Research - what there is of it - shows that humans tend to retain
information better when they learn in short bursts at intervals rather in one
big chunk. This approach has been a mainstay of advice for students revising
for examinations for many years, in fact. You may like to reflect on the fact
that when you are learning something by heart you are more successful when you
spent frequent short amounts at the task, rather than approaching it in one
long session.
The phenomenon of the spacing effect, as it is called, was
first identified by Hermann Ebbinghaus in an 1885 book Über das
Gedächtnis. Untersuchungen zur experimentellen Psychologie (Memory:
A Contribution to Experimental Psychology). It is the phenomenon whereby
animals (including humans) more easily remember or learn items when they are
studied a few times spaced over a long time span rather than repeatedly studied
in a short span of time (what is called ‘massed presentation’). In practice,
the effect suggests that intense, last-minute studying or ‘cramming’ the
night before an exam is not likely to be as effective for longer term
retention as studying at intervals over a longer time frame. Last minute
cramming can, however, be effective for shorter term retention.
In terms of second language
acquisition it seems like common sense to assume that regular, short burst of
practice are likely to be more successful. At the very least, long learning
sessions place greater demands on concentration. But there has been research to
demonstrate the beneficial effects of spaced learning. For example, Harry P.
Bahrick et al (1993), whilst
acknowledging the difficulty of controlling long-term studies, having studied
four individuals over a nine year period, points out the benefits of frequent
recycling and spacing. Without spaced repetition of vocabulary, students are
more likely to forget.
In school settings the spaced learning effect suggests that timetabling
should be arranged for language lessons to be as frequent as possible (so
inevitably shorter). Other things being equal, six lessons of 30 minutes might
seem preferable to three lessons of one hour. Shorter lessons encourage the
teacher to work at pace, they allow for considerable L2 input nearly every day
and ensure that students are less likely to get bored. The spaced learning
effect should lead to better retention and acquisition.
Regrettably, school
administrators rarely take these things into account when organising the curriculum. Given the inadequacies of many
school timetables, for language teachers it strongly suggests that the scheme
of work or curriculum plan should incorporate spaced repetition of language,
both vocabulary and grammar. Sensible use of regular homework can also favour
more recycling. So, if you are hampered by having only one or two contacts with pupils per week, you need to make best use of homework to exploit the spacing effect.
References
Bahrick,
H.P., Bahrick, L.E., Bahrich, A.S., and Bahrich, P.E. (1993). ‘Maintenance
of Foreign Language Vocabulary and the Spacing Effect.’ Psychological Science 4/5.
http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/shkim/Bahrick%20et%20al.%20(1993)%20spacing%20effect.pdf
Ebbinghaus,
H. (1885). Über
das Gedächtnis. Untersuchungen zur experimentellen Psychologie. (Memory:
A Contribution to Experimental Psychology. Martino Fine Books, 2011.)
That would be fine if the pupils were settled and ready to work for 30 minutes. Unfortunately, with all the moving around between classes in most secondary schools, the lessons would be down to 25 or even 20 minutes.
ReplyDeleteI found that 40 minute lessons (effectively 30-35) worked effectively, meaning that four or five contacts per week were possible. Thanks for commenting.
ReplyDeleteJust to add that six contacts of 25 minutes still seems better to me than 3 x 60. The benefits for pupils' memories would be considerable.
ReplyDelete