Psychology Lab Report: Effects of Practice on Memory and Recall

This psychology lab report investigates the impact of massed and distributed practice strategies on memory and recall. The introduction provides a comprehensive overview of cognitive science, learning, and memory, contrasting massed practice (cramming) with distributed practice (spaced repetition). The report explores existing research, including studies by Carpenter et al. (2012), Kwon et al. (2015), and Rohrer & Taylor (2006), highlighting the advantages and limitations of each method, considering factors such as time constraints, fatigue, and the type of information learned. The report hypothesizes that massed practice will be more effective for short-term retention (one-day delay), while distributed practice will yield better results for long-term retention (one-week delay). The report concludes with a list of cited references, providing a foundation for understanding the effectiveness of different study strategies and their implications for educational practices.

Psychology Lab Report
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author’s Note:

Introduction
Ability to learn is one of the strongest traits that define human beings. Trying to
comprehend how the mind works and learns different things has been a topic of research for
many years. A separate interdisciplinary branch of science called Cognitive Science deals
with how we learn things and the how better to retain the learned information. It draws inputs
from several fields such as psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, computer science etc. and
primarily aims to understand the mind and implement strategies in practical scenarios. In this
context two prominent methods of study have been widely used namely Massed and
Distributed Practice. Studies have been conducted to evaluate the benefits and disadvantages
of the two methods to improve the process of learning and memory retention in a more
efficient manner. Such researches provide appropriate information to physical educators and
instructors who can then adopt and implement the right method for successful results.
Massed practice has been defined as the practice that occurs without any rests
between trials or more loosely a practice in which the resting periods between trials is much
less compared to the actual trial lengths. Further, scientists emphasize that even though
massed practice can have resting periods such resting periods provide relatively little rest
between the trials. On the contrary distributed practice is characterised by long resting
periods relative to the trial lengths. The resting period between trials is equal or generally
exceeds the trial length itself. The advantages and limitations of the practice types depend on
time constraints, level of fatigue, type of information learned and number of participants
(Kwon, Kwon & Lee, 2015). When numerous practice tasks are to be performed and there is
limited resources massed practice is not favourable. Further, type of motor skills involved in
the learning process also plays a determining role in the onset of fatigues and can be avoided
by taking up the appropriate learning method. Benefits of distributed practice have been

reviewed extensively by Carpenter et al., (2012). The effects of spacing gap between trials
have variable impact on learning based on the type of information involved in the learning
process. Most studies show that performance or retention ability is better when presentation
of information is spaced for particular time intervals as compared to when information
presentation is massed or crammed within a limited time period. Further, the beneficial
effects of spacing can be observed over all age groups including young participants and not
restricted to adult learners. Rohrer & Taylor, (2006), studied the effects of spaced learning in
abstract learning of mathematical problems. They concluded that retention was substantially
improved when practice problems were distributed across more than one assignment rather
than massed into one assignment, even without increasing the number of problems for each
assignment. This provides relevant information on how textbooks should be designed to
provide optimum results for students. Studies have also pointed out that a relatively longer
distribution is essential to obtain increased amount of materials that students are capable of
retaining. In conjugation with regular classroom activities distributed learning can provide
considerable improvement of memory and verbal materials (Wingard et al., 2015).
There are several factors that can play important role in determining the effectiveness
of distributed practice learning. One of the most relevant of such factors is the time of
spacing interval. A general assumption may follow that longer the lag between two trails
better is the outcome of retention. However, studies show that such simplistic assumptions
are not followed in practice. An optimal lag period often depends on the targeted retention
interval (Schutte et al., 2015). Further, multiple spaced out review opportunities provide
better results as compared to massing them together. Moreover, debate still persists over
whether the multiple review opportunities should be spaced equally or in an expanding
schedule. The major hurdle to implement distributed learning in practice is deciding on the
instructional techniques to be used by teachers and instructors. A scientific approach must be

adopted rather than relying on plain human instincts which is more often the case in real
world scenarios. The second major hurdle is the conventional teaching practices which
mostly favours massed practice of learning. Teaching materials and aids must be updated in
order to obtain the desired results from distributed learning.
Hypotheses
The present study aims to assess the study strategies of massed and distributed
practice on memory f the participants over a test delay of one day and one week. The
interaction of these two independent variables will depend on several factors as discussed
previously. It is hypothesised that the dependent variable that is the proportion of correct
information recalled at the final tests is expected to be better in case of one day test delay
when massed practice of learning is provided. On the contrary results of test performed after
one week is predicted to be substantially improved in case of distributed practice of learning.

References
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.
Kwon, Y. H., Kwon, J. W., & Lee, M. H. (2015). Effectiveness of motor sequential learning
according to practice schedules in healthy adults; distributed practice versus massed
practice. Journal of physical therapy science, 27(3), 769-772.
Rohrer, D., & Taylor, K. (2006). The effects of overlearning and distributed practise on the
retention of mathematics knowledge. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(9), 1209-
1224.
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.
Wingard, J. C., Goodman, J., Leong, K. C., & Packard, M. G. (2015). Differential effects of
massed and spaced training on place and response learning: a memory systems
perspective. Behavioural processes, 118, 85-89.