Psychology 225H-B 2006 FA Lab

Psychology 225H-B 2006 FA Lab. #1: Massed versus Distributed Practice ^{1, 3, 4}

Your title (centred, lines double spaced) should appear both on the cover page and at the top of the first page which immediately follows the abstract. The title should summarize the main idea of the paper simply and with style. It should be a concise statement of the main topic and should identify the actual variables or theoretical issues and the relationship between them. (e.g., The Effects of Sex and Target Rotation Angle on Same/Different Decision Times). Note that only the first letters of content words are capitalized in titles. APA recommended length is 10 to 12 words. As well as a title, the cover page should include the author’s name (your name; see Mitchell, Jolley, & O’Shea , 2007, pp. 57-58). For purposes of this lab please also include the course number, instructor’s name, and the id code you were assigned by the PSYCHEXPERIMENTS website when you participated in the study.

Abstract

The abstract is typed, lines double spaced, on a separate page immediately following the cover page. It is a brief (100-120 words), comprehensive summary of the contents of your lab report (see Publication Manual of the APA, 2001, pp. 12-15; Mitchell et al., 2007, pp. 58-59). Ideally it includes content from each main section of the report (i.e., the introduction, Method, Results and Discussion).

The introduction starts on a new page immediately following the abstract. The title is repeated at the top of this page. Do not use the heading “Introduction”. This section introduces the problem, develops the background of the problem, and states the purpose and rationale for the study (see Publication Manual of the APA, 2001, pp. 15-17; Mitchell et al., 2007, pp.59-62). This should include an introduction to the topic and a review of previous research relevant to the questions of interest. Based on the foregoing review, a rationale for the present investigation should be laid out as the basis for generating hypotheses and predictions. For purposes of this lab the introduction to the lab that follows next will be accepted as an introduction to your lab.

[Repeat your title here at start of introduction]

Spreading out learning or practice over a longer period of time (i.e., distributed or spaced practice) is generally better for learning and remembering a task or information than concentrating the learning or practice over a shorter period of time (i.e., massed practice). Research on this topic can be traced back to Hermann Ebbinghaus who reported that 38 repetitions of a list of 12 nonsense syllables (e.g., KAZ, LEJ) distributed over 3 days produced about as much learning (savings) as 68 repetitions of a list practised on a single day. Based on these findings Ebbinghaus concluded that:

It makes the assumption probable that with any considerable number of repetitions a suitable distribution of them over a space of time is decidedly more advantageous than the massing of them at a single time (Ebbinghaus, 1885/1964, p. 89).

In more than a century since Ebbinghaus’ early reports, his findings and conclusions have been supported by numerous other researchers (see Haberlandt, 1999; Neath & Suprenant, 2003; Radvansky, 2006). For example, Dore and Hilgard (1937) demonstrated an advantage for distributed over massed practice in a motor learning situation. They used a pursuit rotor task in which participants were given six practice trials to learn to hold a pointer in contact with a small disk on the outer edge of a rotating disk. The critical manipulation was that rest time between trials varied from one to 11 minutes. They found that the final performance level, as well as the rate of improvement from trial to trial, was better for participants who had the longer rest periods (distributed practice) as compared to those who had shorter rest periods (massed practice). Lorge (1930, as cited by Neath & Surprenant, 2003, pp. 346-347) reported a similar advantage for distributed over massed practice in mirror drawing task in which participants were required to trace the cutout outline of a six-pointed star without touching the edges of the star while looking through a mirror. A shield was used to block the participants’ direct view of their hand and the figure to be traced, and the task was difficult because the direction of hand movement as observed through the mirror was the opposite of the actual direction of hand movement. Performance was measured by the time taken to complete the task and the number of errors (touching the edges). The results showed that performance improved more rapidly with distributed practice (1 minute or 1 day rest intervals between trials) than with massed practice (no rest interval between trials) so that performance after 20 trials of massed practice was the same as after only five or six trials of distributed practice.

The purpose of our class lab study was to partially replicate Lorge’s (1930) study using a computer-simulated version of the mirror tracing task. Participants were required to use the computer mouse to draw a line around the outline of a star depicted on the screen. In order to simulate the reversing effect of looking through a mirror, the mouse was programmed to draw lines on the screen in the direction opposite to the mouse’s movement. Rest interval between practice trials were either short (massed practice) or long (distributed practice).

Based on the findings reviewed above, it was hypothesized that mirror tracing performance should improve with practice. Specifically it was predicted that overall tracing times would decrease across practice trials. It was also hypothesized that distributed practice should result in better learning than massed practice. Specifically it was predicted that overall tracing times should be faster for distributed than for massed practice. Finally, it was hypothesized that the advantage for distributed over massed practice should not be evident on trial one before the length of the rest time could take effect, but the advantage should increase with each successive trial. Specifically it was predicted that tracing times for the massed and distributed practice conditions would not differ on trial one, but that the difference in tracing times between massed and distributed practice conditions would increase over trials.

Method

The method section tells the reader what you did and how you did it in sufficient detail so that a reader could reasonably replicate your study - even if the PSYCEXPERIMENTS website were not available! (see Publication Manual of the APA, 2001, pp. 17-20; Mitchell et al., 2007, pp.62-65). The headings Participants, Materials, Design, and Procedure should be used in this lab.

Participants

Under Participants, describe the number, sex, and age of participants, the population from which the sample was drawn, and motivation (course participation, for course credit, volunteer) of participants, and ethical treatment.

Design

Under the heading Design, describe the within-subject and between subject independent variables and levels, as well as the dependent variables.⁵

Procedure

The Procedure should summarize each step in the execution of the research so that in 200 years a scientist can replicate this study exactly, even if the PSYCHEXPERIMENTS website no longer exists. Be selective and succinct. This section precisely describes, step by step, only the important aspects of the sequence of events that took place during the study, including instructions to participants, the size, shape, screen location and timing of stimuli that were presented, how and when the stimuli were presented, and exactly what the participant’s actions were. Condense and summarize less relevant information. Leave out irrelevant information and avoid describing in mind-deadening detail the content of each of the preliminary screens..

Results

The results section describes and summarizes your findings and the statistical procedures used to arrive at the findings (see Publication Manual of the APA, 2001, pp. 20-26; Mitchell et al., 2007, pp. 65-77). As a general rule, findings should be discussed in the same order as the predictions to which they are relevant were stated in the introduction.

1. How might this study have been improved? How might this study be extended to answer questions that this study left unanswered or to investigate further aspects of massed versus distributed practice?

References

American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5^th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. (BL reference, non circ. BF 76.7 .A46 2001 and BL reserve, P488177)

Dore, L. R., & Hilgard, E. R. Spaced practice and the maturation hypothesis. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary & Applied, 4, 245-259.

Ebbinghaus, H. (1885/1964). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology. New York: Dover.

Haberlandt, K. (1999). Human memory: Exploration and application. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Mitchell, M. L., Jolley, J. M., & O’Shea, R. P. (2006). Writing for psychology (2^nd Canadian ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Neath, I., & Surprenant, A. M. (2003). Human memory: An introduction to research, data, and theory (2^nd Ed.). Toronto: Thompson/Wadsworth.

Radvansky, G. (2006). Human memory. New York: Pearson.

Footnotes

¹ The Publication Manual of the APA (2001, pp. 306-320) and Mitchell et al. (2007, pp. 84-95) show sample APA style reports that can serve as useful models. Also Mitchell, Jolley, & O’Shea (2007, pp. 53-100) give an extensive overview of how to write a lab report.

² Neath & Surprenant (2003, pp. 346-349) provides a good review of relevant findings including Lorge’s (1930) study on which our lab study was based. Radvansky (2006, pp.151-153) provides an overview of the most common explanations. These readings are available in the folder outside of my office (OC 232).

³ All pages should be numbered sequentially in the upper right corner, starting with the cover page as 1.

⁴ LABS SHOULD BE TYPED, ALL LINES DOUBLED SPACED, INCLUDING THE “References” PAGE