Display options
Cite
Benjamin AS, Tullis J. What makes distributed practice effective?. Cogn Psychol. 2010;61(3):228-47doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.05.004.
Benjamin, A. S., & Tullis, J. (2010). What makes distributed practice effective?. Cognitive psychology, 61(3), 228-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.05.004
Benjamin, Aaron S, and Tullis, Jonathan. "What makes distributed practice effective?." Cognitive psychology vol. 61,3 (2010): 228-47. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.05.004
Benjamin AS, Tullis J. What makes distributed practice effective?. Cogn Psychol. 2010 Nov;61(3):228-47. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.05.004. PMID: 20580350; PMCID: PMC2930147.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Cogn Psychol. 2010 Nov;61(3):228-47. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.05.004.

What makes distributed practice effective?.

Cognitive psychology

Aaron S Benjamin, Jonathan Tullis

Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology and Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, United States. [email protected]

PMID: 20580350 PMCID: PMC2930147 DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.05.004

Abstract

The advantages provided to memory by the distribution of multiple practice or study opportunities are among the most powerful effects in memory research. In this paper, we critically review the class of theories that presume contextual or encoding variability as the sole basis for the advantages of distributed practice, and recommend an alternative approach based on the idea that some study events remind learners of other study events. Encoding variability theory encounters serious challenges in two important phenomena that we review here: superadditivity and nonmonotonicity. The bottleneck in such theories lies in the assumption that mnemonic benefits arise from the increasing independence, rather than interdependence, of study opportunities. The reminding model accounts for many basic results in the literature on distributed practice, readily handles data that are problematic for encoding variability theories, including superadditivity and nonmonotonicity, and provides a unified theoretical framework for understanding the effects of repetition and the effects of associative relationships on memory.

Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

References

  1. Psychol Rev. 1957 Jan;64(1):49-60 - PubMed
  2. J Exp Psychol. 1963 Aug;66:206-9 - PubMed
  3. Mem Cognit. 1988 May;16(3):232-42 - PubMed
  4. Psychol Rev. 1955 May;62(3):145-54 - PubMed
  5. Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn. 2008 May;15(3):257-80 - PubMed
  6. Mem Cognit. 1973 Dec;1(4):430-4 - PubMed
  7. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007 Jul;33(4):704-19 - PubMed
  8. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1998 Jan;24(1):161-72 - PubMed
  9. Psychol Sci. 2008 Nov;19(11):1095-102 - PubMed
  10. Psychon Bull Rev. 1997 Jun;4(2):260-4 - PubMed
  11. Mem Cognit. 2004 Mar;32(2):336-50 - PubMed
  12. Mem Cognit. 1975 Jul;3(4):451-7 - PubMed
  13. Psychol Rev. 1955 Sep;62(5):369-77 - PubMed
  14. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1990 Mar;16(2):163-78 - PubMed
  15. Psychon Bull Rev. 2006 Jun;13(3):439-45 - PubMed
  16. J Exp Psychol. 1962 Nov;64:550-1 - PubMed
  17. Psychol Bull. 2006 May;132(3):354-80 - PubMed
  18. Science. 1967 Oct 27;158(3800):532 - PubMed
  19. Mem Cognit. 2010 Jan;38(1):102-15 - PubMed
  20. Cogn Sci. 2005 Jul 8;29(4):559-86 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types

Grant support