Options
Effects of massed and distributed practice on working memory training
Author
Imelda Suryadarma
Supervisor
Lee, Kerry
Abstract
The learning literature has championed the use of distributed over massed practice on various learning platforms. While massed practice refers to an intensive training with shorter break times, distributed practice is less intensive and occurs less frequently. In working memory intervention studies, however, training schedules are mostly massed (e.g., Klingberg, 2002b; Jaeggi, 2011).
This disparity may be explained by several reasons: first, cognitive training structure is built on research of neuroplasticity, or the brain’s ability to reorganize itself and change. Research has shown that working memory capacity may be increased through systematic and intensive training that allows adaptations: one can only move on to more difficult tasks after completing simpler earlier ones successfully. This allows working memory capacity to be optimized. Second, much of the learning literature on massed versus distributed practice is based on concrete skills such as learning a second language, instead of cognitive skills or working memory capacity. Hence the findings from this literature may not be generalizable to that of working memory intervention studies.
This study examined the effects of massed versus distributed practice on working memory training. Participants were 45 lower primary students with average age of 7 years 0 months from 8 schools in Singapore. They were initially from three different groups: the main experimental group, the passive control group and the new group. Both the main experimental group and the passive control group previously participated in a larger intervention study on which this thesis is partially based. Whereas the main experimental group participated in the training programme, the passive control group did not participate in any training and had no contact with the 7 researchers during the training period. The new group was recruited separately at the start of this study.
A series of preliminary analyses was done and the passive control and new groups were then merged to form the massed practice group in this study and while the main experimental group formed the distributed practice group in this study. Participants were tested before and after the intervention programme with measures of working memory, mathematical ability and intelligence. All participated in working memory training specializing in updating—replacing outdated information with newer, more relevant information—conducted in two different intervention schedule: twice a week (distributed) or five times a week (massed).
The effect of massed versus distributed practice schedules seems to differ according to the task on hand. Performance on block design, for example, is found to increase significantly from pretest to posttest when training is done in a distributed manner. Pretest to posttest improvement in block recall, however, seems to be significantly better in the massed group. The massed practice also relates to a significant increase in vocabulary scores from pretest to posttest.
This disparity may be explained by several reasons: first, cognitive training structure is built on research of neuroplasticity, or the brain’s ability to reorganize itself and change. Research has shown that working memory capacity may be increased through systematic and intensive training that allows adaptations: one can only move on to more difficult tasks after completing simpler earlier ones successfully. This allows working memory capacity to be optimized. Second, much of the learning literature on massed versus distributed practice is based on concrete skills such as learning a second language, instead of cognitive skills or working memory capacity. Hence the findings from this literature may not be generalizable to that of working memory intervention studies.
This study examined the effects of massed versus distributed practice on working memory training. Participants were 45 lower primary students with average age of 7 years 0 months from 8 schools in Singapore. They were initially from three different groups: the main experimental group, the passive control group and the new group. Both the main experimental group and the passive control group previously participated in a larger intervention study on which this thesis is partially based. Whereas the main experimental group participated in the training programme, the passive control group did not participate in any training and had no contact with the 7 researchers during the training period. The new group was recruited separately at the start of this study.
A series of preliminary analyses was done and the passive control and new groups were then merged to form the massed practice group in this study and while the main experimental group formed the distributed practice group in this study. Participants were tested before and after the intervention programme with measures of working memory, mathematical ability and intelligence. All participated in working memory training specializing in updating—replacing outdated information with newer, more relevant information—conducted in two different intervention schedule: twice a week (distributed) or five times a week (massed).
The effect of massed versus distributed practice schedules seems to differ according to the task on hand. Performance on block design, for example, is found to increase significantly from pretest to posttest when training is done in a distributed manner. Pretest to posttest improvement in block recall, however, seems to be significantly better in the massed group. The massed practice also relates to a significant increase in vocabulary scores from pretest to posttest.
Date Issued
2012
Call Number
BF378.S54 Sur
Date Submitted
2012