Cited by 335Memory Processes and InfluencesSecond Language Acquisition and LearningEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning

Maintenance of Foreign Language Vocabulary and the Spacing Effect

Bahrick, Harry P., Bahrick, Lorraine E., Bahrick, Audrey S., Bahrick, Phyllis E.·1993·Psychological Science

Abstract

In a 9-year longitudinal investigation, 4 subjects learned and relearned 300 English-foreign language word pairs. Either 13 or 26 relearning sessions were administered at intervals of 14, 28, or 56 days. Retention was tested for 1.2.3. or 5 years after training terminated. The longer intersession intervals slowed down acquisition slightly, but this disadvantage during training was offset by substantially higher retention. Thirteen retraining sessions spaced at 56 days yielded retention comparable to 26 sessions spaced at 14 days. The retention benefit due to additional sessions was independent of the benefit due to spacing, and both variables facilitated retention of words regardless of difficulty level and of the consistency of retrieval during training. The benefits of spaced retrieval practice to long-term maintenance of access to academic knowledge areas are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00571.x

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Bahrick et al. (1993) reported that subjects needed twice as many trials in the second study session to reach criterion as gap increased from 14 to 56 days.

    “Bahrick et al. (1993) reported that subjects required twice as many trials in the second study session in order to achieve criterion, as gap increased from 14 to 56 days.”

    From Optimizing distributed practice (2009) · cites this paper as Bahrick et al. (1993)

  • Every study examined here with a retention interval longer than one month demonstrated a benefit from distribution of learning across weeks or months, as opposed to learning across a one-day interval.

    “Every study examined here with a retention interval longer than one month (Bahrick, 1979; Bahrick, et al., 1993; Bahrick & Phelps, 1987; Cepeda et al., 2005) demonstrated a benefit from distribution of learning across weeks or months, as opposed to learning across a one-day interval;”

    From Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. (2006) · cites this paper as Bahrick, et al., 1993

  • The Bahrick studies confounded number of relearning trials with ISI; there was more relearning at longer ISIs.

    “These studies confounded number of relearning trials with ISI; that is, there was more relearning at longer ISIs.”

    From Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. (2006) · cites this paper as Bahrick et al., 1993

  • The 56-day gap in Bahrick et al. (1993) was a relatively short proportion of the extremely long retention intervals used, and this ratio is probably most critical.

    “However, 56 days is actually a relatively short proportion of the extremely long retention intervals used in Bahrick et al.'s study, and it is this ratio that is probably most critical, as will emerge below.”

    From Spacing Effects in Learning: A Temporal Ridgeline of Optimal Retention (2008) · cites this paper as Bahrick et al., 1993

  • In Bahrick et al. (1993), increasing the inter-study spacing out to 56 days improved performance in acquisition and retention of foreign language vocabulary over several years.

    “The results showed that increasing the inter-study spacing out to 56 days improved performance (Figure 2).”

    From Spacing Effects in Learning: A Temporal Ridgeline of Optimal Retention (2008) · cites this paper as Bahrick et al., 1993

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bahrick, H. P., Bahrick, L. E., Bahrick, A. S., & Bahrick, P. E.
Affiliations
  • Ohio Wesleyan University (US)
  • Florida International University (US)
  • University of Iowa (US)
  • Ohio Wesieyan University
Corresponding author
Bahrick, Harry P.
Venue
Psychological Science
Published
1993-09
Volume
4
Issue
5
Pages
316-321
ISSN
  • 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9280
OpenAlex
W2132404624
Cited by
334
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 41 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 14
FWCI
1.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • Florida International University Digital Commons (Florida International University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Keywords
foreign language vocabulary, spacing effect, retention, relearning, spaced retrieval practice, long-term maintenance, word learning, retrieval consistency, vocabulary difficulty

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