No description available.

In a distributed learning strategy, study time is spread across multiple study sessions, without increasing total study time. The benefits of distributed practice, also known as spaced practice, on learning of rote-memory tasks (e.g., spelling, addition, and cued-recall of word pairs) are well known. However, few researchers have looked at the effects of distributed practice on the learning of abstract materials (e.g., physics problems, logical deductions, and algebra). We examined the effects of distributed practice on learning the abstract task of matrix multiplication. In Experiment 1, we taught participants matrix multiplication in either a massed (i.e., 0-day interstudy gap), or distributed (i.e., 7-day interstudy gap) format and tested students at 2 or 21 days after completion of the last study session. Results showed no significant differences between the massed and spaced groups. However, when only those participants scoring 80% or greater on study session one were included in the analyses, a benefit of spacing was seen at the 21-day retention interval. Although not statistically significant, this leads us to believe that spacing does have benefits for abstract learning when the task is mastered initially. Experiment 2 looked at overlearning as another learning strategy. In overlearning, all study takes place in one session, but participants continue to study after mastery of material has been achieved. It is commonly accepted that overlearning is a beneficial strategy, but it is unknown whether the benefits are worth the time invested. We assessed the effects of two levels of massed practice to gauge the benefits of overlearning on long-term retention. Participants completed either 2 or 8 matrix multiplication problems (i.e., low or high massing, respectively) and were tested 1 or 4 weeks after the study session. Results showed a benefit of high massing when analyses included participants who mastered the material (i.e., scored over 50%) during the study session. However, this higher degree of learning was not particularly efficient, because this latter result suggests that overlearning may not be worth the time invested.

Title from PDF of title page. / Document formatted into pages; contains 39 pages. / Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references. / Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format. / ABSTRACT: In a distributed learning strategy, study time is spread across multiple study sessions, without increasing total study time. The benefits of distributed practice, also known as spaced practice, on learning of rote-memory tasks (e.g., spelling, addition, and cued-recall of word pairs) are well known. However, few researchers have looked at the effects of distributed practice on the learning of abstract materials (e.g., physics problems, logical deductions, and algebra). We examined the effects of distributed practice on learning the abstract task of matrix multiplication. In Experiment 1, we taught participants matrix multiplication in either a massed (i.e., 0-day interstudy gap), or distributed (i.e., 7-day interstudy gap) format and tested students at 2 or 21 days after completion of the last study session. Results showed no significant differences between the massed and spaced groups. / ABSTRACT: However, when only those participants scoring 80% or greater on study session one were included in the analyses, a benefit of spacing was seen at the 21-day retention interval. Although not statistically significant, this leads us to believe that spacing does have benefits for abstract learning when the task is mastered initially. Experiment 2 looked at overlearning as another learning strategy. In overlearning, all study takes place in one session, but participants continue to study after mastery of material has been achieved. It is commonly accepted that overlearning is a beneficial strategy, but it is unknown whether the benefits are worth the time invested. We assessed the effects of two levels of massed practice to gauge the benefits of overlearning on long-term retention. Participants completed either 2 or 8 matrix multiplication problems (i.e., low or high massing, respectively) and were tested 1 or 4 weeks after the study session. / ABSTRACT: Results showed a benefit of high massing when analyses included participants who mastered the material (i.e., scored over 50%) during the study session. However, this higher degree of learning was not particularly efficient, because this latter result suggests that overlearning may not be worth the time invested. / System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader. / Mode of access: World Wide Web.

This study was undertaken in an attempt to determine the differential effects of single and double response channel sets learned to fluency (rates of 50–60 correct associations per minute) versus overlearning (90% correct or greater with 3-second latency between associative responses) on subjects' retention of paired associate information. An intrasubject multiple treatment design was used, exposing each subject to all training conditions: baseline and mastery-learning sequentially, followed by the repeated “multiple treatment” exposure to four conditions; 1 and 2 channel fluency, and 1 and 2 channel overlearning conditions. Retention was measured immediately after training, and at one, two, three, seven, and twelve week follow-up intervals. Additionally, the duration of time and number of learning trials required for subjects to meet mastery, fluency and overlearning criteria at both 1 and 2 channels was calculated to gather further information regarding whether or not the magnitude of differences is educationally significant. Moreover, subject satisfaction was measured in response to the mastery, fluency and overlearning conditions. The results indicated no significant differences in retention produced by any of the 4 instructional conditions, at any follow-up interval. Additionally, the results indicated that fluency goals require an “educationally significantly” greater number of learning trials and more time to attain than mastery-based accuracy goals. What's more, it appears that adding a second response channel during fluency building does not seem to accelerate fluency development, as compared to a 1-channel fluency condition. Furthermore, subjects appeared to prefer faster fluency based training over slower overlearning training. It is suggested that future research utilize longer term follow-up intervals and higher fluency rates.