assess the internal reliability Survey Questionnaire of the questionnaire. The coefficient was found to be 0.76 indicating the satisfactory internal reliability for the ques- The results of what the 30 respondents believed about tionnaire. Furthermore, because some of the younger children spaced learning schedules are presented in this section. In Lotfolahi and Salehi 5 Table 3. Mean Percentage of Correct Recall of Massed and respondents (76.67%) agreed with Item three (“Spaced learn- Spaced Words With Standard Deviation. ing lessons allow me to retain more information”). Item four (“I can recall spaced words better on tests”) had about three Test phase fourth of children (76.67%) agreeing with this statement. Six Test 1 Test 2 of the participants (20%) had no idea about this item, and only one of the participants (3.33%) disagreed with this item. Condition M SD M SD Item five (“By spaced repetitions, I can see my vocabulary Massed 33.33 13.49 26.38 12.59 improving”) had about 73% of the children agreeing with Spaced 61.66 14.78 53.05 12.47 this statement. Item six (“I have a better understanding when lessons are spaced out”) had 22 of the responding children (73.33%) agreeing with this statement. Seven of the respond- the section concerning children’s perceptions of vocabulary ing children (23.33%) showed neither agreement nor dis- learning scheduled by spaced repetitions, children were agreement, and only one of the participants disagreed with required to select one from the five scales (1 = Strongly this item. Concerning Item seven (“I learn quicker when les- Disagree or SD, 2 = Disagree or D, 3 = No Idea or N, 4 = sons are spaced out”), children mostly selected either strongly Agree or A, 5 = Strongly Agree or SA). After obtaining the agree (33.33%) or agree (40%) while strongly disagree had respondents’ responses, we used a one-sample t test to com- the lowest rate (3.33%). In addition, two of the respondents pare the mean response of each of the survey items with the (6.67%) selected no idea. The majority of responding chil- midpoint of the scale (M = 3). The results of which have dren agreed with Item eight (“I have higher attention when been illustrated in the Table 4. The results of one-sample t topics are spaced out”), 17 of the respondents showed a com- test in Table 4 demonstrated that the average response score plete agreement (30%) or agreement (26.67%). Furthermore, for all 15 items on a 5-point scale was above the midpoint six of the participants (20%) had no idea about Item eight. value. As it is shown in the Table 4, there was not a signifi- Items one to eight elicited children’s cognitive processes cant difference between the average score for Item 10, “I get involved in vocabulary learning concerning spaced-retrieval less bored when learning topics are spaced out,” with mean methodology. In general, children had a positive attitude score of 3.37 ± 1.33, and Item 11, “I’m glad because by toward using spaced methodology. Children strongly agreed spaced practice, I actually enjoy vocabulary learning,” with that spacing improves learning. More specifically, they mean score of 3.40 ± 1.33, and the midpoint of the scale believed that spacing leads to better recall than massing does. (p > 0.05). This indicated that the learners’ agreement with In the present study, all learning sessions were similar. The Items 10 and 11 was about the average. That is, children only thing that was different between learning conditions found the spaced-retrieval techniques used in this study nei- was the amount of time between the two study sessions. At ther boring nor enjoyable. Regarding other items of the the test phase, children were surprised because they could questionnaire, the mean score was above the midpoint value remember words of one of the lists (spaced words) vastly of the scale, and the difference between the mean score and better than the words of the other list (massed words). This the midpoint value was significant (p < 0.05). In general, indicates that the children could clearly differentiate between children’s agreement on all items of the questionnaire was the two learning schedules, and therefore were able to judge above the average. This indicated that in general, children accurately the effectiveness of the two different learning perceived spaced approach to be more effective than the approaches on the scale. massed approach. The remaining items elicited children’s responses in rela- Items one to eight examined the respondents’ responses tion to various affective states. With regard to Item nine (“I toward cognitive states. Item one (”Spaced repetition makes feel more motivated when lessons are spaced out”), children me remember words better”) showed a strong tendency of mostly selected either agree (50%) or strongly agree agreement. Twenty-six of the responding children (86.67%) (16.67%). However, six of the respondents showed a com- either agreed or strongly agreed with this item. This indicates pletely opposite view as they either disagreed (16.67%) or that spaced repetitions made them remember words better. strongly disagreed (3.33%). Also, four children (13.33%) Three of the respondents (10%) had no idea about Item one. selected no idea. In relation to Item 10 (I get less bored when Only one (3.33%) of the respondents disagreed with the learning topics that are spaced out), less than half of the par- item. Item two (“Spaced learning lessons allow me to store ticipants (43.33%) agreed with this item, 23.33% disagreed, more information”) gained such high agreement among the and 33.33% had no idea. In response to Item 11 (“I’m glad responding children. Most respondents either strongly agreed because by spaced practice, I actually enjoy vocabulary (60%) or agreed (26.67%) with the item. However, the learning”), more than half of the participants either agreed or remaining children (13.33%) had no idea about Item two. In strongly agreed, less than 25% had no idea, although 20% addition, it should be noted that the highest mean score either disagreed or strongly disagreed. Regarding Item 12, obtained was related to Item two. About three fourth of the more than two third of the respondents (70%) agreed or 6 SAGE Open Table 4. Results of Learner’s Perceptions of Spaced Methodology. SD D N A SA F % F % F % F % F % M SD p 1. Spaced repetition makes me remember words better. 0 0.00 1 3.33 3 10.00 11 36.67 15 50.00 4.33 0.80 .000** 2. Spaced learning lessons allow me to store more information. 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 13.33 8 26.67 18 60.00 4.47 0.73 .000** 3. Spaced learning lessons allow me to retain more information. 0 0.00 1 3.33 6 20.00 14 46.67 9 30.00 4.03 0.81 .000** 4. I can recall spaced words better on tests. 0 0.00 1 3.33 6 20.00 9 30.00 14 46.67 4.20 0.89 .000** 5. By spaced repetitions, I can see my vocabulary improving. 0 0.00 0 0.00 8 26.67 12 40.00 10 33.33 4.07 0.78 .000** 6. I have a better understanding when lessons are spaced out. 1 3.33 0 0.00 7 23.33 15 50.00 7 23.33 3.90 0.88 .000** 7. I learn quicker when lessons are spaced out. 1 3.33 2 6.67 5 16.67 12 40.00 10 33.33 3.93 1.05 .000** 8. I have higher attention when topics are spaced out. 3.33 6 20.00 6 20.00 8 26.67 9 30.00 3.60 1.22 .012* 9. I feel more motivated when lessons are spaced out. 1 3.33 5 16.67 4 13.33 15 50.00 5 16.67 3.60 1.07 .005** 10. I get less bored when learning topics are spaced out. 1 3.33 6 20.00 10 33.33 7 23.33 6 20.00 3.37 1.13 .086 11. I’m glad because by spaced practice, I actually enjoy vocabulary learning. 5 16.67 1 3.33 7 23.33 11 36.67 6 20.00 3.40 1.33 .110 12. Learning vocabulary is more fun when lessons are spaced out. 0 0.00 4 13.33 5 16.67 11 36.67 10 33.33 3.90 1.03 .000** 13. I feel pleasure from doing something over and over again. 2 6.67 2 6.67 5 16.67 6 20.00 15 50.00 4.00 1.26 .000** 14. From now on, I’d rather learn words by spaced practice. 2 6.67 3 10.00 5 16.67 9 30.00 11 36.67 3.80 1.24 .001** 15. Generally, I agree with spacing learning lessons. 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 6.67 16 53.33 12 40.00 4.33 0.61 .000** Note. 1 = strongly disagree or SD; 2 = disagree or D; 3 = no idea or N; 4 = agree or A; 5 = strongly agree or SA. *Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .01 level. strongly agreed with the statement, “Learning vocabulary is they generally perceived spaced learning as an effective more fun when lessons are spaced out,” whereas only 13.33% learning methodology. However, children’s responses to of the respondents showed disagreement. In response to Item Items 10 and 11 were about the average. That is, children 13 (“I feel pleasure from doing something over and over found teaching and learning techniques used in this study again”), 21 respondents either agreed (20%) or strongly neither boring nor enjoyable. agreed (50%) with this item, while four respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement (13.34%), Conclusion and six said they had no idea. In relation to Item 14, less The results confirmed both of our predictions. The primary than three fourth of the respondents (66.67%) showed either agreement or strong agreement with the statement aim of this study was to see whether or not children perceive “From now on, I’d rather learn words by spaced practice”. spaced methodology as an effective approach compared with However, the remaining respondents either disagreed or massed methodology. For this reason, we taught 30 L2 learn- had no idea. Finally, regarding Item 15, almost all the ers the meaning of 24 English words by two different spaced respondents (93.33%) agreed with the statement “Generally, schedules (massed vs. spaced), and we assessed recalling one I agree with spacing learning lessons”. This indicates that week and five weeks after the second learning session. The Lotfolahi and Salehi 7 results of the final tests showed that spacing effect emerged Concerning the findings of this study, a number of limita- tions requires consideration. In this study, we made the learn- when learning sessions were spread over time. This was in ing sessions identical in both learning conditions to ensure line with other recent previous studies (e.g., Goossens et al., the benefits of spacing. The only thing that was different 2012; Sobel et al., 2011). For instance, in the study by Sobel between conditions was the amount of time between the et al. (2011), the recall for the spaced words was 177% higher learning sessions. However, by having both learning sessions than the recall for the massed words. Furthermore, we admin- identical, naturally, the massed words would be far less inter- istered a survey questionnaire to explore learners’ perceived esting. To do two identical sessions with a small break effectiveness of these learning schedules. In general, children between the two would be far more boring than the spaced perceived spaced practice to be more effective than massed presentation, which separated the sessions by a week. practice. The questionnaire was developed to elicit children’s Therefore, children may have preferred the spaced session responses in relation to cognitive and affective states. In gen- for this reason. In the future research, it would be a good idea eral, children highly believed that spaced learning leads to to use different exercises to keep the lessons from becoming better recall than massed learning does. However, the ques- boring. Furthermore, according to the study-phase retrieval tionnaire showed less agreement toward the affective states of account of the spacing effect (for a review, see Thios & learners. For instance, the children perceived the learning D’Agostino, 1976), in order for spacing effect to work, the activities used in this study neither enjoyable nor boring. materials need to be seen at least twice. It needs to be learned The present study extends the findings of Nakata (2015) during Study Session 1 and retrieved/updated (thus, memory who explored learners’ perceived effectiveness of different trace strengthened) during Study Session 2. However, to spacing schedules. In his study, college students practiced make sure that the children can appreciate the difference in English–Japanese word pairs using computer software. spaced learning versus massed learning when there were Moreover, the spacing gaps between trials were limited to a only two learning sessions, we administered the question- few minutes. In our study, the children practiced English– naire after the final test session. In this way, the children Farsi word pairs in a classroom setting by using education- could make accurate judgments about the effectiveness of ally related materials and with educationally meaningful both learning schedules. In the future research, it would be spacing and testing gaps. Furthermore, the questionnaire in interesting to give the questionnaire before and after the test our study elicited children’s perceptions of their affective session. states. Appendix A Survey Questionnaire in Farsi 15 8 SAGE Open Appendix B Translation of Survey Questionnaire in English Age: Gender: Column Please choose the one that best describes your idea. Strongly agree Agree No idea Disagree Strongly disagree 1 Spaced repetition makes me remember words better. 2 Spaced learning lessons allow me to store more information. 3 Spaced learning lessons allow me to retain more information. 4 I can recall spaced words better on tests. 5 By spaced repetitions, I can see my vocabulary improving. 6 I have a better understanding when lessons are spaced out. 7 I learn quicker when lessons are spaced out. 8 I have higher attention when topics are spaced out. 9 I feel more motivated when lessons are spaced. 10 I get less bored when learning topics are spaced out. 11 I’m glad because by spaced practice, I actually enjoy vocabulary learning. 12 Learning vocabulary is more fun when lessons are spaced out. 13 I feel pleasure from doing something over and over again. 14 From now on, I’d rather learn words by spaced practice. 15 Generally, I agree with spacing learning lessons. Declaration of Conflicting Interests language and linguistics (2nd ed., Vol. 8, pp. 348-355). Oxford, England: Elsevier. The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect Gerbier, E., Toppino, T. C., & Koenig, O. (2015). Optimising to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. retention through multiple study opportunities over days: The benefit of an expanding schedule of repetitions. Memory, 23, Funding 943-954. Goossens, N. A., Camp, G., Verkoeijen, P. P., Tabbers, H. K., & The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or Zwaan, R. A. (2012). Spreading the words: A spacing effect authorship of this article. in vocabulary learning. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 24, 965-971. References Kampa, K., & Vilina, C. (2011). Magic time. Oxford, UK: Oxford Ambridge, B., Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V., & Tomasello, M. University Press. (2006). The distributed learning effect for children’s acquisition Kornell, N. (2009). Optimizing learning using flashcards: Spacing is of an abstract syntactic construction. Cognitive Development, more effective than cramming. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 174-193. 23, 1297-1317. Bloom, K. C., & Shuell, T. J. (1981). Effects of massed and distrib- Miles, S. W. (2014). Spaced vs. massed distribution instruction for uted practice on the learning and retention of second-language L2 grammar learning. System, 42, 412-428. vocabulary. Journal of Educational Research, 74, 245-248. Nakata, T. (2015). Are learners aware of effective ways to learn Brown, H.D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching second language vocabulary from retrieval? Perceived effects (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. of relative spacing, absolute spacing, and feedback timing on Carpenter, S. K., Pashler, H., & Cepeda, N. J. (2009). Using tests vocabulary learning. Vocabulary Learning and Instruction, 4, to enhance 8th grade students’ retention of US history facts. 66-73. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 760-771. Rivers, S., & Toyama, S. (2011). English time. Oxford, UK: Oxford de Jonge, M., Tabbers, H. K., Pecher, D., & Zeelenberg, R. (2012). University Press. The effect of study time distribution on learning and reten- Rohrer, D. (2015). Student instruction should be distributed over tion: A Goldilocks principle for presentation rate. Journal of long time periods. Educational Psychology Review, 27, Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 635-643. 38, 405-412. Schuetze, U. (2015). Spacing techniques in second language vocab- Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language ulary acquisition: Short-term gains vs. long-term memory. learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Language Teaching Research, 19(1), 28-42. Edward Arnold. Seabrook, R., Brown, G. D., & Solity, J. E. (2005). Distributed Gardner, R. C. (2005). “Motivation and attitudes in second and massed practice: From laboratory to classroom. Applied language learning.” In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 107-122. Lotfolahi and Salehi 9 Sobel, H. S., Cepeda, N. J., & Kapler, I. V. (2011). Spacing effects Author Biographies in real-world classroom vocabulary learning. Applied Cognitive Amir Reza Lotfolahi received his MA in TEFL from Najafabad Psychology, 25, 763-767. Branch, Islamic Azad University, where he first became involved in Son, L. K., & Simon, D. A. (2012). Distributed learning: Data, educational research. He is interested in factors that may help learn- metacognition, and educational implications. Educational ers to increase the efficiency of their learning. He is also interested Psychology Review, 24, 379-399. in how the findings of cognitive psychology can be applied to real- Thios, S. J., & D’Agostino, P. R. (1976). Effects of repetition as a world classroom learning. function of study-phase retrieval. Journal of Verbal Learning Hadi Salehi is an assistant professor in the Faculty of Humanities, and Verbal Behavior, 15, 529-536. Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Iran where he teaches Toppino, T. C., & Gerbier, E. (2014). About practice: Repetition, undergraduate and postgraduate courses. He received his PhD in spacing, and abstraction. The Psychology of Learning and TESL from National University of Malaysia. His main research inter- Motivation, 60, 113-189. ests include Language Learning Strategies, Materials Development, Zigterman, J. R., Simone, P. M., & Bell, M. C. (2015). Within- Language Assessment, ICT, E-Learning and Washback of High- session spacing improves delayed recall in children. Memory, stakes Tests. 23, 625-632.

Journal

SAGE Open – SAGE

Published: May 26, 2016

Keywords: spacing; spaced learning; massed learning; vocabulary learning; memory; perceptions

There are no references for this article.