The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The effects of interleaving versus blocking on foreign language pronunciation learning
Open accessAbstract
Many studies have shown that students learn better when they are given repeated exposures to different concepts in a way that is shuffled or interleaved, rather than blocked (e.g., Rohrer Educational Psychology Review, 24, 355-367, 2012). The present study explored the effects of interleaving versus blocking on learning French pronunciations. Native English speakers learned several French words that conformed to specific pronunciation rules (e.g., the long "o" sound formed by the letter combination "eau," as in bateau), and these rules were presented either in blocked fashion (bateau, carreau, fardeau . . . mouton, genou, verrou . . . tandis, verglas, admis) or in interleaved fashion (bateau, mouton, tandis, carreau, genou, verglas . . .). Blocking versus interleaving was manipulated within subjects (Experiments 1-3) or between subjects (Experiment 4), and participants' pronunciation proficiency was later tested through multiple-choice tests (Experiments 1, 2, and 4) or a recall test (Experiment 3). In all experiments, blocking benefited the learning of pronunciations more than did interleaving, and this was true whether participants learned only 4 words per rule (Experiments 1-3) or 15 words per rule (Experiment 4). Theoretical implications of these findings are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The explanation was that there was no discrimination required when learning those words and rules. No spacing effect was found as rest-from-deliberate-learning was not allowed.”
From Spacing and Interleaving Effects Require Distinct Theoretical Bases: a Systematic Review Testing the Cognitive Load and Discriminative-Contrast Hypotheses (2021) · cites this paper as Carpenter and Mueller (2013)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The performance of blocked practice was superior to that of interleaved practice.”
From Spacing and Interleaving Effects Require Distinct Theoretical Bases: a Systematic Review Testing the Cognitive Load and Discriminative-Contrast Hypotheses (2021) · cites this paper as Carpenter and Mueller (2013)
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
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
Test-Enhanced Learning: Taking Memory Tests Improves Long-Term Retention
Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x · Cited by 2,867
The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice
Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x · Cited by 2,037
Word length and the structure of short-term memory
Baddeley, A. D., Thomson, N., & Buchanan, M. (1975) · Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(75)80045-4 · Cited by 1,980
The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention
Roediger, H. L., & Butler, A. C. (2011) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.003 · Cited by 1,796
Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2008.02.014 · Cited by 745
Spacing Effects in Learning: A Temporal Ridgeline of Optimal Retention
Cepeda, N. J., Vul, E., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T., & Pashler, H. (2008) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02209.x · Cited by 631
Learning Concepts and Categories: Is Spacing the “Enemy of Induction”?
Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02127.x · Cited by 602
Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2009) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.01.004 · Cited by 551
The mismeasure of memory: When retrieval fluency is misleading as a metamnemonic index.
Benjamin, A. S., Bjork, R. A., & Schwartz, B. L. (1998) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.127.1.55 · Cited by 529
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–103 of 103
Decoding the pattern-academic nexus: Math reciprocity versus word reading directionality
Yang, Y.-W., Wang, J., Zhao, Y.-W., Zheng, Y.-D., & Yang, X. (2026) · Early Childhood Research Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2026.07.003
Curriculum learning for complex tasksPreprint
Dumbalska, T., Yuen, K., Bhatti, A., Ali, I., Zaneva, M., Sandbrink, K. J., & Summerfield, C. (2026) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.112526
Curriculum learning for complex tasksPreprint
Dumbalska, T., Yuen, K., Bhatti, A., Ali, I., Zaneva, M., Sandbrink, K. J., & Summerfield, C. (2026) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.112526.1
Metadata
- Authors
- Carpenter, S. K., & Mueller, F. E.
- Affiliations
- Iowa State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Carpenter, Shana K.
- ORCID
- Carpenter, Shana K.
- Venue
- Memory & Cognition
- Published
- 2013-01-16
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 671-682
- ISSN
- 0090-502X (ISSN-L)
- 1532-5946
- OpenAlex
- W2168651701
- Cited by
- 103
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 1.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Memory & Cognition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Keywords
- interleaving, blocking, foreign language pronunciation, French pronunciation, pronunciation rules, word learning, native English speakers, second language acquisition, retrieval practice
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Humans, Learning, Phonetics, Multilingualism, Young Adult
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
