EFFECTS OF MASSING AND SPACING ON THE LEARNING OF SEMANTICALLY RELATED AND UNRELATED WORDS

“In the massed group, the difference between the estimated and actual performance was statistically significant with a large effect size (Cohen, 1988), F (1, 89) 5 22.”

“Participants and items were treated as random effects.1 The effect sizes were interpreted using the following criteria (Plonsky & Oswald, 2014): small (d 5 0.4), medium (d 5 0.7), and large (d 5 1.0).”

“Although spacing can be expected to benefit both semantically related and unrelated words (distributed practice effect), it might also reduce interference for semantically related items (Folse, 2004; Nation, 2000; Schmitt, 2007), resulting in larger positive effects for related items.”

“Hashemi and Gowdasiaei (2005) used the Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (Wesche & Paribakht, 1996), and Erten and Tekin (2008) used a picture-word matching task.”

“…include the part of speech (Ellis & Beaton, 1993; Rodgers, 1969), L1 word frequency (de Groot, 2006; Lotto & de Groot, 1998), L1 word length (Ellis & Beaton, 1993), familiarity (Tagashira et al., 2010), and imageability (de Groot, 2006; de Groot & Keijzer, 2000; de Groot & van Hell, 2005;…”

“…of speech (Ellis & Beaton, 1993; Rodgers, 1969), L1 word frequency (de Groot, 2006; Lotto & de Groot, 1998), L1 word length (Ellis & Beaton, 1993), familiarity (Tagashira et al., 2010), and imageability (de Groot, 2006; de Groot & Keijzer, 2000; de Groot & van Hell, 2005; Ellis & Beaton, 1993).”

“Because learners tend to equate learning-phase performance with long-term retention (e.g., Bjork, 1999; Kornell, 2009), the learners in the spaced group perhaps felt that they were not learning effectively, possibly leading to judgments of learning that were similar to those reported by the massed…”

“This adds to existing literature suggesting that spacing facilitates L2 vocabulary learning (e.g., Bahrick et al., 1993; Nakata, 2015; Nakata & Webb, 2016).”

“Factors related to L2 words include L2 word frequency (Lotto & de Groot, 1998), L2 word length (Ellis & Beaton, 1993), and pronounceability (de Groot, 2006; de Groot & van Hell, 2005; Ellis & Beaton, 1993).”

“…of speech (Ellis & Beaton, 1993; Rodgers, 1969), L1 word frequency (de Groot, 2006; Lotto & de Groot, 1998), L1 word length (Ellis & Beaton, 1993), familiarity (Tagashira et al., 2010), and imageability (de Groot, 2006; de Groot & Keijzer, 2000; de Groot & van Hell, 2005; Ellis & Beaton, 1993).”

“…were used as semantically related items because most previous studies using coordinates found significant effects of semantic clustering (e.g., Erten & Tekin, 2008; Finkbeiner & Nicol, 2003; Tinkham, 1993, 1997; Waring, 1997); the use of coordinates would reveal the effects of semantic relatedness.”

“The first approach is to examine the effects of blocking and mixing (Finkbeiner & Nicol, 2003; Hashemi & Gowdasiaei, 2005; Schneider et al., 1998, 2002).”

“…were used as semantically related items because most previous studies using coordinates found significant effects of semantic clustering (e.g., Erten & Tekin, 2008; Finkbeiner & Nicol, 2003; Tinkham, 1993, 1997; Waring, 1997); the use of coordinates would reveal the effects of semantic relatedness.”

“…were used as semantically related items because most previous studies using coordinates found significant effects of semantic clustering (e.g., Erten & Tekin, 2008; Finkbeiner & Nicol, 2003; Tinkham, 1993, 1997; Waring, 1997); the use of coordinates would reveal the effects of semantic relatedness.”

“Although spacing can be expected to benefit both semantically related and unrelated words (distributed practice effect), it might also reduce interference for semantically related items (Folse, 2004; Nation, 2000; Schmitt, 2007), resulting in larger positive effects for related items.”

“Introducing semantically related words simultaneously, sometimes referred to as semantic clustering, is not only popular but also considered helpful for learning (Bolger & Zapata, 2011; Erten & Tekin, 2008; Folse, 2004; Waring, 1997).”

“Specifically, although long spacing tends to be effective when the posttest is given after a long delay, short spacing tends to be effective when the posttest is given after a short delay (e.g., Nakata, 2015; Nakata & Webb, 2016).”

“…were used as semantically related items because most previous studies using coordinates found significant effects of semantic clustering (e.g., Erten & Tekin, 2008; Finkbeiner & Nicol, 2003; Tinkham, 1993, 1997; Waring, 1997); the use of coordinates would reveal the effects of semantic relatedness.”

“The findings of this study, therefore, support the widely held view that semantic clustering should be avoided (e.g., Barcroft, 2015; Folse, 2004; Nation, 2000; Schmitt, 2007, 2010).”

“Although spacing can be expected to benefit both semantically related and unrelated words (distributed practice effect), it might also reduce interference for semantically related items (Folse, 2004; Nation, 2000; Schmitt, 2007), resulting in larger positive effects for related items.”

“1993, 1997; Waring, 1997; Wilcox & Medina, 2013), and two studies found negative effects of semantic clustering under limited conditions (Higa, 1963; Papathanasiou, 2009).”

“Factors related to L1 translation equivalents include the part of speech (Ellis & Beaton, 1993; Rodgers, 1969), L1 word frequency (de Groot, 2006; Lotto & de Groot, 1998), L1 word length (Ellis & Beaton, 1993), familiarity (Tagashira et al.”

“Specifically, although long spacing tends to be effective when the posttest is given after a long delay, short spacing tends to be effective when the posttest is given after a short delay (e.g., Nakata, 2015; Nakata & Webb, 2016).”

“Prior to the experiment, the participants took the paired-associate section of LABJT (Language Aptitude Battery for the Japanese; Sasaki, 1993), which is a Japanese translation of Part V of the MLAT (Modern Language Aptitude Test) and measures learners’ ability to memorize vocabulary in a pairedassociate format.”

“This study expands on Bolger and Zapata (2011) by examining the effects of spacing on semantic clustering in a paired-associate format, where the target items are studied in a decontextualized format.”

“Third, due to the difficulty caused by interference, semantically related items may receive more attention, effort, or engagement than unrelated words, which potentially results in better learning (Finkbeiner & Nicol, 2003; Hashemi & Gowdasiaei, 2005; Tagashira, Kida, & Hoshino, 2010).”

“1993, 1997; Waring, 1997; Wilcox & Medina, 2013), and two studies found negative effects of semantic clustering under limited conditions (Higa, 1963; Papathanasiou, 2009).”

“When discussing the effects of spacing, two concepts must be distinguished: spacing effect and lag effect (Rogers, 2017).”

“Although Higa (1963) and Tinkham (1997) controlled L1 frequency, other L1-related variables (L1 word length, familiarity, and imageability) were not controlled by any of the studies that used pseudowords (Higa, 1963; Ishii, 2015; Tinkham, 1993, 1997; Waring, 1997).”

“Third, due to the difficulty caused by interference, semantically related items may receive more attention, effort, or engagement than unrelated words, which potentially results in better learning (Finkbeiner & Nicol, 2003; Hashemi & Gowdasiaei, 2005; Tagashira, Kida, & Hoshino, 2010).”

“…of speech (Ellis & Beaton, 1993; Rodgers, 1969), L1 word frequency (de Groot, 2006; Lotto & de Groot, 1998), L1 word length (Ellis & Beaton, 1993), familiarity (Tagashira et al., 2010), and imageability (de Groot, 2006; de Groot & Keijzer, 2000; de Groot & van Hell, 2005; Ellis & Beaton, 1993).”

“Research suggests that several factors affect the learning burden of L2-L1 word pairs (e.g., Barcroft & Rott, 2010; Laufer, 2012; Schmitt, 2010).”

“Previous studies also differ in other methodological factors such as learning stimuli (e.g., Spanish-English: Wilcox & Medina, 2013; pseudoword-Japanese: Ishii, 2015), age of participants (e.g., fourth graders: Erten & Tekin, 2008; university students: Hoshino, 2010), L2 proficiency of participants (e.g., novice: Wilc…”

“Massed instruction imposes more cognitive burden on learners than spaced instruction and is therefore less ideal (Nakata & Suzuki, 2019; Rogers, 2017).”

“…learning studies, the effect of spacing has been mostly positive (e.g. Bahrick and Phelps, 1987; Karpicke and Bauernschmidt, 2011; Nakata, 2015; Nakata and Suzuki, 2019); introducing long spacing between encounters with a given item facilitates learning more than short or no spacing, a…”

“In deliberate L2 vocabulary learning in paired associate format, for instance, by inserting temporal spacing between retrieval trials, retention of vocabulary knowledge can increase from 160% to 250% relative to massed practice (e.g., Nakata, 2015; Nakata & Suzuki, 2019).”

“It is indeed crucial for the form-meaning mapping to occur that learners see the form and meaning together (Nation, 2013). When clicking on a word in the captions, learners want to get a translation and might not allocate as much attention to the L2 word form, hence probably remember the L1 translation better than the…”

“It has also been argued that SL with intervals between repetitions yields better retention than massed learning without intervals (Nakata & Suzuki, 2019).”

“In L2 studies of decontex-tualised associative vocabulary learning, similar results have generally been found, favouring long spacing between encounters over shorter spacing or no spacing (the distributed practice effect) (e.g. Bahrick & Phelps, 1987; Nakata & Suzuki, 2019).”

“One theory related to vocabulary acquisition is known as distributed learning, which is shown to be superior to massed learning in promoting lexical gains (Nakata & Suzuki, 2019); Nakata & Webb, 2016).”

“Research on distributed practice, or spacing effects, indicates that the review of information at different timings has a positive effect on learning (e.g. Bahrick, 1979; Ebbinghaus, 1985/1913) and FL vocabulary learning (e.g. Bloom & Shuell, 1981; Nakata & Suzuki, 2019).”

“The target items were selected from Nakata and Suzuki (2019) and Nakata and Webb (2016), who also studied L1 Japanese learners of English and controlled L2-related variables (L2 frequency, L2 letters, syllables) and L1related variables (L1 frequency, L1 letters, mora, L1 familiarity) in their…”

“For example, interleaving five different second language (L2) grammatical structures, compared to blocking presentation of each type, led to the largest number of errors during training but also to higher accuracy on a grammaticality judgment task after a week-long delay (Nakata & Suzuki, 2019).”

“…by spaced repetition theory in SLA, which posits that the timing of review and practice affects learning, and that practice can be more effective when spaced out over time rather than when grouped together (Nakata & Suzuki, 2019; Rogers, 2017; Seibert Hanson & Brown, 2020; Zhang et al., 2022).”

“The study of spacing schedules concerns what is known as the ‘lag effect’ (Rogers, 2017), i.e. whether there is better knowledge retention and recall when there is a longer interval (‘spacing’) between practice sessions (Nakata & Suzuki, 2019; Serrano & Huang, 2018).”

“Most L2 vocabulary spacing studies examined the learning of single words (e.g., Nakata & Suzuki, 2019); so far, the spacing effect in MWE learning has been addressed in only a handful of studies.”

“In other words, distributed learning has been proven to be more effective than massed learning, especially in L2 vocabulary (Kornell et al., 2009; Nakata & Suzuki, 2019; Nakata & Webb, 2016).”

“Because some of the idioms originated from the same domain and because learning semantically related lexical items in a single set may in fl uence learning outcomes (e.g. Nakata and Suzuki, 2019, for a review) we distributed the idioms so that each set consisted of items without such shared domains.”

“…see Ullman & Lovelett, 2018), including greater retention benefits from more spacing (Karpicke & Bauernschmidt, 2011; Koval, 2019; Nakata & Elgort, 2020; Nakata & Suzuki, 2019a; Nakata & Webb, 2016; Pyc & Rawson, 2007, 2009, 2012; Serrano & Huang, 2018; for a review, see Ullman & Lovelett, 2018).”

“Fifth, they may help implement effective learning strategies: many learners are unaware of effective strategies, such as distributed practice (Nakata & Suzuki, 2019; Zung et al., 2022).”

“The use of coordinates, rather than synonyms or antonyms, is justified because previous studies have found significant effects of semantic relatedness using this type of semantically related targets in their designs (Tinkham, 1993, 1997; Finkbeiner and Nicol, 2003; Nakata and Suzuki, 2018).”

“This finding, albeit too weak to be called a production “ advantage ” , is aligned with the spirit of desirable difficulty: what is hard to learn in the beginning, is less susceptible to forgetting in the long run (Bjork & Bjork, 2011; Suzuki et al., 2019).”

“This aligns fi ndings from Nakata and Suzuki (2019), who noted that novices bene fi t from concentrated exposure when retrieving newly learned material shortly after learning.”

“A recurring finding in this line of inquiry is that good long-term learning outcomes are obtained if the practice is effortful but nonetheless manageable—a phenomenon known as “desirable difficulty” (e.g., Bjork & Bjork, 2014; Suzuki et al., 2019a, 2019b).”

“The spacing e ff ect, supported by cognitive psychology research, suggests that distributed exposure leads to stronger memory traces and improved retrieval (Nakata 2015; Nakata and Suzuki 2019).”

“At the same time, spacing alone does not guarantee successful vocabulary learning, as its effectiveness may interact with factors such as lexical organization, review intervals, and the nature of retrieval practice (T. Nakata & Suzuki, 2019).”