Effect of Distributed vs Massed Learning on Memory and Recall

This experiment has focused on approximately 200 participants whose learning ability was tested on whether or not they followed distributed practice against massed practice. The results indicated that for a distributed practice, there is a stronger benefit in the aspect of memory and retention as well as recall whereas for a massed practice, the aspect of guess based assessment and judgement is given a higher focus.

Running head: PSYCHOLOGY LAB REPORT
PSYCHOLOGY LAB REPORT
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author note

1PSYCHOLOGY LAB REPORT
Abstract
Differential learning strategies like distributed vs massed practices can be influential in
determining how efficiently a learner learns and performs on a particular subject. This
experiment has focused on approximately 200 participants whose learning ability was tested
on whether or not they followed distributed practice against massed practice. The experiment
was done with two types of testy, namely fill in the blanks and multiple choice. The results
indicated that for a distributed practice, there is a stronger benefit in the aspect of memory
and retention as well as recall whereas for a massed practice, the aspect of guess based
assessment and judgement is given a higher focus.

2PSYCHOLOGY LAB REPORT
Introduction
The two different types of leaning practices, namely the massed and the distributed
practices are specific learning strategies that are employed by individuals to efficiently learn
a topic or a subject that they are engaged in learning (Schutte et al., 2015). The theoretical
and functional underpinning of these strategies are based upon the fact that the human
cognition system is a complicated learning apparatus which can deal with a specific amount
of information within a gap of time (Cepeda et al., 2006). This lies in correlation with the
‘Spacing effect’ in human learning (Zimmer & Hocevar, 1994) which is identified as a key
instrument for human learning signifying that spaced acquisition of learnable materials result
in a better retention, interpretation and presentation. Massed practice is the strategy where a
certain amount of data is fed into the cognitive system nonstop for a period of time. In
contrast, distributed practice occurs when and if the same amount of data is broken down into
smaller pieces (Carpenter et al., 2012) and fed to the system at regular intervals. In this
experiment, the effect of distributes vs massed learning is analysed amongst learners through
a differentiated test based on a subject that the participants have learned either in distributed
practice or through massed practice. It is based upon a similar experiment by Rohrer and
Taylor (2006) where the effect of the same conditions was identified in the learners learning
mathematics. In this experiment, instead of mathematics a subject that the learners are
prescribed to learn in their course is selected for testing and the test is performed in either a
fill in the blanks or a multiple choice question format. The key difference between fill in the
blanks and multiple choice questions based assessment is the functional dependency on
memory and recall (Bloom & Shuell, 1981). For a fill in the blanks task, precise memory and
information retrieval is a crucial factor whereas the aspect of guess based judgement is
provided importance in a multiple choice based task.

3PSYCHOLOGY LAB REPORT
The objective behind the experiment is to understand whether or not there are
influences of the two strategies of learning that moderate how the particular learning of the
subject will be facilitated (Fishman, Keller & Atkinson, 1968). The judgement is based on a
performance score given after the test. Therefore the hypothesis that is generated for this
experiment is:
Different learning strategies (distributed vs mixed practice) are influential in determining the
performance of a learner in a test.
The null hypothesis determined for this experiment would therefore be: there is no
identifiable difference between distributed practice and massed practice when it comes to
differential learning among individuals.
Method
For this study online, a total of 274 psychology students were enrolled through the
Swinburne Psychology Research Experience program. Their participation was acknowledged
in exchange for course credits. Out of the 274 students, 35 were unable to finish the study
based on various reasons and so their data was removed to adjust outliers. The combined
demographic of the rest of the participants included 27.62 % men, 70.71 % women and 1.67
% belonging to other or unidentified genders. The age range of the participants were between
18 and 65 years with the mean age of 21.34 years and a standard deviation of 3.12.
Materials
The study materials and the test materials formed the crux of the requirements.
Specific instructions were provided to the participants in the massed practice against
distributed practice conditions and the demographic questions.
All participants of the test regardless of external and internal conditions studied the
Research Methods chapter ('Research in Psychology'; Chapter 2) of the second edition of the
textbook by Bernstein et al. (p. 36 - 72). The participants were tested with two different

4PSYCHOLOGY LAB REPORT
conditions: a 20 item fill – in – the – blank test and a 20 item multiple – choice test. All the
participants were asked to spend six hours of background study on the subject. For the
massed practice students, they were informed to finish the six hours of study in one sitting by
not taking any breaks unless for washroom and refreshment purposes. For the distributed
practice students, the cumulative time was divided into two hours on three consecutive days.
Once again, they were informed to not break the continuity in the study sessions unless
required for washroom or refreshment purposes. The demographic questions asked two open
ended questions to the participants – their age and gender.
Procedure
The study was approved by the Swinburne University Human Research Ethics
Committee (SUHREC). The participants were also informed that they could withdraw from
the study without any form of penalty imposed on them. It was also mentioned to them that
no compensation for effort will be provided for the six hours of study as the lesson was a part
of their own revision from the course and not a part of the actual research experience
program.
Firstly, the participants who signed up for the study were asked to complete part 1 of
the study through Qualtrics, a computer software. This part included the participants to study
the strategy conditions and present the relevant information as well as answering the
demographic questions asked to them. After studying the preliminary information and
completing the sections regarding information and completion of the part 1 of the REP, they
were provided with a random study condition (massed or distributed). They were asked to
login to the Qualtrics portal three weeks after heir final study session to Part 2 of the study
where the researchers tested participants’ knowledge of research methods. When they logged
in, half the participants were allotted the fill in the blanks task and he rest were given the
multiple choice questions. They were assigned 25 minutes for the test and afterwards were

5PSYCHOLOGY LAB REPORT
debriefed about the purpose of the study and what they thought about the researchers’
hypotheses.
Variables
The study consists of two independent variables namely the study strategy (whether
massed practice or distributed practice) and the type of test (fill-in-the-blank vs. multiple-
choice). The dependent variable is the performance in the test. The objective is to study how
each of the independent variables are influential in determining the dependent variable that is
the performance in the test.
Results
The results gathered from the test were calculated for statistically significant
parameters. The participants’ responses on the 20-item test were marked as either correct or
incorrect. An overall mean for the test results for both the conditions is also calculated,
representing the mean number of questions answered correctly on the 20-item test according
to the four conditions:
 Massed practice with fill-in-the-blank test.
 Massed practice with multiple-choice test.
 Distributed practice with fill-in-the-blank test.
 Distributed practice with multiple-choice test.
The following section provides an overall means for the study strategy conditions
(massed vs distributed) and the type of test conditions (fill in the blanks vs multiple choice)
and an overall mean.
 Fill in the blanks, Massed practice – n = 60, M = 12.36, SD = 1.53.
 Multiple choice, massed practice – n = 61, M = 17.03, SD = 2.87
 Fill in the blanks, Distributed practice – n = 60, M = 15.47, SD = 1.52

6PSYCHOLOGY LAB REPORT
 Multiple choice, Distributed practice – n = 58, M = 16.59, SD = 1.45
Discussion
Massed practice and distributed practice are two styles of study strategies that are
employed by humans to ease the efficacy of learning. The human cognition system is
differently modified for different individuals and while the styles of learning are identified as
being differently modified for each individuals, it would be prudent to not attribute these
factors as random contributors to the human process of cognition and understanding (Bloom
& Shuell, 1981). The results of the REP as indicated above shows that most participants had
scored correctly between 12 and 18 points out of 20. These numbers are spread across the
testing conditions and the types of tests are serve as key indicators that despite a change in
the different conditions that would suit the differential learning, the outcome of the learning
process remains more or less the same.
The results indicated two significant aspects. First of all, for the massed practice, there
is greater division between the fill in the blanks and the multiple choice questions were the
latter indicated a higher rate of success. In comparison the margins in distributed learning are
significantly lower. This highlights the fact that when a subject or a concept is learned at one
stretch without significant gaps in between, the learner faces a heightened difficulty trying to
remember specific portions of the subject. In contrast, when they were given a choice
between a number of possible correct answers, they tended to perform well as the reliability
on the memory system diminished.
Secondly, in the case of distributed practice, the low margin serves as an indicator that
there is a balance between the reliance on memory and guesswork that is required to fulfil a
previously learned task. As the concept of distributed learning is built around spacing of a
task across a stretch of time, it takes the load off the cognitive understanding system whereby

7PSYCHOLOGY LAB REPORT
it has to process a limited amount of data over a longer stretch of time, followed up on by a
different but related set of information over the next period of time. What this result indicates
is that the human cognition system performs better when provided with a limited amount of
data followed by a gap period where the data would be allowed to rest and be processed in
the brain (Bock & Griffin, 2000). It also indicates that one strand of the lesson that is learned
first, when provided with a gap for processing followed by a study of a similar related
content, serves as a priming effect on the person where the subsequent lessons are made
easier to learn because of an influence of the formerly learned lesson (Thalheimer, 2006).
While the subsequent subjects help to build up on the previously learned concept, the
previous concept serves as a base upon which the followed upon concept is developed (Bock
& Griffin, 2000).
There are research based evidences that highlight the contrast between the massed and
the distributed learning practices. One of the key contrasts that has been highlighted is the
aspect of memory and retention. Distributed practice has been shown to be very efficient in
long term and large scale data retention as well as processing (Schutte et al, 2005). Therefore
the results which indicate a higher score for the fill in the blanks task in the distributed
practice condition in comparison with the massed practice condition, fit in aptly with the
theoretical premise of the conditions that has been significantly highlighted by the scores of
research over time. The varied practice also has been seen to be influential in determining a
certain kind of behavioural and developmental output in people, especially in case of
children. Massed practice takes a shorter time but is also inefficient when it comes to
processing large amounts of data. In contrast, a distributed practice is a more efficient in
evaluating, interpreting and storing larger amounts of data as it breaks the topic into smaller
chunks of information and spreads it over a period of time.

8PSYCHOLOGY LAB REPORT
This research can be beneficial in proving that the differences in learning styles are
not limited to the previously identified ones pertaining to personality traits and preferences
(Coffield et al., 2004; Kolb & Kolb, 2005) for learning, but can also be useful in determining
how differential leering takes place across a demographic population, delimited by socio
cultural as well as spatio – temporal constraints. One key limitation of a study like this is that
the study is fashioned in a linear way where the correct and incorrect responses serve as the
parameters for evaluation. Moreover, the study does not adequately represent the complexity
of the topic being learned. While more complex topics require more attention, a massed
practice system would not be considered a viable option as the attention span in humans tend
to decrease after a certain point of time. Therefore, future research implications must
adequately consider the aspect of task complexity and attention – relaxation gaps in order to
effectively address the topic question.

9PSYCHOLOGY LAB REPORT
References
Bloom, K. C., & Shuell, T. J. (1981). Effects of massed and distributed practice on the
learning and retention of second-language vocabulary. The Journal of Educational
Research, 74(4), 245-248.
Bock, K., & Griffin, Z. M. (2000). The persistence of structural priming: Transient activation
or implicit learning?. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 129(2), 177.
Carpenter, S. K., Cepeda, N. J., Rohrer, D., Kang, S. H., & 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.
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.
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in
post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review.
Fishman, E. J., Keller, L., & Atkinson, R. C. (1968). Massed versus distributed practice in
computerized spelling drills. Journal of educational psychology, 59(4), 290.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing
experiential learning in higher education. Academy of management learning &
education, 4(2), 193-212.
Rohrer, D., & Taylor, K. (2006). The effects of overlearning and distributed practise on the
retention of mathematics knowledge. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official
Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 20(9), 1209-
1224.

10PSYCHOLOGY LAB REPORT
Schutte, G. M., Duhon, G. J., Solomon, B. G., Poncy, B. C., Moore, K., & Story, B. (2015).
A comparative analysis of massed vs. distributed practice on basic math fact fluency
growth rates. Journal of School Psychology, 53(2), 149-159.
Thalheimer, W. (2006). Spacing learning events over time: What the research says. Retrieved
March, 21, 2007.
Zimmer, J. W., & Hocevar, D. J. (1994). Effects of massed versus distributed practice of test
taking on achievement and test anxiety. Psychological reports, 74(3), 915-919.