The distributed practice effect and incidental language learning

Walker, Neil and Rebuschat, Patrick and Monaghan, Padraic (2024) The distributed practice effect and incidental language learning. PhD thesis, Lancaster University.

Text (2024WalkerPhD)
2024WalkerPhD.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial.
Download (2MB)

Abstract

The benefit for spaced compared to massed presentation of to-be-learned items on delayed post-tests, known as the spacing effect, is one of the oldest findings in cognitive psychology. However, despite the robustness of findings in studies investigating distributed practice with paired-associate learning, such as the rote-learning of L2 vocabulary, the findings for studies that have investigated L2 learning under incidental learning conditions are more mixed. Over two studies, I investigated aspects of the temporal distribution of the presentation of L2 grammar and vocabulary when learned under two different incidental learning paradigms. In the first study, I investigated the role that distributed and massed practice play in the learning of an artificial language with nouns, verbs, adjectives and case markers, bound by a verb-final word order under incidental cross-situational learning conditions, and the role that five individual differences in memory (visual and verbal declarative memory, procedural memory, working memory capacity and phonological short-term memory) affected learning and retention. Results from study 1 showed that there was no significant difference in delayed post-test results between massed and distributed practice schedules. However, results suggest that lags may result in a shift in attention to different aspects of the language (from verbs to nouns) for those with strong declarative memory. Building on these findings, in study 2 I investigated whether several factors (intentional vs. incidental learning conditions; items that were presented in training vs. items that require a generalisation of rules; and declarative memory) influence the optimal lag for a 35-day retention interval when learning form-meaning connections (animacy and distance) of four artificial determiners. Results of study 2 mirrored study 1 in that, under incidental conditions, there was no difference between massed and distributed schedules. For the intentional aspect of the form-meaning connection, distributed practice schedules outperformed massed, with no one optimal lag.