Two-year-olds learn novel nouns, verbs, and conventional actions from massed or distributed exposures.
Abstract
Two-year-old children were taught either 6 novel nouns, 6 novel verbs, or 6 novel actions over 1 month. In each condition, children were exposed to some items in massed presentations (on a single day) and some in distributed presentations (over the 2 weeks). Children's comprehension and production was tested at 3 intervals after training. In comprehension, children learned all types of items in all training conditions at all retention intervals. For production, the main findings were that (a) production was better for nonverbal actions than for either word type, (b) children produced more new nouns than verbs, (c) production of words was better following distributed than massed exposure, and (d) time to testing (immediate, 1 day, 1 week) did not affect retention. A follow-up study showed that the most important timing variable was the number of different days of exposure, with more days facilitating production. Results are discussed in terms of 2 key issues: (a) the domain-generality versus domain-specificity of processes of word learning and (b) the relative ease with which children learn nouns versus verbs.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Experiment 1 results generally agree with previous confound-free studies using similar gaps and test delays.
“The results show generally good agreement with previous confound-free studies that used similar gaps and test delays”
From Optimizing distributed practice (2009) · cites this paper as Childers & Tomasello, 2002
After excluding problematic studies, only four studies remained.
“Once these problematic studies were excluded, just four studies remain”
From Optimizing distributed practice (2009) · cites this paper as Childers & Tomasello, 2002
There are seven experiments in five papers that used non-confounded designs with ISIs and retention intervals of one day or more.
“There are seven experiments in five papers that used non-confounded designs with ISIs and retention intervals of one day or more (Ausubel, 1966; Cepeda et al., 2005; Childers & Tomasello, 2002; Edwards, 1917; Glenberg & Lehmann, 1980).”
From Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. (2006) · cites this paper as Childers & Tomasello, 2002
The average observed benefit from distributed practice over massed practice appeared to hold for children as well as adults.
“The average observed benefit from distributed practice (over massed practice) in these studies was 15 percent, and it appeared to hold for children (Bloom & Shuell, 1981; Childers & Tomasello, 2002; Edwards, 1917; Fishman, Keller, & Atkinson, 1968; Harzem, Lee, & Miles, 1976) as well as adults.”
From Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. (2006) · cites this paper as Childers & Tomasello, 2002
Cites
Gopnik, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (1997) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/7289.001.0001 · Cited by 1,479 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100612453266 · Cited by 3,138 · see citing works
Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis.
Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354 · Cited by 1,888 · see citing works
Optimizing distributed practice
Cepeda, N. J., Coburn, N., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T., Mozer, M. C., & Pashler, H. (2009) · Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1027/1618-3169.56.4.236 · Cited by 296 · see citing works
The science of effective learning with spacing and retrieval practice
Carpenter, S. K., Pan, S. C., & Butler, A. C. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-022-00089-1 · Cited by 184 · see citing works
Spacing effects in real‐world classroom vocabulary learning
Sobel, H. S., Cepeda, N. J., & Kapler, I. V. (2011) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.1747 · Cited by 183 · see citing works
The spacing effect in children’s memory and category induction
Vlach, H. A., Sandhofer, C. M., & Kornell, N. (2008) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.013 · Cited by 165 · see citing works
“…are presented multiple times with a variable degree of spacing between instances and, at the end of the session, participants are asked to free recall the words that were presented (e.g., Bahrick, Barhick, Bahrick, & Bahrick, 1993; Childers & Tomasello, 2002; Rea & Modigliani, 1987; Toppino, 1993).”
BackgroundZulkiply, N., & Burt, J. S. (2013) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-012-0238-9 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Spacing Simultaneously Promotes Multiple Forms of Learning in Children's Science Curriculum
Gluckman, M., Vlach, H. A., & Sandhofer, C. M. (2014) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.2997 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Applying spaced practice in the schools to teach math vocabulary
(2019) · doi:10.1002/pits.22248 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Kyle Lai, K.-W., & Howard Chen, H.-J. (2025) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105343 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Childers, J. B., & Tomasello, M.
- Affiliations
- Trinity University (US)
- Max Planck Society (DE)
- Venue
- Developmental Psychology
- Published
- 2002
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 967-978
- ISSN
- 0012-1649 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-0599
- OpenAlex
- W2049072081
- Cited by
- 259
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 7.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Developmental Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Digital Commons - Trinity University (Trinity University) (submittedVersion)
- Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (5r01hd035854-02)
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD35854-01)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Keywords
- word learning, two-year-old children, novel verbs, retention, word production, word comprehension, domain generality, domain specificity, vocabulary acquisition
- MeSH terms
- Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Language Development, Male, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Practice, Psychological, Psycholinguistics, Retention, Psychology, Semantics, Verbal Learning
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.
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
