Effectiveness of Massed vs Spaced Learning: Psychology Study Report

This psychology report investigates the effectiveness of massed versus spaced practice in learning among 42 undergraduate psychology students. The study employed a one-sample t-test to compare the impact of the two learning methods on skill acquisition, operationalized as the number of accurately written letters. The report includes descriptive statistics, revealing mean values for both massed and spaced learning groups, and analyzes the results to determine whether spaced learning is more effective, supporting the alternative hypothesis. The report discusses the findings in relation to existing literature and highlights the strengths and limitations of the study, suggesting further research directions to explore the relationship between learning styles and student performance, as well as the importance of incorporating breaks during learning to enhance retention and motivation.

Massed versus Spaced

Abstract
The present study is based upon the two different types of learning in which 42 undergraduate students of psychology are
selected in which their scoring is mention. Therefore, by using SPSS software descriptive statistics is performed in which mean and
standard deviation of the study is performed and analyzed that the mean value of massed and spaced learning is 21 and 23
respectively. Moreover, by using one sample t test, it is also analyzed that spaced learning score vary with the mean value and that is
why, alternative hypothesis is accepted and in Massed learning, null hypothesis is accepted because it is higher than the standard
criteria.

Table of Contents
Background..............................................................................................................................................................................................3
Hypothesis...............................................................................................................................................................................................3
Methods...................................................................................................................................................................................................3
Results......................................................................................................................................................................................................4
Discussion................................................................................................................................................................................................5
REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................................................................7

Aim: The aim of the study is to compare the effect of massed versus spaced practice in order to acquire new skill and operationalized
as performance of that skill during practice.
Background
Massed practice is considered to be as a condition within which the person practice task on a continuous basis without any rest.
On the other hand, spaced practice is a condition where individual is given rest intervals within the specific practice session. However,
spaced practice is considered to be more effective. Such practice is considered to be highly significant because it helps in better
acquisition of the new skills and has been effectively operationalized while Massed learning do not provide a time for feedback and as
a result, sometimes student feel frustrated (Murray and Udermann, 2003). Both the learning practices are dependent upon the motor
skills and that is why, proper rest should be provided to all the students so that they acquire new skills. Moreover, it is stated that
spaced learning is more preferred over other because it will help to produce better retention and recalls rate as compared to crammed
learning. Also, by providing proper rest to students will help a brain to absorb the things in better manner. So that it will help to keep
the things for long term memory while in the case of Massed learning, the outputs are not generated in advance manner.
As there are many researches performed in which it is analysed that spaced learning is more preferred over massed because it
provides a difference of learning and performance of a student and which in turn leads to determine the exact action need to be taken
for improving the performance of a student (Kientzle, 1946). Also, the performance of a spaced learning student is high as compared
to massed because there is no negative impact upon the student. Hence, by providing a short session by providing number of rest
interval to student will help to enhance their performance and further, improve their learning as well.
Hypothesis
H0 (null hypothesis): There is no significant difference between the massed learning versus spaced learning and mean number of
accurately written letters produced per practice trial
H1 (Alternative hypothesis): There is a significant difference between the massed learning versus spaced learning and mean number of
accurately written letters produced per practice trial
Methods
In order to generate the best results, 42 undergraduate psychology students are selected (21 per class), who completed Further
to determine the relationship between the independent variable (practice condition i.e. massed versus spaced) and dependent variable
(mean number of accurately written letters produced per practice trial i.e. 21.05786) one sample t test is performed. It is so because the

mean value of test is already provided and this is actually used to analyze whether sample comes from a population with a specific
mean. Therefore, this statistical test will help to analyze whether there is a significant difference between the mean value of practice
condition and the number of accurately written letters.
Results
Descriptive statistics
Massed Spaced
N
Valid 42 42
Missing 0 0
Mean 21.05 23.21
Median 21.00 22.59
Std. Deviation 3.53 4.31
Interpretation: From the descriptive output, it is interpreted that the average number of students who practice massed learning are 21
and on the other side, mean value of spaced learning students are 23. Moreover, the table also exhibit that 50% of the students belongs
to spaced learning practice because it provides a proper or regular interval of rest within their practice session. In addition to this, the
value of standard deviation for massed and space learning is 3.53 and 4.31 respectively.
Result of comparing massed vs spaced practice using One sample t test
One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Massed 42 21.0579 3.53291 .54514
Spaced 42 23.2190 4.31852 .66636

One-Sample Test
Test Value = 21.05786
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Massed .000 41 1.00 .00 -1.10 1.10
Spaced 3.243 41 .002 2.16 .81 3.50
Interpretation: The One Sample test table clearly indicates the significance value of 1.00 and 0.002 receptively in case of Massed
technique & Spaced. Referring the result of one sample t test it can be stated that in the case of Massed technique practice score does
not vary much from the mean value of 21.05. Therefore, it can be concluded that null hypothesis is proved in the case of Massed.
However, in case of Spaced, the significance of 0.002 is obtained indicating there is a significant difference or variation from the mean
value. Hence, overall evaluation exhibits that Spaced technique is more rewarding for acquiring new skills and its development.
Discussion
The results obtained above help in clearly interpreting that the alternative hypothesis was supported by the values obtained and
the tests implemented. The Spaced practice condition for undergraduate students was found to be more effective in the field of
acquiring new skills and methods when compared to the Massed technique (Petersen‐Brown & et.al., (2019). The One Sample T test
indicated the significance value of 0.002 in case of Spaced where the variation between the scored obtained in this method and the
Mean score showed a significant variation. Hence, it can be effectively concluded that the hypothesis which was developed in the
beginning of the study was supported with the tables developed as well.
Further secondary research done in the study where different research papers were taken into consideration indicated that the
authors portrayed a common outlook where they agreed upon the greater effectiveness of Spaced as a learning technique over Massed.
All of them had different reasons and contexts or scenarios based on which they obtained this result but the results were common i.e.
Spaced was indicated as superior technique as compared to Massed (Alfotais, 2019). This is completely in accordance with the
findings of the present quantitative research as well where the implications of the One Sample T test indicated that the alternative
hypothesis was found to have been proven. The alternative hypothesis that was developed i.e. impact of Spaced Practice condition is

more effective in the procedure of acquiring new skills was proven to have been existed and the null hypothesis was rejected.
Therefore, the results were positively aligned with the previous literature that was taken into consideration while completing the
research. Overall the supremacy and greater effectiveness of Spaced as a practice condition as opposed to Massed technique was
proved and established through primary as well as secondary research.
The strength of the study is such that it provides exact results because output generated through SPSS are align with secondary
research and as a result, the data are accurate. Also, the statistical tool which is applied under this study is also provide valid results
which is also consider another strength of the study. Moreover, there is no multiple dataset which also assist to conduct the study in
more appropriate manner. On the other side, the limitation of the study is such that it is based upon quantitative study and that is why,
researcher do not integrate the human key aspect which also assist to identify more variable which can be consider in this study.
Further, the dataset of both independent variable is limited and if range of data is provided then it will be helpful for the researcher to
determine the exact outcomes with regards to massed and space learning.
In order to continue the findings, it is suggested to consider more learning types into the research and also add the performance
score of students which in turn leads to analyze the relationship between performance and learning session. For example, for each
student, performance during a class should be noticed in the context of massed and spaced learning. It is so because it will help to
determine the significant relationship between performance and learning style (Lee and Genovese, 1988). Therefore, if researcher
want to continue own investigation in the same topic then, performance as a variable should also be consider which in turn leads a
research towards right direction and also assist to improve the motor skills as well.
The overall implications of the study and its findings indicate that if Spaced practice concept is used and implemented than this
will lead to a better learning and development of the students where they will be able to retain the knowledge being undertaken or
obtained. The overall time period of the retention of the knowledge being gained also increases and the effectiveness increases in a
general sense (Metcalfe & Xu, 2016). Apart from this, if the students will learn along with proper breaks being integrated into their
study, then the process of gaining knowledge will improve significantly and the motivation level of students will also increase and
improve towards learning. Overall, it is determine from the secondary research that spaced learning assist the student to improve their
performance as compared to massed learning and that is why, it is necessary to focus upon the spaced learning as well

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Alfotais, A. (2019). Investigating the effect of spaced versus massed practice on vocabulary retention in the EFL classroom (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Essex).
Kientzle, M. J. (1946). Properties of learning curves under varied distributions of practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36(3),
187.
Lee, T. D., & Genovese, E. D. (1988). Distribution of practice in motor skill acquisition: Learning and performance effects
reconsidered. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 59(4), 277-287.
Metcalfe, J., & Xu, J. (2016). People mind wander more during massed than spaced inductive learning. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 42(6). 978.
Murray, S. R., & Udermann, B. E. (2003). Massed versus distributed practice: which is better. Cahperd Journal, 1, 19-22.
Petersen‐Brown, S., & et.al., (2019). Applying spaced practice in the schools to teach math vocabulary. Psychology in the
Schools. 56(6). 977-991.