CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 57Memory Processes and InfluencesVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesEducational methodologies and cognitive development

Spacing Simultaneously Promotes Multiple Forms of Learning in Children's Science Curriculum

Open access
Gluckman, Maxie, Vlach, Haley A., Sandhofer, Catherine M.·2014·Applied Cognitive Psychology
DOI 10.1002/acp.2997
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Summary: The spacing effect refers to the robust finding that long‐term memory is promoted when learning events are distributed in time rather than massed in immediate succession. The current study extended research on the spacing effect by examining whether spaced learning schedules can simultaneously promote multiple forms of learning, such as memory and generalization, in the context of an educational intervention. Thirty‐six early elementary school‐aged children were presented with science lessons on one of three schedules: massed, clumped, and spaced. At a 1‐week delayed test, children in the spaced condition demonstrated improvements in both memory and generalization, significantly outperforming children in the other conditions. However, there was no observed relationship between children's memory performance and generalization performance. The current study highlights directions for future research and contributes to a growing body of work demonstrating the benefits of spaced learning for educational curriculum. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In an elementary science food-chain intervention, 36 children taught on massed, clumped, or spaced schedules showed pre-to-post gains, and spaced lessons produced the largest improvements in memory and generalization at a 1-week delayed test. However, memory gains were not correlated with generalization gains, while simple and complex generalization gains were correlated.

Key findings

  • All three schedules improved memory from pre-test to post-test: massed, t(11) = 3.915, p = .002; clumped, t(11) = 2.817, p = .017; spaced, t(11) = 4.168, p = .002. The spaced condition had significantly larger memory improvements than the massed condition, t(22) = 2.094, p = .047.
  • For simple generalization, clumped and spaced conditions improved significantly (clumped, t(11) = 3.023, p = .012; spaced, t(11) = 4.733, p = .001), but massed did not, t(11) = 1.301, p = .220. Spaced had larger simple generalization gains than both massed, t(22) = 2.783, p = .023, and clumped, t(22) = 2.828, p = .010.
  • For complex generalization, clumped and spaced conditions improved significantly (clumped, t(11) = 2.727, p = .020; spaced, t(11) = 3.855, p = .003), but massed did not, t(11) = 1.773, p = .114. Spaced had larger complex generalization gains than massed, t(22) = 2.178, p = .040.
  • Memory change was not significantly related to simple generalization change, F(1, 32) = 0.174, p = .680; r(36) = .018, p = .919, or complex generalization change, F(1, 32) = 0.891, p = .352; r(36) = .069, p = .690. Simple and complex generalization change scores were significantly correlated, r(36) = .416, p = .012.

Methods

  • Participants were 36 early-elementary school children (M = 7.12 years; first and second graders; 16 girls and 20 boys) recruited from the University Laboratory School; 12 children were randomly assigned to each of three conditions: massed, clumped, and spaced. An additional nine children were excluded because school absences prevented completion of all sessions.
  • Children received four food-chain science lessons. Massed: all four lessons in immediate succession on Monday. Clumped: two lessons Monday and two Tuesday. Spaced: one lesson per day for four days. A pre-test preceded instruction, and a post-test occurred 1 week after the final lesson.
  • Tests included memory questions (free recall, cued recall, forced choice), simple generalization questions (forced choice), and complex generalization questions (forced choice). Analyses used repeated measures ANOVA with lesson timing as a between-subjects variable and pre/post test as a within-subjects variable, followed by Bonferroni-corrected planned comparisons and Spearman’s rho correlational analyses.

Limitations

  • Stated: the sample size was not large enough to observe individual differences in spaced learning, and future research is needed to clarify how spaced learning promotes generalization. The paper also states that the current study did not directly test the proposed account of how spacing promotes generalization.
  • Evident: the sample was small (n = 36; 12 per condition) and drawn from a single university laboratory school, limiting statistical power and generalizability.
  • Evident: the study used one educational domain (food chains) and one age group, so mechanisms linking memory and generalization remain inferred rather than directly tested.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/acp.2997

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

26 tests recomputed · 1 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Claims the paper makes

0 of 30 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Children in the spaced condition significantly outperformed children in the other conditions on the 1-week delayed test.

    “At a 1-week delayed test, children in the spaced condition demonstrated improvements in both memory and generalization, significantly outperforming children in the other conditions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    At a 1-week delayed test, children in the spaced condition demonstrated improvements in generalization.

    “At a 1-week delayed test, children in the spaced condition demonstrated improvements in both memory and generalization, significantly outperforming children in the other conditions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    There was no observed relationship between children's memory performance and generalization performance.

    “However, there was no observed relationship between children's memory performance and generalization performance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    There was no significant relationship between improvements in memory and improvements in simple generalization (Spearman's rho r(36) = .018, p = .919).

    “found no significant relationship between improvements in memory and improvements in simple generalization, r(36) = .018,p = .919”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Children's difference scores on the simple and complex generalization tests were significantly correlated with each other (r(36) = .416, p = .012).

    “children's difference scores (changes from pre-test to post-test) on the simple and complex generalization tests were significantly correlated with each other, r(36) = .416,p = .012.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 12
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 21
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In complex generalization, there were significant improvements from pre-test to post-test in the clumped and spaced conditions, but not in the massed condition.

    “These planned comparisons revealed that there was a significant increase in performance from pre-test to posttest for the clumped, t(11) = 2.727, p = .020,and spaced conditions, t(11) = 3.855, p = .003,but not the massed condition, t(11) = 1.773, p = .114.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In simple generalization, there were significant improvements from pre-test to post-test in the clumped and spaced conditions, but not in the massed condition.

    “These planned comparisons revealed that there was a significant increase in performance from pre-test to post-test for the clumped, t(11) = 3.023, p = .012,and spaced conditions, t(11) = 4.733, p = .001,but not the massed condition, t(11) = 1.301, p = .220.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Spaced learning schedules promote memory across many timescales, from seconds to yearlong intervals.

    “The finding that spaced learning schedules promote memory has been observed across many timescales, from a matter of seconds to yearlong intervals (e.g., Bahrick, Bahrick, Bahrick, & Bahrick, 1993).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bahrick, Bahrick, Bahrick, & Bahrick, 1993

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Spaced learning promotes memory across the lifespan, including in infancy and childhood.

    “This research has also demonstrated that spaced learning promotes memory across the lifespan, including in infancy and childhood (Childers & Tomasello, 2002;Rea & Modigliani, 1987;Rovee-Collier, Evancio, & Earley, 1995;Toppino, 1991;Toppino & DeMesquita, 1984;Vlach, Sandhofer, & Kornell, 2008).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Childers & Tomasello, 2002

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Rea & Modigliani, 1987

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Rovee-Collier, Evancio, & Earley, 1995

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Spacing effects have been observed in a wide variety of memory tasks across hundreds of studies, reviews, and meta-analyses.

    “Hundreds of studies, including reviews (e.g., Delaney, Verkoeijen, & Spirgel, 2010;Dempster, 1988) and meta-analyses (e.g., Cepeda, Pashler, Vul, Wixted, & Rohrer, 2006;Donovan & Radosevich, 1999), have observed spacing effects in a wide variety of memory tasks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Delaney, Verkoeijen, & Spirgel, 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Cepeda, Pashler, Vul, Wixted, & Rohrer, 2006

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Donovan & Radosevich, 1999

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The ordering of the questions was randomly assigned for each child.

    “The ordering of the questions was randomly assigned for each child.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Children were not given a lesson in the biome that was used during the pre-test and post-test.

    “Children were not given a lesson in the biome that was used during the pre-test and post-test.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted).

    Premisecitation

    By one account, the learning processes that promote memory should promote generalization in the same manner, as generalization is simply an epiphenomenon of memory.

    “By one account, the learning processes that promote memory should promote generalization in the same manner, as generalization is simply an epiphenomenon of memory (e.g., Detterman, 1993).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Detterman, 1993

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The cued-recall and free-recall questions were rated by three independent raters with inter-rater correlations rs > .9 for all four questions.

    “There were two cued-recall and two free-recall questions, which were rated on a scale from 1 (not correct) to 7 (completely correct) by three independent raters (inter-rater correlations, rs > .9, for all four questions).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The current results are not inconsistent with the account that forgetting and retrieval dynamics could be contributing to the observed results.

    “the current results are not inconsistent with this account, and forgetting and retrieval dynamics could be contributing to the observed results.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Nine additional children were excluded from the final group because of school absences that prevented completion of all sessions.

    “An additional nine children were not included in the final group because of school absences that did not allow them to complete all sessions of the study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Spaced learning is a more general learning phenomenon: spaced schedules can promote multiple forms of learning, such as memory and generalization.

    “Taken together, this recent body of research has demonstrated that spaced learning is a more general learning phenomenon-spaced schedules can promote multiple forms of learning, such as the memory and generalization of learned information.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Children were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: massed, clumped, or spaced, with 12 children per condition.

    “Children were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: 12 children were assigned to the massed condition, 12 children to the clumped condition, and 12 children to the spaced condition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Children in the spaced condition had significantly higher performance on both the simple and complex generalization tests.

    “In sum, children in the spaced condition had significantly higher performance on both the simple and generalization tests”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisereasoning

    General improvements in memory should support the ability to generalize information.

    “By a similar account, general improvements in memory should support the ability to generalize information.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Children received no instruction or feedback during the test.

    “Children received no instruction or feedback during the test.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    By this account, the same cognitive processes, forgetting and effortful retrieval, promote generalization.

    “By this account, the same cognitive processes, forgetting and effortful retrieval, promote generalization.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Vlach et al., 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Vlach et al., 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Spaced learning schedules contextualized in educational interventions can promote memory.

    “This growing body of work has demonstrated that spaced learning schedules contextualized in educational interventions can promote memory (e.g., Kornell, 2009;Sobel et al., 2011) and generalization (Vlach & Sandhofer, 2012).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Kornell, 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Sobel et al., 2011

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationown data

    This is the first replication of these findings (Vlach & Sandhofer, 2012).

    “which is the first replication of these findings (Vlach & Sandhofer, 2012).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Vlach & Sandhofer, 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    This study contributes to a growing body of work demonstrating the benefits of spaced learning for educational interventions and contexts.

    “This study contributes to a growing body of work demonstrating the benefits of spaced learning for educational interventions and contexts (Bjork, 1994;Carpenter et al., 2009;Kornell, 2009;Pashler et al., 2007;Rohrer, 2009;Seabrook et al., 2005;Sobel et al., 2011;Vlach & Sandhofer, 2012).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Bjork, 1994 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Carpenter et al., 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Kornell, 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The ordering of the biomes used during the lessons was randomly assigned.

    “The ordering of the biomes used during the lessons was randomly assigned.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    All lesson timing conditions promoted children's memory for information, but the spaced condition promoted memory to a greater degree than the massed condition.

    “Taken together, these findings suggest that all lesson timing conditions promoted children's memory for information, but the spaced condition promoted memory to a greater degree than the massed condition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    A food chain curriculum affords the opportunity to remember new items of information and engage in several levels of generalization.

    “In sum, a food chain curriculum was chosen because it affords the opportunity to remember new items of information and engage in several levels of generalization (Vlach & Sandhofer, 2012).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Vlach & Sandhofer, 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

    • Rests on an assumption: In food chain curricula, children typically learn new vocabulary terms and facts (memory).
    • Rests on an assumption: In food chain curricula, children learn that bigger animals typically eat smaller animals and generalize this information to new food chains (simple generalization).
    • Rests on an assumption: In food chain curricula, children learn the concept of interdependency (complex generalization).

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The ordering of the tests (memory, simple generalization, and complex generalization) was randomly assigned.

    “The ordering of the tests (memory, simple generalization, and complex generalization) was randomly assigned.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Forgetting promotes abstraction and generalization by supporting memory in a specific manner: spaced learning promotes memory for relevant features of a category/concept and deters memory of irrelevant features, and this differential in memory weights supports generalization.

    “However, forgetting promotes abstraction and generalization by supporting memory in a specific manner-spaced learning promotes memory for relevant features of a category/concept, by reactivating the information across learning events, and deters memory of irrelevant features of a category/concept, by allowing forgetting to occur between learning events.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Vlach et al., 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Vlach et al., 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Although children's memory scores were not significantly related to their generalization scores, their two generalization scores were correlated with each other.

    “Thus, although children's memory scores were not significantly related to their generalization scores, their two generalization scores were correlated with each other.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    All lessons and tests were given at the same time of day, and all post-tests were presented 1 week after the final lesson.

    “All lessons and tests were given at the same time of day, and all post-tests were presented 1 week after the final lesson.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Pre-test scores for the massed, clumped, and spaced conditions did not significantly differ from each other on each test (memory, simple generalization, and complex generalization).

    “Pre-test scores for the massed, clumped, and spaced conditions did not significantly differ from each other on each test (memory, simple generalization, and complex generalization).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    A frequently proposed explanation for how spaced learning promotes generalization is a variant of study-phase retrieval theory.

    “A frequently proposed explanation for how spaced learning promotes generalization is a variant of study-phase retrieval theory (e.g., Vlach et al., 2008Vlach et al., , 2012)).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Vlach et al., 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Vlach et al., 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    All children had not received prior formal instruction on food chains in school.

    “All children had not received prior formal instruction on food chains in school.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
30 of 30

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In food chain curricula, children typically learn new vocabulary terms and facts (memory).

    “In the case of memory, children typically learn new vocabulary terms (e.g., 'biome') and facts (e.g., what a 'carnivore' eats).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In food chain curricula, children learn that bigger animals typically eat smaller animals and generalize this information to new food chains (simple generalization).

    “In the case of simple generalization, children learn that bigger animals typically eat smaller animals and generalize this information to new food chains.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In food chain curricula, children learn the concept of interdependency (complex generalization).

    “In the case of complex generalization, children learn the concept of interdependency in food chain curricula.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In each biome, there is an underlying structure among members such that if something happens to one creature, it influences the system as a whole.

    “In each biome, there is an underlying structure among members-if something happens to one creature in the biome, it influences the system as a whole.”
4 of 4

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Spaced learning is more effective than massed learning for facts, concepts and lists, skill and motor learning, classroom education including science and vocabulary learning, and generalization of conceptual knowledge in children.

    “For example, spaced learning is more effective than massed learning for facts, concepts and lists2–4, skill learning and motor learning5,6, in classroom education (including science learning and vocabulary learning)7–9, and in generalization of conceptual knowledge in children10.”

    From The right time to learn: Mechanisms and optimization of spaced learning (2016) · cites this paper as [7]

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

  • Inconsistent p-value across alpha = .05: F(2, 33) = 2.042, p = .046

    Major

    The paper reports p = .046 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .146. The two fall on opposite sides of alpha = .05. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .046 · recomputed p = .146

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(2, 33) = 3.860, p = .045

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .045 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .031. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .045 · recomputed p = .031

  • Inconsistent p-value: t(22) = 2.094, p = .047

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .047 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .048 (two-tailed). The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .047 · recomputed p = .048

3 of 3

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upF(2, 33) = 2.042reported p = .046 · recomputed p = .146The two fall on opposite sides of .05

    “F(2, 33) = 2.042, p = .046”

  • Doesn’t add upF(2, 33) = 3.86reported p = .045 · recomputed p = .031

    “F(2, 33) = 3.860, p = .045”

  • Doesn’t add upt(22) = 2.094reported p = .047 · recomputed p = .048

    “t(22) = 2.094, p = .047”

  • Not confirmedr(36) = 0.018reported p = .919 · recomputed p = .915

    “r(36) = .018,p = .919”

  • Not confirmedr(36) = 0.069reported p = .69 · recomputed p = .681

    “r(36) = .069,p = .690”

  • Not confirmedr(36) = 0.416reported p = .012 · recomputed p = .009

    “r(36) = .416,p = .012”

  • ConsistentF(1, 33) = 36.247reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 33) = 36.247,p < .001”

  • Consistentt(11) = 3.915reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002

    “t(11) = 3.915, p = .002”

  • Consistentt(11) = 2.817reported p = .017 · recomputed p = .017

    “t(11) = 2.817, p = .017”

  • Consistentt(11) = 4.168reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002

    “t(11) = 4.168, p = .002”

  • ConsistentF(2, 33) = 4.108reported p = .026 · recomputed p = .026

    “F(2, 33) = 4.108, p = .026”

  • ConsistentF(1, 33) = 25.756reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 33) = 25.756,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 33) = 2.817reported p = .074 · recomputed p = .074

    “F(2, 33) = 2.817, p = .074”

  • Consistentt(11) = 3.023reported p = .012 · recomputed p = .012

    “t(11) = 3.023, p = .012”

  • Consistentt(11) = 4.733reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(11) = 4.733, p = .001”

  • Consistentt(11) = 1.301reported p = .22 · recomputed p = .220

    “t(11) = 1.301, p = .220”

  • Consistentt(22) = 2.783reported p = .023 · recomputed p = .011

    “t(22) = 2.783, p = .023”

    The paper states a correction for multiple tests

  • Consistentt(22) = 2.828reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .010

    “t(22) = 2.828, p = .010”

  • ConsistentF(1, 33) = 25.377reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 33) = 25.377,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 33) = 3.998reported p = .028 · recomputed p = .028

    “F(2, 33) = 3.998, p = .028”

  • Consistentt(11) = 2.727reported p = .02 · recomputed p = .020

    “t(11) = 2.727, p = .020”

  • Consistentt(11) = 3.855reported p = .003 · recomputed p = .003

    “t(11) = 3.855, p = .003”

  • Consistentt(11) = 1.773reported p = .114 · recomputed p = .104

    “t(11) = 1.773, p = .114”

    The paper states a correction for multiple tests

  • Consistentt(22) = 2.178reported p = .04 · recomputed p = .040

    “t(22) = 2.178, p = .040”

  • ConsistentF(1, 32) = 0.174reported p = .68 · recomputed p = .679

    “F(1, 32) = 0.174, p = .680”

  • ConsistentF(1, 32) = 0.891reported p = .352 · recomputed p = .352

    “F(1, 32) = 0.891, p = .352”

26 of 26

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Spaced-group simple-generalization means conflict with the scoring rule

    Major

    With 12 children and seven points per correct answer, a group mean must be a multiple of 7/12. Neither the reported pre-test mean of 15.08 nor the post-test mean of 23.17 is possible under that scoring rule.

  • Massed-group complex-generalization means conflict with the scoring rule

    Major

    For 12 children scoring seven points per correct answer, group means must be multiples of 7/12. The reported complex-generalization means of 12.17 and 16.42 are not.

  • Other complex-generalization post-test means conflict with the scoring rule

    Minor

    The clumped and spaced groups each had 12 children, so their means must be multiples of 7/12 under the stated scoring rule. Their reported complex-generalization post-test means, 16.08 and 22.25, are not.

3 of 3

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gluckman, M., Vlach, H. A., & Sandhofer, C. M.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Corresponding author
Vlach, Haley A.
ORCID
Venue
Applied Cognitive Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-01-08
Volume
28
Issue
2
Pages
266-273
ISSN
  • 0888-4080 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0720
DOI
10.1002/acp.2997
OpenAlex
W1587116355
Cited by
57
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2
FWCI
3.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Applied Cognitive Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational methodologies and cognitive development
Keywords
spacing effect, spaced learning, massed learning, long-term memory, generalization, children's science learning, early elementary school children, learning rate scheduling, educational intervention

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review