Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval

May combine two claims.

Categories are defined by both similarities and differences, and these dimensions are not completely independent.

“Categories can be defined by both similarities and differences, and these two dimensions are not completely independent (see Goldstone, 1996, for a discussion of the degree to which these concepts are isolated vs. interrelated).”

• cites Goldstone, 1996 sourceSupported

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

Although the present results seem inconsistent with prior studies showing blocked practice benefits, the described framework may explain the divergence.

“Although the present pattern of results seems inconsistent with prior studies of inductive learning that have demonstrated a benefit of blocked practice (Goldstone, 1996;Kurtz & Hovland, 1956;Whitman & Garner, 1963), the conceptual framework just described may offer an explanation of these apparently divergent results.”

• cites Goldstone, 1996 sourceSupported
• cites Kurtz & Hovland, 1956 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Whitman & Garner, 1963 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: In the adopted framework, blocking facilitates within-category similarity processing, while interleaving facilitates between-category difference processing.

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

A test emphasizing similarity more and discrimination less, such as an inference test, might have favored blocking or reduced interleaving's advantage even with the same training.

“Another test, one that emphasized discrimination less and similarity more-such as an inference rather than a classification test (see Chin-Parker & Ross, 2002)-might have produced an advantage of blocking, or at least a smaller advantage of interleaving, even if the training conditions had been the same.”

• cites Chin-Parker & Ross, 2002 sourceSupported

May combine two claims.

In Experiment 1, a Tukey-Kramer post-hoc test showed that accuracy was significantly lower in the alternating-trivia condition than in the other two conditions, which did not differ significantly from each other.

“Furthermore, a Tukey-Kramer post-hoc test showed that accuracy was significantly lower in the alternating-trivia condition than in the other two conditions, for which performance did not differ significantly.”

May combine two claims.

Adding both interleaving and spacing did not produce the best performance; interleaving alone did, indicating that the benefits of spacing and interleaving were subadditive.

“Adding both interleaving and spacing, however, did not lead to the best performance-interleaving alone did-so clearly, the benefits of spacing and interleaving were subadditive.”

May combine two claims.

In three experiments with butterfly and bird photographs, temporal spacing impaired learning when it interrupted the juxtaposition of interleaved categories, even when total spacing was held constant, supporting the discriminative-contrast hypothesis.

“In three experiments, using photographs of butterflies and birds as the stimuli, temporal spacing was harmful when it interrupted the juxtaposition of interleaved categories, even when total spacing was held constant, supporting the discriminative-contrast hypothesis.”

Not yet classified.

In Experiment 2, there was a significant overall advantage of interleaving over blocking, F(1, 112) = 12.34, p < .001, η2p = .099.

“As is indicated in Fig. 4, a significant overall advantage of interleaving over blocking was obtained, F(1, 112) 0 12.34, p < .001,η 2 p ¼ :099:”

Not yet classified.

In Experiment 2, without spacing, interleaving produced better induction learning than blocking, t(56) = 4.794, p < .0001, d = 0.678, replicating prior findings.

“Another planned comparison showed that in the absence of spacing, the induction learning produced by interleaving was superior to that produced by blocking, t(56) 0 4.794, p < .0001,d 0 0.678, replicating prior findings (e.g., Kang & Pashler, 2012;Kornell & Bjork, 2008).”

• cites Kang & Pashler, 2012 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Kornell & Bjork, 2008 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

In Experiment 2, spacing gave no benefit when it interrupted between-category juxtaposition, though spacing helped in the blocked condition when it did not interrupt juxtaposition, contrary to Kang and Pashler.

“Spacing provided no benefit when it interrupted juxtaposition between categories in Experiment 2, although spacing was beneficial in the blocked condition of Experiment 2-when it did not interrupt juxtaposition-contrary to the prior findings by Kang and Pashler.”

• cites Kang and PashlerNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

In Experiment 2, study block did not significantly affect performance and did not interact with spacing.

“Study block did not have a significant effect on performance, nor did it interact with spacing.”

May combine two claims.

Although blocking hurt performance in the contiguous condition and had little overall effect in the spaced condition, participants in both groups believed blocking helped them learn more than interleaving.

“Thus, although blocking was counterproductive in the contiguous condition and had almost no overall effect in the spaced condition, participants in both groups believed that blocking the exemplar presentations had helped them learn more effectively than did interleaving the exemplar presentations.”

May combine two claims.

Spacing helped both when exemplars were blocked in Experiment 2 and interleaved in Experiment 3.

“Spacing was beneficial both when exemplars were blocked in Experiment 2 and when they were interleaved in Experiment 3.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Kang and Pashler concluded that interleaving benefits learning by juxtaposing different categories, a process they termed discriminative contrast.

“On the basis of this finding, they concluded that the value of interleaving lies in juxtaposing different categories, a process that they referred to as discriminative contrast.”

• cites Kang and Pashler (2012) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Kang and Pashler found that simultaneous presentations of multiple paintings by the same artist did not benefit learning, while simultaneous presentations of multiple paintings by different artists did.

“Consistent with this conclusion, they also found that simultaneous presentations of multiple paintings by the same artist did not benefit learning (Exp.1), whereas simultaneous presentations of multiple paintings by different artists were beneficial (Exp.2)—again, presumably, because they promoted discriminative contrast.”

• cites Kang and Pashler (2012) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Presenting all items at once places greater demands on working memory than presenting one at a time, and the discrimination processes seen during simultaneous presentation may not occur or may be less effective during single presentations.

“presenting one item at a time is different from presenting all items at oncedoing the latter places greater demands on working memory, and the discrimination processes that appear to be at work during a simultaneous presentation may not happen, or may not happen as effectively, during single presentations.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Kornell and Bjork hypothesized that mixing exemplars from different categories benefits learning because it highlights differences between the categories.

“They hypothesized that the benefit of mixing exemplars from different categories is that doing so highlights differences between the categories.”

• cites Kornell and Bjork (2008) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Not yet classified.

Together, the two planned comparisons in Experiment 2 showed that, relative to a baseline with neither interleaving nor spacing, adding either spacing or interleaving improved learning.

“Combined, these two planned comparisons demonstrated that, as compared to a baseline condition in which presentations were not interleaved or spaced, adding spacing or interleaving enhanced learning.”

May combine two claims.

Experiment 1 suggested that spacing in the grouped-trivia condition might have slightly impaired performance relative to the contiguous condition, but it lacked a noninterleaved condition to assess interleaving versus blocking as a function of temporal spacing.

“The results of Experiment 1 suggested that spacing, as implemented in the grouped-trivia condition, might have impaired performance slightly relative to the contiguous condition, but Experiment 1 did not include a noninterleaved condition of the type that would permit an assessment of the value of interleaving, relative to blocking, as a function of temporal spacing.”

May combine two claims.

Zulkiply and Burt (in press) found that interleaving improved inductive learning relative to blocking, but temporal spacing did not affect the benefit of interleaving.

“They found that although interleaving led to a benefit in inductive learning, as compared to blocking, temporal spacing did not affect the benefit of interleaving.”

• cites Zulkiply and Burt (in press)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

In Experiment 1, total spacing was held constant between the grouped-trivia and alternating-trivia conditions, but the alternating-trivia condition interrupted comparison processes by placing trivia questions between photos, while the grouped-trivia condition did not.

“Thus, the total spacing was held constant in these two conditions, but the alternating-trivia condition interrupted comparison processes (by placing trivia questions between the photos), whereas the grouped-trivia condition did not.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

If inserting trivia questions did not disrupt inductive learning, it would be difficult to conclude that discrimination processes cause the interleaving benefit.

“The basic logic was that if inserting trivia questions did not disrupt inductive learning, it would then be difficult to conclude that discrimination processes are responsible for the benefit of interleaving.”

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

In Experiment 1, an unrelated task was inserted during the delay instead of no filler task to prevent rehearsal of the previously viewed image.

“An unrelated task was inserted rather than having no filler task during the time delay so as to prevent rehearsal of the previously viewed image.”

Not yet classified.

In Experiment 1, the grouped-trivia and alternating-trivia conditions had identical events between successive exemplars of a given species: on average, eight trivia questions and seven photos intervened between successive exemplars of a given species in each condition.

“Importantly, between successive exemplars of a given species, exactly the same events transpired in the groupedtrivia and alternating-trivia conditions; that is, an average of eight trivia questions and seven photos intervened between successive exemplars of a given species in each condition.”

May combine two claims.

In Experiment 3, interference and task were held constant across all three conditions.

“Additionally, interference and task were held constant across all three conditions in Experiment 3.”

May combine two claims.

Kang and Pashler (2012) found results consistent with the discriminative-contrast hypothesis: interleaving improved inductive learning, whereas temporal spacing, which does not highlight category differences, did not.

“Kang and Pashler (Applied Cognitive Psychology 26:97-103, 2012) obtained results consistent with this discriminative-contrast hypothesis: Interleaving enhanced inductive learning, but temporal spacing, which does not highlight category differences, did not.”

• cites Kang and Pashler (2012) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Kang and Pashler (2012) replicated blocked and interleaved conditions and found that interleaving improved learning over blocking, but temporal spacing did not improve learning over blocking.

“They found a benefit of interleaving over blocking (replicating Kornell & Bjork, 2008), but no benefit of temporal spacing over blocking.”

• cites Kang and Pashler (2012) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Not yet classified.

The pattern of results in Experiment 2 is consistent with the discriminative-contrast hypothesis.

“This pattern of results is consistent with the discriminative-contrast hypothesis.”

May combine two claims.

Kornell and Bjork's (2008) participants rated blocking as more effective than interleaving, even though they had performed better on a test for categories learned under interleaved rather than blocked conditions.

“Kornell and Bjork's (2008) participants rated blocking as being more effective than interleaving, despite having just completed a test on which they had performed better for categories learned under interleaved rather than under blocked conditions.”

• cites Kornell and Bjork (2008) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Spacing improved learning when exemplars were blocked in Experiment 2 and interleaved in Experiment 3, suggesting multiple mechanisms contribute to distributed practice in inductive learning.

“Spacing also enhanced learning, however, when exemplars were blocked in Experiment 2 and when they were interleaved in Experiment 3, suggesting that multiple mechanisms may contribute to the value of distributed practice (spacing and interleaving) in inductive learning.”

Not yet classified.

The main practical implication is that successful inductive learning requires juxtaposing exemplars from different categories to promote discriminative contrast.

“The foremost practical implication of the present findings is that successful inductive learning entails the juxtaposing of exemplars from different categories so as to promote discriminative contrast.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: In inductive learning of natural categories, it is important to learn both within-category similarities and between-category differences.

May combine two claims.

A delay permits forgetting, which makes retrieving earlier exemplars harder, but this can improve learning when retrieval succeeds.

“That is, delay allows time for forgetting, making retrieval of previous exemplars from memory more difficult, but thereby enhancing learning when such retrievals are successful.”

• cites Thios & D'Agostino, 1976 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

When spacing and variation were combined, participants could no longer retrieve the earlier advertisement version.

“When spacing and variation were combined, the participants were no longer able to retrieve the earlier version of the advertisement.”

• cites Appleton-Knapp et al. (2005) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Taylor and Rohrer (2010) had students learn four mathematics problem types in a task requiring inductive learning because no problem repeated during learning.

“Taylor and Rohrer (2010), for example, asked students to learn four kinds of mathematics problems using a task that could be categorized as requiring inductive learning, because participants never saw the same problem twice during the learning phase.”

• cites Taylor and Rohrer (2010) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Not yet classified.

Spacing and interleaving have been described as desirable difficulties that challenge learners but enhance long-term retention and transfer.

“Spacing and interleaving have both been described as”

• cites Bjork, 1994 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

In that research, spacing improved recall only when the same advertisement was repeated.

“Spacing also facilitated recall, but only when the exact same advertisement was repeated.”

• cites Appleton-Knapp et al. (2005) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

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

The subadditivity of spacing and interleaving in this experiment is analogous to the subadditivity of spacing and variation in Appleton-Knapp et al. (2005) for advertisements.

“Related to such considerations, the subadditivity of spacing and interleaving that we observed in the present experiment is analogous, perhaps, to the subadditivity of spacing and variation found by Appleton-Knapp, Bjork, and Wickens (2005) in participants' memory for advertisements of hypothetical products.”

• cites Appleton-Knapp, Bjork, and Wickens (2005) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

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

A potential criticism of Experiment 2 is that spacing was confounded with retention interval: for blocked categories, the interval between the last study trial and the final test was longer in the spaced than in the contiguous condition, though this was not the case for interleaved categories.

“One potential criticism of Experiment 2 is that spacing was confounded with retention interval: For blocked categories, in particular, the interval between the last study trial and the final induction test was longer in the spaced than in the contiguous condition (this was not the case in the interleaved condition, in which all species were studied at both the beginning and end of the session).”

Not yet classified.

Like Appleton-Knapp et al.'s results, the present results show that two desirable difficulties are not always better than one.

“As in the case of the results obtained by Appleton-Knapp et al. (2005), described earlier, the present results illustrate that two desirable difficulties are not always more desirable than one.”

• cites Appleton-Knapp et al. (2005) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Appleton-Knapp et al. argued that study-phase retrieval is crucial for long-term retention.

“Appleton-Knapp et al. reasoned that studyphase retrieval processes are crucial in supporting long-term retention:”

• cites Appleton-Knapp et al. (2005) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

In this research, within-species similarities may have been relatively easy to process even during interleaved practice.

“In the present research, similarities within butterfly species (as illustrated in Fig. 3) may have been relatively easy to process, even during interleaved practice.”

Not yet classified.

When spacing interfered with discrimination processes, it harmed inductive learning.

“When spacing interfered with discrimination processes, it impaired inductive learning.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The number of between-category juxtapositions was equal in both spacing conditions.

“The numbers of between-category juxtapositions were the same for both spacing conditions.”

May combine two claims.

Because of such reminders, retrieval between trials should be better in the blocked condition, so some forgetting would likely help there.

“Owing to such reminders, retrieval between trials should be better in the blocked than in the interleaved condition, so some forgetting would likely be valuable in the former condition.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

In the large-spacing condition, exemplars of a species were juxtaposed with only three other species to match the between-category juxtapositions in the small-spacing condition.

“In the large-spacing condition, exemplars of a given species were juxtaposed next to exemplars of only three other species, in order to match the number of between-category juxtapositions that occurred in the small-spacing condition.”

May combine two claims.

Zulkiply and Burt (in press) found blocking better for highly discriminable categories and interleaving critical for low-discriminability categories.

“Zulkiply and Burt (in press) found that blocking was more effective for learning highly discriminable categories, whereas interleaving was critical for inducing learning of low-discriminability categories.”

• cites Zulkiply and Burt (in press)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Not yet classified.

Taylor and Rohrer found interleaving improved learning on a delayed test even when spacing was equal in interleaved and blocked conditions.

“Taylor and Rohrer found that interleaving enhanced learning-as measured by the ability to solve new examples of each type of problem on a delayed test-even when the amount of spacing had been the same in the interleaved and blocked conditions.”

• cites Taylor and Rohrer (2010) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Not yet classified.

The bottom line is that interleaving is valuable for inductive learning, and spacing can be valuable if it does not interfere with discriminative contrast.

“The bottom line is that interleaving is valuable for inductive learning, and that spacing can be valuable, too, if it does not interfere with discriminative contrast.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: In inductive learning of natural categories, it is important to learn both within-category similarities and between-category differences.

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

Experiment 1 had been designed to avoid the confounding problem of retention interval.

“(Also, Exp. 1 had been designed to avoid such a confounding problem.)”

May combine two claims.

Temporal spacing naturally follows from interleaving, but the results suggest spacing can have both benefits and costs in inductive learning.

“Temporal spacing is a natural consequence of interleaving, but the present results suggest that spacing can have both benefits and costs in inductive learning.”

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

An informal analysis of prior experiments showing blocking benefits suggests their materials made within-category similarity identification harder, which should favor blocking under the present framework.

“In contrast, an informal analysis of the previous experiments that showed a benefit for blocking indicates that the materials and procedures employed made identifying similarities within categories more difficult, whichaccording to the present framework-should result in blocking being more advantageous.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The manipulation let us test varying temporal spacing while keeping juxtaposition, study time, and test delay constant.

“This manipulation allowed us to examine the effects of varying temporal spacing while holding juxtaposition, time on task, and time until test constant across all conditions.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Blocked practice may have led to students' failure to discriminate between problem types, as the authors suggested.

“Blocked practice may have, as the authors suggested, led to the”

• cites Taylor and Rohrer (2010) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Consequently, participants struggled to recognize and remember within-species commonalities, and their performance suffered.

“As a result, they found it difficult to recognize and remember commonalities within a given species, with their performance suffering accordingly.”

May combine two claims.

Based on Experiments 1 and 2, we attributed interleaving's value to enhanced discrimination, but it may come from multiple sources.

“On the basis of the Experiment 1 and 2 results, we attributed the value of interleaving to enhanced discrimination processing, but the value may actually come from multiple sources.”

May combine two claims.

Two items from the same category share similar information and a label, so spacing should improve learning in the blocked condition.

“Two items from the same category (e.g., two Tippers) contain similar information and share the same category label, and thus, spacing would be expected to enhance learning in the blocked condition.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: When the same information is presented twice, spacing enhances learning, but no spacing effect occurs when two separate pieces of information are presented.

Not yet classified.

The present results suggest that interleaving largely enhances inductive learning because juxtaposing different categories promotes learning differences.

“The results obtained in the present research suggest that, to a great extent, the reason why interleaving enhances inductive learning is that the juxtaposing of exemplars of different categories that interleaving affords promotes the learning of differences.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: In inductive learning of natural categories, it is important to learn both within-category similarities and between-category differences.

May combine two claims.

These findings support the idea that both within-category similarity processing and between-category difference processing should be promoted.

“This set of findings can be seen as supporting the hypothesis that it is important to promote the processing of similarities within a category as well as of differences between categories.”

Not yet classified.

Spacing does not have to interfere with discriminative contrast.

“Spacing does not have to interfere with discriminative contrast, however.”

May combine two claims.

Interleaving increases spacing between exemplars compared to blocking, and spacing increases may contribute to interleaving's value for inductive learning.

“It is important to remember that, as compared to blocking, interleaving increases the amount of spacing between exemplars, and, as is demonstrated by the results of Experiment 3, increases in spacing may play some role in the value of interleaving for inductive learning.”

May combine two claims.

Two items from different categories share less similar information and have different labels, so there is little reason to expect a spacing benefit in the interleaved condition.

“In contrast, two items from different categories contain far less similar information (and have different labels); thus, there would be little reason to expect a benefit of temporal spacing in the interleaved condition.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: When the same information is presented twice, spacing enhances learning, but no spacing effect occurs when two separate pieces of information are presented.

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

If so, blocking's advantage for noting similarities may have been unnecessary, while interleaving helped with the harder task of discriminating species.

“If so, any advantage of blocking for noting similarities may have been unneeded-only making an already easy process easier-whereas interleaving helped with the more difficult process of discriminating among species.”

May combine two claims.

The present findings strongly support the discriminative-contrast hypothesis, suggesting interleaving helps inductive learning by letting people grasp category differences.

“First, the present findings lend strong support to the discriminativecontrast hypothesis, suggesting that interleaving is valuable in inductive learning because it allows people to grasp the differences between categories.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: In inductive learning of natural categories, it is important to learn both within-category similarities and between-category differences.