Mass Practice vs Distributed Practice Lab Report

Submitted as
Due date
Tutor
Class
 Abstract
The present study examined how studying strategy (mass practice vs distributed practice)

influenced the performance of participants in a test involving fill-in-the-blank spaces and

multiple-choice questions. 274 psychology were selected for the study out of which only 239

(between 18 and 65 years old, mean of 21.34) were used. The participants were divided into two

and subjected to testing either in fill-in the blank option or multiple choice after studying in

either mass practice or distribute practice. The findings supported the hypothesis that in the

overall, students would score higher marks in the fill-in the blank test under distributed practice

as compared to massed practice. However, the findings contradicted the second hypothesis which

was the type of strategy used to learn i.e. massed or distributed practice would influence the

performance of each type of test in different ways. It was concluded that there is a need to

conduct more studies to find out the implications of these findings in learning after over 1 month.
Introduction

The benefits accrued from the distributed practice of learning over the massed practice are

robust. Learning that involves distributed practices contributes to better retention of knowledge

as compared to massed practice. The capacity to learn only becomes significant if an individual

can retain most knowledge from the materials (Rohrer & Taylor, 2006). As such, it is essential to

scrutinize any strategy used for learning among students through using various forms of

assessments that can either involve multiple-choice tests or fill-in-the-blank test. In this context,

the current study aimed to examine how performance in different types of the test was influenced

by two memory strategies: massed practice and distributed practice.

In particular, the study evaluated the mass and distributed learning practices. According to

Rohrer and Taylor (2006) and Carpenter, Cepeda, Rohrer, Kang and Pashler (2012) when

learning involves distributed practice or spaced practice it implies that the learning practice is

distributed across various sessions and at uniform intervals. For instance, a student can decide to

read a chapter of a book by distributing the time equally on different days of the week. On the

other hand, the massed practice of learning or overlearning involves reading and testing what is

read immediately (Rohrer & Taylor, 2006). It is commonly referred to as cramming. It is worth

noting that for the purpose of this study, massed learning was assessed as a strategy rather than

the utility of mastery. That is, the students were prompted to read a chapter of methodology in

both the practices after which they would be tested using multiple choice exam or fill-in-the-

blank testing. With both the practices being orthogonal, only one would emerge the best at any

particular time. As such, most studies (Seabrook, Brown & Solity, 2005; Carpenter et al., 2012;

Goossens et al., 2016) have been focusing on these practices, but the literature shows several
gaps and confounds in terms of only using the laboratory as the main settings for testing these

practices.

Carpenter et al. (2012) note that most of the studies regarding the spacing effect have been

carried out in a laboratory setting where participants learn some forms of verbal information.

However, previous scholars (Bird, 2010, cited in Carpenter et al. 2012) documented that spacing

can be used to learn difficult information by using longer spacing gaps (Distributed practices).

On the other hand, scholars (Bromage & Mayer, 1986; Rose, 1992, cited in Rohrer & Taylor,

2006) showed that massed practices can boost test performance. However, the relatively brief

retention intervals deprive this method of long-term benefits particularly when one is learning is

to be tested after a long time of reading (Driskell et al., 1992, cited in Rohrer & Taylor, 2006).

The need for embracing critical thinking and high-level processing of information makes the

exam format to be a great determinant in the retrieval of information (Stanger-Hall, 2012). As

such, this study focused on evaluating the learning strategies of mass and distributed practices

using multiple-choice tests and fill-in-the-blank test. According to Simkin and Kuechler, (2005,

cited in Stanger-Hall, 2012), the multiple choice can falsify knowledge and understanding.

Moreover, it only works best for a short period between learning and testing. However, the fill-

in-the-blank allows one to exercise critical thinking (Martinez, 1999, cited in Stanger-Hall, 2012)

and can thus be used to evaluate a wide array of thinking skill since students create their own

answers.

The present study was designed to extend the propositions of Rohrer and Taylor (2006) by using

the same aspects of massed and distributed learning practices. In addition, the study replicated

and extended the design of Goossens et al. (2016) involving the administration of the multiple-

choice test and fill-in-the-blank tests to observe the spacing effect in learning as the major
determinant of performing in each type of test. As such, it was hypothesized that in the overall,

students would score higher marks in the fill-in the blank test under distributed practice as

compared to massed practice. Also, it was predicted that the type of strategy used to learn i.e.

massed or distributed practice would influence the performance of each type of test in different

ways.

Method

Participants

The study experimented on 274 participants who were psychology students enrolled in an online

class through the Swinburne Psychology Research Program. For the purpose of reliability and

validity of the data, the data for 35 participants were not recorded as they were excluded for not

finishing the tests. This left a total of 239 participants. Out of these, 27.62% were males, 70.71%

were females, and 1.67% represented others or unidentified persons. In terms of age, all the

participants were between 18 and 65 years with a M=21.34 and SD=3.12

Materials

Study materials. The participants were prompted to study chapter 2 dealing with research in

psychology from the book Psychology by Bernstein et al. (2017). The reading was to follow the

two strategies of learning. Therefore, the participants in the massed practice were to spend 6

hours in one sitting reading the chapter without interruptions except for washroom or

refreshment break. On the other hand, the participants in the distributed practice were to read the

chapter for 2 hours every day for 3 consecutive days. Each day of reading there would be no

interruption except for washroom or refreshment.

The Tests. Two tests were administered for each strategy that was used for learning. That is, all

the participants in massed practice were given fill-in-the-blank test containing 20 items (See
Appendix A) and another 20-item test with multiple choices (see Appendix B). The same

happened for participants who were in the distributed practice too. Along with the tests were

demographic questions that required the participants to indicate their ages in years as well as

gender. These questions were open-ended.

Procedure

Upon the approval of the research by the university, the participants were provided with a

participant sheet containing information about the purpose of the research. Once they agreed to

participate in the study, they would click “continue” to the site and sign up for the study through

the Research Experience Program and begin part 1 of the study through Qualtrics. This part

involved assigning participants the study strategy conditions, presenting them with relevant

instructions, and answering the demographic questions. Through randomization half of the

participants were assigned massed practice while the other half was assigned distributed

practice instructions. Participants had 5 minutes to complete Part 1 of the study. Most

importantly, there was no compensation made since the study formed part of the revision for the

participants. Moreover, they were assured of confidentiality and liberty to withdraw at any time

from the study any time without providing particular reasons.

After studying for 3 weeks, the participants were advised to log into Qualtrics to complete part 2

of the study, which involved testing the participant's knowledge in relation to the research

methods. Once they logged on, the Qualtrics assigned half of the participants at random the fill-

in-the-blank test and the other half the multiple-choice test. Both of these tests contained 20

items and the participants had 25 minutes to complete them. At the of the study, all the

participants were debriefed about the purpose of the study, the manipulations, and the

researchers’ hypothesis.
Results

The marks of each participant were recorded based on the learning strategy used and averages

obtained. Table 1 summarizes the total average scores for the two measures (tests) in each

learning strategy. The responses of the participants on the 20-item test were marked as either

correct or incorrect.

The means represented in the table shows the number of questions answered correctly on the 20-

item test based on the four conditions of 1) Massed practice with the fill-in-the-blank test, 2)

Massed practice with a multiple-choice test, 3) Distributed practice with fill-in-the-blank test and

4) Distributed practice with a multiple-choice test. The table also depicted the overall means for

each study condition and the test. The study had hypothesized that overall the students would

score higher marks in the fill-in the blank test under distributed practice as compared to massed

practice. From the table, the overall mean for the distributed practice was M=16.03, SD=1.49,

n=118. On the other hand, the massed practice had an overall mean of M=14.70, SD=2.31,

n=121. This confirmed the hypothesis for the study. Also, the study had predicted that the type

of strategy used to learn would influence the performance of each type of test in different ways.
As seen from Table 1, each of the means in each learning condition was different with massed

practice using multiple-choice having the highest mean M=17.03, SD=2.87, n=61.

The Fig. 1 below summarizes the means in each learning condition as per each test. It can be

seen that the multiple-choice testing had the highest mean score in each learning condition this

contradicts the findings of Rohrer and Taylor (2006) and Stanger-Hall (2012).

Means for each learning conditi on

Fill-in-the-Blank Multiple-Choice

Discussion

The results of the study supported the hypothesis regarding the fill-in-the-blank test and its

performance reflection under the distributed practices. The multiple choice, however, appeared

to have higher scores in both the learning conditions perhaps due to the short duration of testing

after the study.

The findings for the first hypotheses supported the study of Rohrer and Taylor (2006). Despite

the massed practice having high performance in each test, it is worth noting that in the overall,

distributed practice had a higher mean than the massed practice. This implies that the participants

managed to master most of the concepts studied in the distributed practice leading to high

retention of knowledge. Hence the high mean in overall performance.

distributed practice would influence the performance in each type of test in different ways it was

noted that the findings contradicted those of Rohrer and Taylor (2006) and Stanger-Hall (2012).

Conventionally, it has been documented that spacing effect that follows distributed practices

leads to positive learning outcomes (Rohrer & Taylor, 2006). On a similar note, research also

shows that fill-in-the-blank tests enhance critical thinking more than the multiple-choice

questions (Stanger-Hall, 2012). However, the findings for the second hypothesis depicted that

massed practice yields better results for both fill-in-the-blank tests and the multiple-choice tests.

Worth noting at this point was the duration between the testing and studying. The testing period

came 3 weeks after studying. It was quite a short period that lead to the results agreeing with the

findings of various scholars (Bromage & Mayer, 1986; Rose, 1992, cited in Rohrer & Taylor,

2006) that mass practices can be used to boost performance. However, a close look at the trend

of the curves shows that after some time perhaps in a month’s time or so, the multiple choice can

fail to excel high if the graph is extrapolated towards the distributed practices. This is based on

the notion that the hippocampus concerned for storing information for long-term purposes does it

in a way that enhances critical reasoning (Purves et al., 2012). Thus, paving way for more

chances of fill-in-the-blank spaces performing better with distributed practices after some time.

This study had one limitation of sample size. Quite a portion of data from 35 participants was left

out as they never completed the study. This may have impacted the results in one way or the

other leading to the different expectations as compared to previous studies. As such, there is need

to have more data in the study in order to study other implications arising from the findings

through considering the possibility of distributed practice leading to increased performance in

fill-in the blank spaces.

first hypothesis. Distributed practice seemed to be a way of establishing good performance for

students handling fill-in-the-blank spaces test. On the other hand, the findings for the second

hypothesis contradicted those of previous researchers. Participants seemed to perform better on

multiple choice test in both practices. However, there is a need to continue examining this

phenomenon to understand the implications it has for learning after over 1 month.
 References

Bernstein, D., Pooley, J., Cohen, L., Gouldthorp, B., Provost, S., & Cranney, J.

(2017). Psychology (2nd ed.). Australia: Cengage Learning.

Carpenter, S., Cepeda, N., Rohrer, D., Kang, S., & Pashler, H. (2012). Using Spacing to Enhance

Diverse Forms of Learning: Review of Recent Research and Implications for

Instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 24(3), 369-378. doi: 10.1007/s10648-012-

9205-z

Goossens, N., Camp, G., Verkoeijen, P., Tabbers, H., Bouwmeester, S., & Zwaan, R. (2016).

Distributed Practice and Retrieval Practice in Primary School Vocabulary Learning: A

Multi-classroom Study. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(5), 700-712. doi:

10.1002/acp.3245

Lotfolahi, A., & Salehi, H. (2017). Spacing effects in vocabulary learning: Young EFL learners

in focus. Cogent Education, 4(1). doi: 10.1080/2331186x.2017.1287391

Purves, D., Augustine, G., Fitzpatrick, D., Hall, W., LaMantia, A., & White, L.

(2012). Neuroscience. Sunderland, Massachusetts.: Sinauer Associates, Inc.

Rohrer, D., & Taylor, K. (2006). The effects of overlearning and distributed practise on the

retention of mathematics knowledge. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(9), 1209-1224.

doi: 10.1002/acp.1266

Seabrook, R., Brown, G., & Solity, J. (2005). Distributed and massed practice: from the

laboratory to classroom. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(1), 107-122. doi:

10.1002/acp.1066
Stanger-Hall, K. (2012). Multiple-Choice Exams: An Obstacle for Higher-Level Thinking in

Introductory Science Classes. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 11(3), 294-306. doi:

10.1187/cbe.11-11-0100
Appendices