## Key Ideas > [!abstract] Core Concepts > > - Multiple exposures spread over time produce stronger learning than consecutive exposures (Cepeda et al., 2006) > - Regular spaced review reduces knowledge decay and strengthens long-term retention (Ebbinghaus, 1885/1964; Bahrick & Phelps, 1987) > - Daily, weekly, and monthly review cycles support retention (Cepeda et al., 2008) ## Definition The spacing effect is a learning phenomenon in which information presented over distributed intervals produces better long-term retention than the same information presented in consecutive sessions (Cepeda et al., 2006). ## Connected to [[Retrieval Practice]] | [[Interleaving Effect]] | [[Memory]] | [[Formative Assessment]] | [[Cognitive Load Theory]] | [[Elaboration Theory]] --- ## Implementation strategies Implementing the spacing effect requires planning across multiple timeframes (Rohrer & Taylor, 2007). Teachers can dedicate part of each lesson to [[Retrieval Practice|reviewing]] concepts learnt several weeks earlier (Rosenshine, 2012). This maintains accessibility of foundational knowledge and prevents skill decay. A typical structure includes 5-10 minutes at the lesson start revisiting material from 2-3 weeks ago. Homework assignments should re-expose students to important information learnt previously, not just practise current topics (Rohrer, Dedrick, & Stershic, 2015). Effective homework mixes recent learning with spaced review of earlier concepts, ensuring students encounter material multiple times across increasing intervals. Examinations and quizzes should be cumulative rather than topic-specific (McDaniel, Anderson, Derbish, & Morrisette, 2007). This encourages students to maintain knowledge over time rather than cramming and forgetting. Cumulative assessment makes spacing a necessity, not an option. ## Practical applications Translating the spacing effect into classroom practice requires concrete structures. Lesson structure should include 5-10 minutes reviewing concepts from 2-3 weeks ago before introducing new content. This positions spaced practice as a lesson component rather than an optional addition. Homework should mix current topic questions with spaced practice from previous units. For example, a homework on quadratics might include 8 quadratic questions and 4 questions spanning fractions, angles, and algebra from previous terms. Quiz design should include questions spanning multiple previous topics rather than single-topic assessments. This requires students to maintain knowledge long-term and practise discrimination between methods. Long-term planning should map out when key concepts will be revisited across the term and year. Strategic spacing ensures foundational skills receive regular reinforcement at increasing intervals. ## Desirable difficulties and the spacing effect The spacing effect exemplifies a broader principle identified by Robert and Elizabeth Bjork at UCLA: desirable difficulties are instructional manipulations that slow apparent learning but enhance long-term retention and transfer. **Their revolutionary insight: "Conditions of learning that make performance improve rapidly often fail to support long-term retention and transfer, whereas conditions that create challenges and slow the rate of apparent learning often optimise long-term retention and transfer"** (Bjork & Bjork, 2011). This represents one of the most counterintuitive findings in learning science: what feels easy and produces rapid gains does not equal what produces lasting learning. Spacing presents a metacognitive challenge because immediate performance appears worse with distributed practice than with massed practice. The spacing effect is "one of the most general and robust effects from across the entire history of experimental research on learning and memory" (Bjork & Bjork, 2011). Cepeda et al.'s (2006) meta-analysis of 317 experiments found that 259 out of 271 cases showed spacing superior to massing. Bahrick et al.'s (1993) nine-year foreign language study found that 13 sessions spaced 56 days apart equalled 26 sessions with 14-day intervals for retention, doubling efficiency through optimal spacing. **Learning versus performance**: Learning involves relatively permanent changes supporting long-term retention and transfer. Performance involves temporary fluctuations observable during or immediately after acquisition (Soderstrom & Bjork, 2015). Students and teachers often confuse performance for learning. Massed practice produces better immediate performance, whilst spaced practice produces better long-term learning. This creates problems when judging effectiveness based on current performance rather than delayed retention. The Bjorks distinguish storage strength (how well information is entrenched in long-term memory) from retrieval strength (current accessibility). The critical finding: learners confuse high retrieval strength, easy recall now, with high storage strength. What produces rapid performance gains does not equal what produces lasting learning. Students intuitively prefer restudying to testing, believing it more effective, but research shows the opposite. **Why spacing works as a desirable difficulty**: Each retrieval attempt requires more effort when spaced, forcing deeper processing (Bjork, 1994). Spacing prevents material feeling too familiar, which can create illusory confidence. The slight forgetting between study sessions requires re-encoding, strengthening memory traces. Material studied in varied contexts over time becomes less dependent on specific retrieval cues. **The metacognitive challenge**: Students and teachers naturally prefer methods showing rapid gains. Fluent performance during massed practice creates false confidence about learning. The difficulty of retrieval after spacing feels like poor learning when it actually signals deeper processing (Bjork & Bjork, 2011). Teachers face pressure to demonstrate immediate progress rather than long-term retention. This leads to abandoning effective practices that don't show instant results. **Teaching is counterintuitive: effective practices often feel harder and show slower initial progress.** **Optimal spacing intervals**: Research on optimal spacing depends on the retention interval desired. For retention over days, optimal spacing is hours to a day. For retention over weeks, optimal spacing is days. For retention over months, optimal spacing is weeks (Cepeda et al., 2008). The general principle: longer retention requires longer spacing, but gaps should not be so long that complete forgetting occurs. ## Key benefits Research identifies multiple advantages of the spacing effect. Regular exposure maintains knowledge accessibility and reduces forgetting (Bahrick & Phelps, 1987; Kornell & Bjork, 2008). Spaced review exposes students to concepts in varied contexts over time, strengthening connections (Bjork & Allen, 1970). Knowledge practised over time applies more readily to new contexts than knowledge concentrated in massed practice (Pan, 2015). Well-spaced knowledge becomes more automatic, freeing working memory for complex thinking (Sweller, van Merriënboer, & Paas, 2019). The effortful retrieval required by spacing strengthens memory more than easier retrieval from massed practice (Bjork, 1994). ## References Bahrick, H. P., Bahrick, L. E., Bahrick, A. S., & Bahrick, P. E. (1993). Maintenance of foreign language vocabulary and the spacing effect. *Psychological Science*, 4(5), 316-321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00571.x Bahrick, H. P., & Phelps, E. (1987). Retention of Spanish vocabulary over 8 years. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition*, 13(2), 344-349. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.13.2.344 Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. Shimamura (Eds.), *Metacognition: Knowing about knowing* (pp. 185-205). MIT Press. Bjork, R. A., & Allen, T. W. (1970). The spacing effect: Consolidation or differential encoding? *Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior*, 9(5), 567-572. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(70)80103-7 Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In M. A. Gernsbacher, R. W. Pew, L. M. Hough, & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), *Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society* (pp. 56-64). Worth Publishers. Soderstrom, N. C., & Bjork, R. A. (2015). Learning versus performance: An integrative review. *Perspectives on Psychological Science*, 10(2), 176-199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615569000 Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. *Psychological Bulletin*, 132(3), 354-380. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354 Cepeda, N. J., Vul, E., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T., & Pashler, H. (2008). Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention. *Psychological Science*, 19(11), 1095-1102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02209.x Ebbinghaus, H. (1964). *Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology* (H. A. Ruger & C. E. Bussenius, Trans.). Dover. (Original work published 1885) Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Learning concepts and categories: Is spacing the "enemy of induction"? *Psychological Science*, 19(6), 585-592. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02127.x McDaniel, M. A., Anderson, J. L., Derbish, M. H., & Morrisette, N. (2007). Testing the testing effect in the classroom. *European Journal of Cognitive Psychology*, 19(4-5), 494-513. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440701326154 Pan, S. C. (2015). The interleaving effect: Mixing it up boosts learning. *Scientific American*, 4 August 2015. Rohrer, D., Dedrick, R. F., & Stershic, S. (2015). Interleaved practice improves mathematics learning. *Journal of Educational Psychology*, 107(3), 900-908. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000001 Rohrer, D., & Taylor, K. (2007). The shuffling of mathematics problems improves learning. *Instructional Science*, 35(6), 481-498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9015-8 Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. *American Educator*, 36(1), 12-19, 39. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. *Educational Psychology Review*, 31(2), 261-292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5