Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T05:17:42.825Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - When Does Interleaving Practice Improve Learning?

from Part IV - General Learning Strategies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2019

By
Paulo F. Carvalho  and
Robert L. Goldstone
Edited by
John Dunlosky  and
Katherine A. Rawson
John Dunlosky
Affiliation:
Kent State University, Ohio
Katherine A. Rawson
Affiliation:
Kent State University, Ohio
Get access

Summary

Deciding how to sequence information takes place all the time in educational contexts. This chapter reviews evidence of how and why the sequence of study changes what is learned, and the powerful ways in which sequence can improve or deter learning. The evidence presented paints a picture of an important influence of how study practice is organized, be it interleaved or blocked practice. It also suggests that there are no one-size-fits-all solutions and whether interleaved or blocked practice will improve learning depends on the demands of the learning situation.
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Cognition and Education , pp. 411 - 436
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abel, M. & Roediger, H. L. (2017). Comparing the testing effect under blocked and mixed practice: The mnemonic benefits of retrieval practice are not affected by practice format. Memory and Cognition, 45(1),81–92. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016–0641-8Google Scholar
Albaret, J. M. & Thon, B. (1998). Differential effects of task complexity on contextual interference in a drawing task. Acta Psychologica, 100(1–2), 9–24.Google Scholar
Al-Mustafa, A. A. (1989). Contextual interference: Laboratory artifact or sport skill learning related? (Doctoral dissertation).Google Scholar
Andrews, S. E. & Frey, S. D. (2015). Studio structure improves student performance in an undergraduate introductory soil science course. Natural Sciences Education, 44(1), 60. https://doi.org/10.4195/nse2014.12.0026Google Scholar
Beilock, S. L., Carr, T. H., MacMahon, C., & Starkes, J. L. (2002). When paying attention becomes counterproductive: Impact of divided versus skill-focused attention on novice and experienced performance of sensorimotor skills. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8(1), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1037//1076-898X.8.1.6Google Scholar
Best, C. A., Robinson, C. W., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2011). The effect of labels on children’s category learning. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 3332–3336). Austin, TX.Google Scholar
Best, C. A., Yim, H., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2013). The cost of selective attention in category learning: Developmental differences between adults and infants. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(2), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.05.002Google Scholar
Birnbaum, M. S., Kornell, N., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2013). Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval. Memory and Cognition, 41(3), 392–402. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012–0272-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In Metcalfe, J. & Shimamura, A. P. (eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185–205). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011–143823CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carpenter, S. K. & Mueller, F. E. (2013). The effects of interleaving versus blocking on foreign language pronunciation learning. Memory and Cognition, 41(5),671–682. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012–0291-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carter, K., Cushing, K., Sabers, D., Stein, P., & Berliner, D. (1988). Expert-novice differences in perceiving and processing visual classroom information. Journal of Teacher Education, 39(3), 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248718803900306Google Scholar
Carvalho, P. F. & Albuquerque, P. B. (2012). Memory encoding of stimulus features in human perceptual learning. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 24(6), 654–664. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2012.675322Google Scholar
Carvalho, P. F., Braithwaite, D. W., de Leeuw, J. R., Motz, B. A., & Goldstone, R. L. (2016). An in vivo study of self-regulated study sequencing in introductory psychology courses. Plos One, 11(3), e0152115. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152115Google Scholar
Carvalho, P. F. & Goldstone, R. L. (2014a). Effects of interleaved and blocked study on delayed test of category learning generalization. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 936. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00936Google Scholar
Carvalho, P. F. & Goldstone, R. L. (2014b). Putting category learning in order: Category structure and temporal arrangement affect the benefit of interleaved over blocked study. Memory and Cognition, 42(3), 481–495. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013–0371-0Google Scholar
Carvalho, P. F. & Goldstone, R. L. (2015a). The benefits of interleaved and blocked study: Different tasks benefit from different schedules of study. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 22(1), 281–288. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014–0676-4Google Scholar
Carvalho, P. F. & Goldstone, R. L. (2015b). What you learn is more than what you see: What can sequencing effects tell us about inductive category learning? Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 505. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00505Google Scholar
Carvalho, P. F. & Goldstone, R. L. (2017a). The most efficient sequence of study depends on the type of test. Manuscript under review.Google Scholar
Carvalho, P. F. & Goldstone, R. L. (2017b). The sequence of study changes what information is attended to, encoded, and remembered during category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chariker, J. H., Naaz, F., & Pani, J. R. (2011). Computer-based learning of neuroanatomy: A longitudinal study of learning, transfer, and retention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1),19–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021680Google Scholar
Cook, G. L. & Odom, R. D. (1992). Perception of multidimensional stimuli: A differential-sensitivity account of cognitive processing and development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 54(2), 213–249.Google Scholar
Deng, W. S. & Sloutsky, V. M. (2016). Selective attention, diffused attention, and the development of categorization. Cognitive Psychology, 91, 24–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2016.09.002Google Scholar
de Zilva, D., Mitchell, C. J., & Newell, B. R. (2013). Eliminating the mere exposure effect through changes in context between exposure and test. Cognition and Emotion, 27(8), 1345–1358. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2013.775110Google Scholar
Dobson, J. L. (2011). Effect of selected “desirable difficulty” learning strategies on the retention of physiology information. Advances in Physiology Education, 35(4),378–383.Google Scholar
Elio, R. & Anderson, J. R. (1981). The effects of category generalizations and instance similarity on schema abstraction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7(6), 397–417.Google Scholar
Elio, R. & Anderson, J. R. (1984). The effects of information order and learning mode on schema abstraction. Memory and Cognition, 12(1), 20–30.Google Scholar
Engle, R. W. & Kane, M. J. (2003). Executive attention, working memory capacity, and a two-factor theory of cognitive control, 44, 145–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(03)44005-XGoogle Scholar
Farrow, D. & Maschette, W. (1997). The effects of contextual interference on children learning forehand tennis groundstrokes. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 33, 47–67.Google Scholar
Goldstone, R. L. (1996). Isolated and interrelated concepts. Memory and Cognition, 24(5), 608–628.Google Scholar
Gureckis, T. M. & Markant, D. B. (2012). Self-directed learning: A cognitive and computational perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 7(5), 464–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612454304Google Scholar
Hatala, R. M., Brooks, L. R., & Norman, G. R. (2003). Practice makes perfect: The critical role of mixed practice in the acquisition of ECG interpretation skills. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 8(1), 17–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hebert, E. P., Landin, D., & Solmon, M. A. (1996). Practice schedule effects on the performance and learning of low- and high-skilled students: An applied study. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 67(1),52–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1996.10607925Google Scholar
Higgins, E. J. (2017). The complexities of learning categories through comparisons. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 66, 43–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.plm.2016.11.002Google Scholar
Higgins, E. J. & Ross, B. H. (2011). Comparisons in category learning: How best to compare for what? In Carlson, L., Holscher, C., & Shipley, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1388–1393). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Horn, S. & Hernick, M. (2015). Improving student understanding of lipids concepts in a biochemistry course using test-enhanced learning. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 16(4), 918–928. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00133AGoogle Scholar
Hull, L. (1920). Quantitative aspects of evolution and concepts: An experimental study. The Psychological Monographs, 28(1), 1–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, M. & Sieck, W. R. (2003). Learning myopia: An adaptive recency effect in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(4), 626–640.Google Scholar
Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., Tuholski, S. W., Wilhelm, O., Payne, T. W., & Engle, R. W. (2004). The generality of working memory capacity: A latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 133(2), 189–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096–3445.133.2.189Google Scholar
Kang, S. H. K. & Pashler, H. (2012). Learning painting styles: Spacing is advantageous when it promotes discriminative contrast. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(1), 97–103. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1801Google Scholar
Karpicke, J. D. & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331(6018), 772–775. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199327Google Scholar
Kioumourtzoglou, E., Kourtessis, T., Michalopoulou, M., & Derri, V. (1998). Differences in several perceptual abilities between experts and novices in basketball, volleyball and water-polo. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86(3), 899–912. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1998.86.3.899Google Scholar
Kirchoff, B. K., Delaney, P. F., Horton, M., & Dellinger-Johnston, R. (2014). Optimizing learning of scientific category knowledge in the classroom: The case of plant identification. CBE Life Sciences Education, 13(3), 425–436. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13–11-0224Google Scholar
Kornell, N. & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Learning concepts and categories: Is spacing the “enemy of induction”? Psychological Science, 19(6), 585–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–9280.2008.02127.xGoogle Scholar
Kornell, N., Castel, A. D., Eich, T. S., & Bjork, R. A. (2010). Spacing as the friend of both memory and induction in young and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 25(2), 498–503.Google Scholar
Kost, A. S., Carvalho, P. F., & Goldstone, R. L. (2015). Can you repeat that? The effect of item repetition on interleaved and blocked study. In Noelle, D. C., Dale, R., Warlaumont, A. S., Yoshimi, J., Matlock, T., Jennings, C. D., & Maglio, P. P. (eds.), Proceedings of the 37th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1189–1194). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Kurtz, K. H. & Hovland, C. I. (1956). Concept learning with differing sequences of instances. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51(4),239–243. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040295Google Scholar
Lee, E. S., MacGregor, J. N., Bavelas, A., Mirlin, L., & et al. (1988). The effects of error transformations on classification performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(1), 66–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278–7393.14.1.66Google Scholar
Lee, T. D. & Magill, R. A. (1985). Can forgetting facilitate skill acquisition? In Goodman, D., Wilberg, R. B., & Franks, I. M. (eds.), Differing perspectives in motor learning, memory, and control (pp. 3–22). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Li, N., Cohen, W. W., & Koedinger, K. R. (2013). Problem order implications for learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 23(1–4), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-013–0005-5Google Scholar
Linderholm, T., Dobson, J., & Yarbrough, M. B. (2016). The benefit of self-testing and interleaving for synthesizing concepts across multiple physiology texts. Advances in Physiology Education, 40(3), 329–334. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00157.2015Google Scholar
Mack, M. L. & Palmeri, T. J. (2015). The dynamics of categorization: Unraveling rapid categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 144(3), 551–569. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039184Google Scholar
Mack, M. L. & Preston, A. R. (2016). Decisions about the past are guided by reinstatement of specific memories in the hippocampus and perirhinal cortex. Neuroimage, 127, 144–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.12.015Google Scholar
Markant, D. B. & Gureckis, T. M. (2014). Is it better to select or to receive? Learning via active and passive hypothesis testing. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 143(1), 94–122. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032108Google Scholar
Markant, D. B., Settles, B., & Gureckis, T. M. (2016). Self-Directed learning favors local, Rather than global, Uncertainty. Cognitive Science, 40(1), 100–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12220Google Scholar
Markman, A. B. & Ross, B. H. (2003). Category use and category learning. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 592–613. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033–2909.129.4.592Google Scholar
Mathy, F. & Feldman, J. (2009). A rule-based presentation order facilitates category learning. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 16(6), 1050–1057. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.6.1050Google Scholar
Mathy, F., Haladjian, H. H., Laurent, E., & Goldstone, R. L. (2013). Similarity-dissimilarity competition in disjunctive classification tasks. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 26. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00026Google Scholar
McDaniel, M. A., Fadler, C. L., & Pashler, H. (2013). Effects of spaced versus massed training in function learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(5), 1417–1432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032184Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S. & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22(3), 247–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539609544975Google Scholar
Mitchell, C. J., Nash, S., & Hall, G. (2008). The intermixed-blocked effect in human perceptual learning is not the consequence of trial spacing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(1),237–242.Google ScholarPubMed
Monteiro, S., Melvin, L., Manolakos, J., Patel, A., & Norman, G. (2017). Evaluating the effect of instruction and practice schedule on the acquisition of ECG interpretation skills. Perspectives on Medical Education, 6(4), 237–245.Google Scholar
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards: English Language, Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subject. www.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/ELA_Standards1.pdfGoogle Scholar
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, Crosscutting concepts, and Core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165Google Scholar
Noh, S. M., Yan, V. X., Bjork, R. A., & Maddox, W. T. (2016). Optimal sequencing during category learning: Testing a dual-learning systems perspective. Cognition, 155, 23–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.06.007Google Scholar
Ostrow, K., Heffernan, N., Heffernan, C., & Peterson, Z. (2015). Blocking vs. interleaving: Examining single-session effects within middle school math homework. In Conati, C., Heffernan, N., Mitrovic, A., & Verdejo, M. F. (eds.), Artificial intelligence in education, Vol. 9112 (pp. 338–347). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319–19773-9_34Google Scholar
Paas, F. G. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 429–434. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–0663.84.4.429Google Scholar
Palmeri, T. J. & Mack, M. L. (2015). How experimental trial context affects perceptual categorization. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 180. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00180CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pani, J. R., Chariker, J. H., & Naaz, F. (2012). Computer-based learning: Interleaving whole and sectional representation of neuroanatomy. Anatomical Sciences Education, 6(1), 11–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patel, R., Liu, R., & Koedinger, K. (2015). When to block versus interleave practice? Evidence against teaching fraction addition before fraction multiplication. In Papafragou, A., Grodner, D., Mirman, D., & Trueswell, J. C. (eds.), Proceedings of the 38th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2069–2074). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Pigott, R. E. & Shapiro, D. C. (1984). Motor schema: The structure of the variability session. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 55, 41–45.Google Scholar
Pinto-Zipp, G. & Gentile, A. M. (1995). Practice schedules in motor learning: Children vs. adults. Society of Neuroscience: Abstracts, 21, 1620.Google Scholar
Rau, M. A., Aleven, V., & Rummel, N. (2013). Interleaved practice in multi-dimensional learning tasks: Which dimension should we interleave? Learning and Instruction, 23, 98–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.07.003Google Scholar
Rawson, K. A., Thomas, R. C., & Jacoby, L. L. (2015). The power of examples: Illustrative examples enhance conceptual learning of declarative concepts. Educational Psychology Review, 27(3), 483–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014–9273-3Google Scholar
Rohrer, D. (2012). Interleaving helps students distinguish among similar concepts. Educational Psychology Review, 24(3), 355–367.Google Scholar
Rohrer, D. (2015). Student instruction should be distributed over long time periods. Educational Psychology Review, 27(4), 635–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015–9332-4Google Scholar
Rohrer, D., Dedrick, R. F., & Burgess, K. (2014). The benefit of interleaved mathematics practice is not limited to superficially similar kinds of problems. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 21(5), 1323–1330. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014–0588-3Google Scholar
Rohrer, D., Dedrick, R. F., & Stershic, S. (2015). Interleaved practice improves mathematics learning, 107(3), 900–908.Google Scholar
Rohrer, D. & Taylor, K. (2007). The shuffling of mathematics problems improves learning. Instructional Science, 35(6), 481–498.Google Scholar
Ross, B. H. (2000). The effects of category use on learned categories. Memory and Cognition, 28(1), 51–63.Google Scholar
Rozenshtein, A., Pearson, G. D. N., Yan, S. X., Liu, A. Z., & Toy, D. (2016). Effect of massed versus interleaved teaching method on performance of students in radiology. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 13(8), 979–984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2016.03.031Google Scholar
Sana, F., Yan, V. X., & Kim, J. A. (2016). Study sequence matters for the inductive learning of cognitive concepts. Journal of Educational Psychology.Google Scholar
Sandhofer, C. M. & Doumas, L. A. A. (2008). Order of presentation effects in learning color categories. Journal of Cognition and Development, 9(2), 194–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlichting, M. L. & Preston, A. R. (2015). Memory integration: Neural mechanisms and implications for behavior. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 1, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2014.07.005Google Scholar
Shea, C H & Kohl, R. M. (1991). Composition of practice: Influence on the retention of motor skills. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62(2), 187–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1991.10608709Google Scholar
Shea, C. H., Kohl, R., & Indermill, C. (1990). Contextual interference: Contributions of practice. Acta Psychologica, 73(2), 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001–6918(90)90076-RGoogle Scholar
Shea, J. B. & Morgan, R. L. (1979). Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5(2), 179–187.Google Scholar
Smith, L. B. & Kemler, D. G. (1978). Levels of experienced dimensionality in children and adults. Cognitive Psychology, 10, 502–532.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sorensen, L. J. & Woltz, D. J. (2016). Blocking as a friend of induction in verbal category learning. Memory and Cognition, 44(7), 1000–1013. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016–0615-xGoogle Scholar
Spiering, B. J. & Ashby, F. G. (2008). Initial training with difficult items facilitates information integration, but not rule-based category learning. Psychological Science, 19(11), 1169–1177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–9280.2008.02219.xGoogle Scholar
Ste-Marie, D. M., Clark, S. E., Findlay, L. C., & Latimer, A. E. (2004). High levels of contextual interference enhance handwriting skill acquisition. Journal of Motor Behavior, 36(1), 115–126.Google Scholar
Stewart, N. & Brown, G. D. A. (2004). Sequence effects in the categorization of tones varying in frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(2), 416–430.Google Scholar
Stewart, N., Brown, G. D. A., & Chater, N. (2002). Sequence effects in categorization of simple perceptual stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(1), 3–11.Google Scholar
Strutt, G. F., Anderson, D. R., & Well, A. D. (1975). A developmental study of the effects of irrelevant information on speeded classification. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 20(1), 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022–0965(75)90032–6Google Scholar
Tauber, S. K., Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Wahlheim, C. N., & Jacoby, L. L. (2013). Self-regulated learning of a natural category: Do people interleave or block exemplars during study? Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20(2), 3560363.Google Scholar
Taylor, K. & Rohrer, D. (2010). The effects of interleaved practice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(6), 837–848.Google Scholar
Terrace, H. S. (1964). Wavelength generalization after discrimination learning with and without errors. Science, 144(361), 78–80.Google Scholar
Thompson, L. A. & Markson, L. (1998). Developmental changes in the effect of dimensional salience on the discriminability of object relations. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 70(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1998.2445Google Scholar
Tse, C.-S. & Altarriba, J. (2010). Does survival processing enhance implicit memory? Memory and Cognition, 38(8), 1110–1121.Google Scholar
Unsworth, N. & Engle, R. W. (2007). The nature of individual differences in working memory capacity: active maintenance in primary memory and controlled search from secondary memory. Psychological Review, 114(1), 104–132. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.1.104Google Scholar
Unsworth, N. & Spillers, G. J. (2010). Variation in working memory capacity and episodic recall: the contributions of strategic encoding and contextual retrieval. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 17(2), 200–205. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.2.200Google Scholar
Wahlheim, C. N., Dunlosky, J., & Jacoby, L. L. (2011). Spacing enhances the learning of natural concepts: an investigation of mechanisms, metacognition, and aging. Memory and Cognition, 39(5), 750–763. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-010–0063-yGoogle Scholar
Werner, S. & Thies, B. (2000). Is “change blindness” attenuated by domain-specific expertise? An expert-novices comparison of change detection in football images. Visual Cognition, 7(1–3), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/135062800394748Google Scholar
Whitman, J. R. & Garner, W. R. (1963). Concept learning as a function of form of internal structure. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2(2), 195–202.Google Scholar
Wulf, G. & Shea, C. H. (2002). Principles derived from the study of simple skills do not generalize to complex skill learning. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9(2), 185–211.Google Scholar
Yamauchi, T. & Markman, A. B. (2000). Inference using categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(3), 776–795.Google Scholar
Yan, V. X., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2016). On the difficulty of mending metacognitive illusions: A priori theories, fluency effects, and misattributions of the interleaving benefit. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(7), 918–933.Google Scholar
Yan, V. X., Soderstrom, N. C., Seneviratna, G. S., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2017). How should exemplars be sequenced in inductive learning? Empirical evidence versus learners’ opinions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: AppliedGoogle Scholar
Zeithamova, D., Schlichting, M. L., & Preston, A. R. (2012). The hippocampus and inferential reasoning: Building memories to navigate future decisions. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 70. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00070Google Scholar
Zulkiply, N. & Burt, J. S. (2013). The exemplar interleaving effect in inductive learning: moderation by the difficulty of category discriminations. Memory and Cognition, 41(1), 16–27. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012–0238-9Google Scholar
Zulkiply, N., McLean, J., Burt, J. S., & Bath, D. (2012). Spacing and induction: Application to exemplars presented as auditory and visual text. Learning and Instruction, 22(3), 215–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.11.002Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×