Distributed practice is more effective than massed practice
It has long been known that spacing practice (reviewing learning or practicing a skill at spaced intervals) is far more effective than massed practice (in one heavy session).
An interesting example of this comes from a study that aimed to find the best way of teaching postmen to type, which happened at the request of the British Post Office.
The researchers put postmen on one of four schedules:
– an intensive schedule of two two-hour daily sessions
– one of two intermediate schedules involving two hours a day, either as one two-hour session, or two one-hour sessions
– a more gradual schedule of one hour a day
The researchers found quite dramatic differences, with the one-hour-a-day group learning as much in 55 hours as the four-hour-a-day group in 80. Moreover, the gradual group showed greater retention of their skills when tested several months later.
Research has also demonstrated that people commonly over-estimate the value of massed practice, and tend not to give due recognition to the value of spacing practice.
This particular study confirmed this, by finding that, notwithstanding their superior performance, the gradual group were the least happy with the program – for though they learned much more quickly in terms of hours, it took them many more days (80 hours at four hours a day is 20 days, but 55 hours at one hour a day is 55 days).
Micro-distribution practice
What about practice over much shorter intervals? Say you are learning vocabulary in a foreign language – is it better to repeat a word twice in rapid succession, or to space out the repetitions?
On the basis of the distribution principle, the answer is clear. Go through your list once, then repeat it.
That way, every item will be maximally distant from its own repetition. But the distribution principle isn’t the only memory principle at work here.
