Week #2
Learning Objectives
At the end of the workshop, participants will be able to:
A. Define massed practice and provide a common example of this approach used by students.
B. Explain the techniques of spacing, interleaving, and varied.
C. Define blocked practice and mixed practice.
D. Explain desirable difficulties.
E. List 3 strategies to enhance students’ performance.
Weekly Content Summaries
Chapter 3
![Violinist tired of practicing the same piece over and over](/uploads/5/9/5/6/59564357/6128138.jpg?314)
Massed practice is the repetition of one concept or skill (e.g., icing a cake, playing the same musical composition). This is a popular method that is often used under the illusion that long-term retention and learning is being achieved. The tradeoffs for this approach are you feel like you are gaining the mastery of the skill but the long-term retention is not happening (Brown, Roediger, & McDaniel, 2014). Cramming is an example of massed practice that is often used by students. If you have ever relied on this approach then you may have achieved a false sense of learning. More specifically, you may have know enough material to achieve a decent grade on the exam but if asked a week (or month) later about the concepts you probably would retrieve very little of the concepts. This is because cramming relies on short-term memory.
A better strategy is to mix our practices up and not rely on massed practice. There are certain characteristics that should be incorporated to make our practices more effective in achieving long-term retention (Brown, et al., 2014). You may use one, two, or all of them in your practice. The first is spacing, or when classes or sessions are spaced out of a certain time interval (e.g., five sessions, 1 week apart). Spacing requires increased effort for retrieval of knowledge. This leads to consolidation, in which memory traces are increased, which leads to better learning (Brown et al., 2014). There is empirical evidence to support this (e.g., Moulton et al., 2006). The second is interleaving, or when the practice allows for the use of two or more skills (e.g., mixing in questions from chapter 1 and 2). There is empirical support for this approach leading to better performance (e.g., Rohrer & Taylor, 2007). The last is varied or practicing the same skill but in different context (e.g., tossing a bean bag in a bucket at three feet and five feet). There is empirical evidence to support this approach producing better performance as well (e.g., Kantak, Sullivan, Fisher, Knowlton, & Winstein, 2010).
When these elements are brought together into a practice there will be tradeoffs (Brown et al., 2014). On one side, more effort is required, participants don’t perceive they are learning better, and they may even feel learning is slower. On the other side (more positive), there is enhanced performance, better skills in discriminating between types of problems and solutions, long-term retention, and mastery.
A better strategy is to mix our practices up and not rely on massed practice. There are certain characteristics that should be incorporated to make our practices more effective in achieving long-term retention (Brown, et al., 2014). You may use one, two, or all of them in your practice. The first is spacing, or when classes or sessions are spaced out of a certain time interval (e.g., five sessions, 1 week apart). Spacing requires increased effort for retrieval of knowledge. This leads to consolidation, in which memory traces are increased, which leads to better learning (Brown et al., 2014). There is empirical evidence to support this (e.g., Moulton et al., 2006). The second is interleaving, or when the practice allows for the use of two or more skills (e.g., mixing in questions from chapter 1 and 2). There is empirical support for this approach leading to better performance (e.g., Rohrer & Taylor, 2007). The last is varied or practicing the same skill but in different context (e.g., tossing a bean bag in a bucket at three feet and five feet). There is empirical evidence to support this approach producing better performance as well (e.g., Kantak, Sullivan, Fisher, Knowlton, & Winstein, 2010).
When these elements are brought together into a practice there will be tradeoffs (Brown et al., 2014). On one side, more effort is required, participants don’t perceive they are learning better, and they may even feel learning is slower. On the other side (more positive), there is enhanced performance, better skills in discriminating between types of problems and solutions, long-term retention, and mastery.
Chapter 4
![Making paths around a brick wall](/uploads/5/9/5/6/59564357/4809917.jpg?283)
The learning process can be described as a three-step process (Brown et al., 2014). We first encode, or convert what we see, hear, and touch into meaningful representations in our brain in our short-term memory. We then use consolidation, or the strengthening the mental representation for our long-term memory. This takes time as we go over the knowledge we have, provide meaning to the concepts, and make connections to our experiences. In the end we refine the information we retain (achieving reconsolidation). The last step is retrieval, which involves long-term retention of materials. We often establish cues that aid us in recalling the knowledge we possess. It is these retrieval cues that determine which knowledge is strengthen and retain and which knowledge is weakened or lost over time (Brown et al., 2014)
The more effort required to retrieve knowledge, the more it is ingrained in us. (Brown et al., 2014). Therefore, the retrieval cues will aid retention but this goes hand in hand with the use of interleaving and spaced practices, which were discussed previously. The end results are mental models and an increased ability to discriminate when the necessary knowledge is needed and how to use it in different situations.
Although the end results are positive, the road to get there may seem trying and impossible at times. We all encounter difficulties in our learning at some point. Desirable difficulties are like speed bumps, they slow us down but actually make our learning stronger (Bjork & Bjork as cited in Brown et al, 2014). Desirable difficulties often require more effort on our parts, we often have to dig deep!! Some strategies can help us along this journey. The use quizzes where answers are provided by the test taker (without the prompting of multiple choice alternatives), solving problems on our own (without instruction is preferred), and using reflective writing to summarize what has been learned, also known as “write to learn” (Brown et al., 2014). These techniques have been showed to increase performance. For example, the use of “write to learn” resulting in students earning ½ of a letter grade higher than students only copying material (McDaniel, 2015).
The more effort required to retrieve knowledge, the more it is ingrained in us. (Brown et al., 2014). Therefore, the retrieval cues will aid retention but this goes hand in hand with the use of interleaving and spaced practices, which were discussed previously. The end results are mental models and an increased ability to discriminate when the necessary knowledge is needed and how to use it in different situations.
Although the end results are positive, the road to get there may seem trying and impossible at times. We all encounter difficulties in our learning at some point. Desirable difficulties are like speed bumps, they slow us down but actually make our learning stronger (Bjork & Bjork as cited in Brown et al, 2014). Desirable difficulties often require more effort on our parts, we often have to dig deep!! Some strategies can help us along this journey. The use quizzes where answers are provided by the test taker (without the prompting of multiple choice alternatives), solving problems on our own (without instruction is preferred), and using reflective writing to summarize what has been learned, also known as “write to learn” (Brown et al., 2014). These techniques have been showed to increase performance. For example, the use of “write to learn” resulting in students earning ½ of a letter grade higher than students only copying material (McDaniel, 2015).
Video: Making Learning Stick: Evidence and Insights to Improve Teaching and Learning
![Female student developing questions for studying](/uploads/5/9/5/6/59564357/6717170.jpg?289)
This video provided guidance and suggestions about what strategies could help with the performance of your students. Empirical evidence was provided either from the lab settings or the classrooms to support these strategies. Before presenting what strategies to use, the biggest mistake students make was provided - rereading of the materials in the textbooks (Callender & McDaniel, 2009). In their research they found there were no differences found between performance and whether the chapter was read once or twice. Therefore, this should be discouraged by educators when advising for study preparation. Instead, educators should use the suggested strategy of generating understanding. Students should spent their time more productively through their own self-examination of self-imposed questions - why, how, and what-ifs about the material being studied (McDaniel, 2015).
Further strategies included: spaced out instruction, mixing up practices, and quizzes. The suggestion to mix up the practices (numerous skills or concepts are practiced simultaneously) instead of relying on blocked practice (where only one skill or concept is practiced). Rohrer and Taylor (2007) found that in practice the blockers had higher performance than mixers (85% vs. 60%, respectively). However in delayed testing the mixers performance remained the same, while the blockers’ performance decreased significantly (60% vs. 20%, respectively). The rationale behind this was the mixers’ performance is that they were able to discriminate between different types of problems and how to approach each since this is how they were trained, while the blockers were not.
The last suggestion was to use quizzes to aid in retrieval practice to strengthen the learning of knowledge. In addition, it was pointed out that quizzes should not just required memorization but should include application and evaluation (the higher order of Bloom’s taxonomy) to strengthen the learning long-term.
Further strategies included: spaced out instruction, mixing up practices, and quizzes. The suggestion to mix up the practices (numerous skills or concepts are practiced simultaneously) instead of relying on blocked practice (where only one skill or concept is practiced). Rohrer and Taylor (2007) found that in practice the blockers had higher performance than mixers (85% vs. 60%, respectively). However in delayed testing the mixers performance remained the same, while the blockers’ performance decreased significantly (60% vs. 20%, respectively). The rationale behind this was the mixers’ performance is that they were able to discriminate between different types of problems and how to approach each since this is how they were trained, while the blockers were not.
The last suggestion was to use quizzes to aid in retrieval practice to strengthen the learning of knowledge. In addition, it was pointed out that quizzes should not just required memorization but should include application and evaluation (the higher order of Bloom’s taxonomy) to strengthen the learning long-term.
Connection to Field and/or Discipline
Human Resource Management
![Male student looking confused](/uploads/5/9/5/6/59564357/218922.jpg?347)
The subject of learning and retrieval practices is very important in the teaching of Human Resource Management (HR) at a college level. However, it is becoming clearer and clearer every week from this class that there is a huge gap in how most educators (at least in the HR area) are prepared in their graduate studies. Instruction is provided in the content areas and in research methods. However, the proper way to design a course and learning principles are not usually part of the curriculum (at least in my studies). Therefore, we often rely on what we observed in the classroom when we were students - mass practice. We move from one topic to the next without trying to incorporate the previous topics across the last few chapters (mixed practice). Therefore, it would be great if the research in learning was integrated into doctoral programs.
Educators need to understand why the use of mixed practice is a better approach for learning and long-term retention. Professors could integrate projects instead of assigning them one at a time in a massed practice approach. In addition, the “write to learn” concept and the use of quizzes with fill in the blanks and short answers could be used. These changes should be easy to implement but it does may require course revisions. Course revisions often require time that is a scarce commodity for any faculty member. I found it particularly interesting in the video when the faculty member talked about the professor who received a million dollar grant and had 2-3 post-doctoral students helping to revise his course for a more active learning approach (McDaniel, 2015). The video went on to say how there are simpler things to do but we often lack the time to: 1) just think about the changes we could make, 2) to actually come up with viable changes, and 3) how we could implement these changes. I do think educators need to expect push back from the students, who often perceive massed practice as effective (McDaniel, 2015) but it is a worthy effort if our ultimate goal is to help students learn long-term.
In the discipline of HR there is a huge professional association for HR professionals and faculty. This is the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). This association does a lot of work with faculty to gauge what is involved in the curriculum of HR programs at the graduate and undergraduate levels. They offer suggestions and have even put together educational materials (e.g., case studies, powerpoints) for educators. Yet there is nothing offered about effective instruction. This is even more surprising since many of the principles discussed in the chapter readings are totally related to the area of training, which is a big part of HR and a topic often covered by SHRM.
My Personal Experiences
![Female students studying art work in a museum](/uploads/5/9/5/6/59564357/622809.jpg?330)
I have had two personal experiences that resonate with the chapter readings this week. One occurred as a faculty member, and the other as a student.
I recently taught in the Spring 2015 a projects course in HR where there are student teams that work on five different deliverables for their assigned client. This is a really intense course as each deliverable must go through a series of revisions until the deliverables is of the highest quality. This course is a tremendous amount of work on the faculty member part, much more than a seated content-based course. I was amazed that even though these students have been through an Intro to HR class, a Staffing class, a Compensation class, and maybe even a Training and Developing class that their retention of knowledge throughout the semesters seemed to be very minimal. There were students that had received high grades but did not achieve long-term retention of the material. This experience was surprising to me because at the time I could not understand what was going on but now after the readings and videos in class it has shed some new light on the reasoning. It has truly made me question my own class structure. I realize that there are some less dramatic changes that can have big payoff in regards to the learning of my students. I hope to incorporate them in to the spring semester (e.g., more quizzes, mixed practice).
When I was a student I had one experience that highlighted the use of interleaved practice and mixed practice. My experience was as an undergraduate student taking an Art History course. I was not looking forward to this class but it was a requirement. My instructor would teach us about the various artists and their styles but she would test us by putting up a
completely different art piece that we had never seen before, was not discussed before, and was from a different period of time. She would then asked us to describe how the various artists we were supposed to know would have painted the subject of the displayed piece. Therefore, we needed to understand not only the artists, their style, and their techniques but we needed to apply this knowledge to an unfamiliar piece. This form of testing was interleaved and mixed in nature. It was very effective.
She would also use the same testing technique but inside of showing the piece in the classroom she made us go to a museum in New York City (e.g., the MOMA [Museum of Modern Art]) and view pieces and demonstrate how particular artists was influenced by other artists, styles, and techniques from different periods. We had to specifically link the influence of previous artists and their style to other artists. This was a very difficult class but one I truly fell in love with! My interest and appreciation in art has flourished based on this classroom experience. Thinking back to her teaching style I understand how interleaving and mixed practice impacted my own learning. In addition, I often think what if the teacher used mass practice only and how different my learning would have been.
I recently taught in the Spring 2015 a projects course in HR where there are student teams that work on five different deliverables for their assigned client. This is a really intense course as each deliverable must go through a series of revisions until the deliverables is of the highest quality. This course is a tremendous amount of work on the faculty member part, much more than a seated content-based course. I was amazed that even though these students have been through an Intro to HR class, a Staffing class, a Compensation class, and maybe even a Training and Developing class that their retention of knowledge throughout the semesters seemed to be very minimal. There were students that had received high grades but did not achieve long-term retention of the material. This experience was surprising to me because at the time I could not understand what was going on but now after the readings and videos in class it has shed some new light on the reasoning. It has truly made me question my own class structure. I realize that there are some less dramatic changes that can have big payoff in regards to the learning of my students. I hope to incorporate them in to the spring semester (e.g., more quizzes, mixed practice).
When I was a student I had one experience that highlighted the use of interleaved practice and mixed practice. My experience was as an undergraduate student taking an Art History course. I was not looking forward to this class but it was a requirement. My instructor would teach us about the various artists and their styles but she would test us by putting up a
completely different art piece that we had never seen before, was not discussed before, and was from a different period of time. She would then asked us to describe how the various artists we were supposed to know would have painted the subject of the displayed piece. Therefore, we needed to understand not only the artists, their style, and their techniques but we needed to apply this knowledge to an unfamiliar piece. This form of testing was interleaved and mixed in nature. It was very effective.
She would also use the same testing technique but inside of showing the piece in the classroom she made us go to a museum in New York City (e.g., the MOMA [Museum of Modern Art]) and view pieces and demonstrate how particular artists was influenced by other artists, styles, and techniques from different periods. We had to specifically link the influence of previous artists and their style to other artists. This was a very difficult class but one I truly fell in love with! My interest and appreciation in art has flourished based on this classroom experience. Thinking back to her teaching style I understand how interleaving and mixed practice impacted my own learning. In addition, I often think what if the teacher used mass practice only and how different my learning would have been.
Suggestions for Implementation
![Female student thinking about what she learned in class](/uploads/5/9/5/6/59564357/3368228.jpg?348)
Based on the empirical evidence provided in the readings
(Brown et al., 2014) and video (McDaniel, 2015), several suggestions can be
offered to help with learning. One major suggestion would be to discourage students from
rereading the textbook before the exam (McDaniel, 2015). Instead, educators
could offer the students ways to be more productive with their time.
One way could be for students to think about and recite the knowledge they have been acquiring. Students could develop their own questions to make sure they understand the concepts. For example, students could ask questions like “how the concept works?”, “why it works?”, and run “what-if scenarios about the concept?” This would help to generate understanding. Empirical evidence supports the use of this technique with higher performance (McDaniel, 2015). Educators could provide examples of such questions for a particular concept so students understand how to construct such questions on their own.
A second suggestion would be to use the concept of “learn to write” to allow students to reflect on what they have learned from class. I believe there are different ways to implement this. You could have the student write 2-3 concepts that were covered in the previous week’s class. An alternate would be having the students write 2-3 takeaways from the class you just completed. Both approaches could be used if your class only met once a week or varied based on your class schedule. Empirical evidence indicated the use of this technique raised a student’s grade about ½ of a letter grade (McDaniel, 2015).
A third suggestion would be to incorporate more quizzes into the classroom settings. Instead of a multiple choice format you may want to use fill-in or short-answers. These types of quizzes require more effort for retrieval (McDaniel, 2015). Students can receive feedback about what the areas they know and what areas that need more attention. You do want to make sure your items require more of the student than just the ability to memorize terms, this could include application type problems.
The fourth suggestion would be to use a mix practice instead of the popular block approach. Unfortunately, many educators (myself included) have students practice on one concept before moving onto the next. Although performance after practice is higher in the blockers (one concept or skill per practice) than mixers (multiple skills being used), retention is shown to be higher in the mixers (Rohrer & Taylor, 2007). Therefore, educators (at least in the field of business) may be contributing to the lack of critical thinking skills which is often a common complaint of employers about recent graduates. We contribute to the students’ lack of ability to discriminate between problems, concepts, or approaches which are important in developing critical thinking skills. We really need to rethink the practices we give our students and start focusing on mixing our practices.
One way could be for students to think about and recite the knowledge they have been acquiring. Students could develop their own questions to make sure they understand the concepts. For example, students could ask questions like “how the concept works?”, “why it works?”, and run “what-if scenarios about the concept?” This would help to generate understanding. Empirical evidence supports the use of this technique with higher performance (McDaniel, 2015). Educators could provide examples of such questions for a particular concept so students understand how to construct such questions on their own.
A second suggestion would be to use the concept of “learn to write” to allow students to reflect on what they have learned from class. I believe there are different ways to implement this. You could have the student write 2-3 concepts that were covered in the previous week’s class. An alternate would be having the students write 2-3 takeaways from the class you just completed. Both approaches could be used if your class only met once a week or varied based on your class schedule. Empirical evidence indicated the use of this technique raised a student’s grade about ½ of a letter grade (McDaniel, 2015).
A third suggestion would be to incorporate more quizzes into the classroom settings. Instead of a multiple choice format you may want to use fill-in or short-answers. These types of quizzes require more effort for retrieval (McDaniel, 2015). Students can receive feedback about what the areas they know and what areas that need more attention. You do want to make sure your items require more of the student than just the ability to memorize terms, this could include application type problems.
The fourth suggestion would be to use a mix practice instead of the popular block approach. Unfortunately, many educators (myself included) have students practice on one concept before moving onto the next. Although performance after practice is higher in the blockers (one concept or skill per practice) than mixers (multiple skills being used), retention is shown to be higher in the mixers (Rohrer & Taylor, 2007). Therefore, educators (at least in the field of business) may be contributing to the lack of critical thinking skills which is often a common complaint of employers about recent graduates. We contribute to the students’ lack of ability to discriminate between problems, concepts, or approaches which are important in developing critical thinking skills. We really need to rethink the practices we give our students and start focusing on mixing our practices.
Formative Assessment
Learn
In this assessment, your will type in the correct answer to the term or statement presented.
References
Brown, P. C., Roediger III, H. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make it stick: The science of successful learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Callender, A. A., & McDaniel, M. A. (2009). The limited benefits of rereading educational texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 30-41.
Kantak, S. S., Sullivan, K. J., Fisher, B. E., Knowlton, B. J., & Winstein, C. J. (2010). Neural substrates of motor memory consolidation depend on practice structure. Nature neuroscience, 13(8), 923-925.
McDaniel, M. A. (2015). Making learning stick: Evidence and insights to improve teaching and learning. Presentation at Franklin & Marshall College. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=japP8Cr0q6g
Moulton, C. A. E., Dubrowski, A., MacRae, H., Graham, B., Grober, E., & Reznick, R. (2006). Teaching surgical skills: what kind of practice makes perfect?: a randomized, controlled trial. Annals of surgery, 244(3), 400-417.
Rohrer, D., & Taylor, K. (2007). The shuffling of mathematics problems improves learning. Instructional Science, 35(6), 481-498.
Callender, A. A., & McDaniel, M. A. (2009). The limited benefits of rereading educational texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 30-41.
Kantak, S. S., Sullivan, K. J., Fisher, B. E., Knowlton, B. J., & Winstein, C. J. (2010). Neural substrates of motor memory consolidation depend on practice structure. Nature neuroscience, 13(8), 923-925.
McDaniel, M. A. (2015). Making learning stick: Evidence and insights to improve teaching and learning. Presentation at Franklin & Marshall College. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=japP8Cr0q6g
Moulton, C. A. E., Dubrowski, A., MacRae, H., Graham, B., Grober, E., & Reznick, R. (2006). Teaching surgical skills: what kind of practice makes perfect?: a randomized, controlled trial. Annals of surgery, 244(3), 400-417.
Rohrer, D., & Taylor, K. (2007). The shuffling of mathematics problems improves learning. Instructional Science, 35(6), 481-498.