Monthly Archives: September 2015

Totally Spaced Out: When to review?

Spacing Effect and Vocabulary Learning

In the previous post, I talked about the importance of repetition for learning new vocabulary. Some interesting research on repetition has provided some answers on the questions of when and how often to review vocabulary words.

Back when I began learning Korean, I tried to learn 10 or so words per day by writing them down in a small notebook along with the English translations. While riding the subway to and from work, I would take out the notebook and quiz myself. I knew that I needed to review the words I had studied, but I wasn’t sure how to do it. Do I review ALL the words each day? As the list grew to hundreds of words, this soon became impractical. I tried a variety of plans and finally settled on reviewing the most recent 20 or so words I was studying, and then periodically (i.e., whenever the mood struck me) recheck my earliest pages.

Though my reviews of most recent 20 words went well enough, my reviews of the earliest pages did not go so well. I realized I was forgetting more than half of them, and I feared that despite my additional reviews, the words would slip away later as well. There were also times when I was speaking in Korean and was unable to recall a word that I knew I had ‘learned’ from my vocabulary study. It seemed hopeless, and I soon lost my motivation for further vocabulary study. At that time, I probably already had the 2000 or so most common Korean words, and this was enough to ‘get by’ in the language. However, I wanted to do more than just get by, and my lack of an advanced vocabulary seemed to be an insurmountable barrier.

060811_Art_of_Getting_By

Probably not the title of a future best-selling motivational book

What is the spacing effect?

What I would have benefited from then is an awareness of the spacing effect. Again, we go all the way back to Hermann Ebbinghaus, who is considered the originator of the theory. Ebbinghaus found that he was able retain information longer when his review sessions were spaced over a matter of days or weeks (‘spaced repetition’) as compared to when the review sessions were done within one lengthy but uninterrupted session ( ‘massed repetition’).

 

Ebbinghaus2

If you’ve read the previous article, this is your second review of Ebbinghaus’s picture. Review it again in 3 weeks, and then again in 3 months, and you’ll remember that beard for the rest of your life. 

 

Here’s a fairly straightforward example of what is meant by ‘spaced’ versus ‘massed’ repetition for learning. Let’s say you want your students to learn 30 new vocabulary words. One option is set aside 30 minutes of one class to have students study and practice the words. As all this is done within one 30-minute block of time with no breaks, we call this massed repetition.

The other option is to divide the same 30 minutes worth of study and practice into three 10-minute lessons spaced out over several days (e.g., 10 minutes on Wednesday, 10 minutes on Thursday, and the final 10 minutes on Friday).  While the total time for study is the same as the massed repetition option,  the instruction is spaced out over three days, and is thus called ‘spaced repetition.’

Research has found that students learning material through spaced repetition are able to retain what they learned far longer than material learned through massed repetition. The example I gave above was taken from a study by Bloom and Shuell( 1981) involving English speakers learning French vocabulary. Right after the final study session for each group, the researchers gave a post-test and found that both groups made roughly identical gains (cramming, as it turns out, does very well for short-term learning). However, four days later the researchers gave a surprise second test and found that the spaced repetition group retained nearly all their gains (only declining 1.84 on average on the 20-point test), while the massed repetition group suffered a decline of nearly 5 points.  Basically, spacing out study sessions allows us to hold on to what we learn longer.

bloomandshuell

This is the first picture that appeared on an image search for Bloom and Shuell, so I went with it.

(third scholar in the picture not identified). 

 

The work of Ebbinghaus has been validated by a number of researchers and found to be particularly robust, extending to just about every learning domain investigated, including math, memorizing science facts, and remembering pictures. Not only is the spacing effect well established, but the sheer size of effect dwarfs most other findings in the psychology literature(Dempster, 1996). Whereas many studies showing significant effects of various teaching practices have moderate to small effect sizes, studies on the spacing effect often generally show gains of twice the size of results gained from massed presentation. Memory researchers Bahrick and Hall(2005) state, “The spacing effect is one of the oldest and best documented phenomena in the history of learning and memory research.”

HallandBahrick

May have been a bit more successful in my image search for Lynda Hall and Harry Bahrick.  

 

When to review?

So the big question as to how to help our students take advantage of the spacing effect is the exact timing of the reviews. Research on the spacing effect has investigated a wide range of spacing schedules, ranging from a matter of seconds to as many as 60 days between study sessions. There seems to be little consensus on an ideal repetition schedule, but there are some guidelines for efficient and practical spacing schedules.

Researchers Landauer and Bjork(1978) found two seemingly contradictory aspects of the spacing effect.  Generally, longer intervals between study sessions were more effective than shorter ones. Waiting one week between review sessions, for example, provided better retention than waiting one day between sessions. However, if the intervals were spaced too far apart, the benefits of the spacing effect quickly faded away.

Björk_and_the_Swan_Dress

No pictures of Landauer and Bjork available, but here’s a different Bjork reminding us that there are alternatives to the spacing effect to making something stick in long-term memory

 

A good analogy to make sense of what is happening here is weight lifting or endurance training. After a good workout, muscles are torn down and need time to repair themselves and grow stronger. Longer resting periods are more helpful than shorter resting periods: resting for 4 hours is much better than 2 hours, waiting 24 hours is better than 12 hours, and so on. However, what happens if you wait too long before hitting the gym again? At some point the muscles will no longer benefit from rest and will begin to atrophy, returning to the same strength as before you had your workout. If this is allowed to happen, the initial workout session becomes meaningless.

The same phenomenon seems to apply for memories: after learning something, some wait time is helpful and perhaps even crucial, but if you wait too long, you’ll lose everything.

Landauer and Bjork(1978) thus propose the following considerations:

1) Generally, retrieval spacings should be far apart.
2) Rehearsals are only effective if retrieval is successful (thus, not spaced too far apart).
3) Successful retrieval strengthens the memory, allowing for further successful retrieval at increasingly lengthy intervals.

These considerations suggest a repetition schedule based on expanding intervals¹. At first, repetition sessions should be somewhat close together, as much of what we learn is forgotten quickly, but with each repetition the time before the following review sessions can be scheduled increasingly further apart.

In terms of possible repetition schedule options, language scholar Paul Pimsleur(1967) proposed an expanding schedule of 5 seconds, 25 seconds, 2 minutes, 10 minutes, 1 hour, 5 hours, 1 day, 5 days, 25 days and 4 months. This is useful, but not particularly practical in the initial stages (imagine trying to time out 5, 25 and 120 seconds for every word studied).

 

language-professors-hate-him

Yes, that’s Paul Pimsleur’s image on an advertisement for the language learning program that  proudly exploits bears his name. I’m sure he gave his enthusiastic approval to the marketing team for this ad in a business meeting conducted via Skype (Ouija board plugin–Pimsleur passed away in 1976). For any language professors reading this that didn’t get the memo to hate that ol’ devil Paul, consider yourselves informed. 

 

A more practical repetition schedule could do away with the review sessions between 5 seconds and 5 hours and just have the second review 24 hours after the initial study time.  The following reviews can come a week, a month, and then 3 (or 4) months later.

  • Initial learning
  • 1-day review
  • 1-week review
  • 1-month review
  • 3-month review

This might require a lengthier review sessions at the 1-day and 1-week review periods, but the schedule is practical and easy to remember. For Praxis, we generally follow this model and include an additional 2-year review for our long-term users.

Perhaps the biggest benefit of online vocabulary programs is that the system can take care of the task of remembering which words are up for a review. In most programs, including Praxis, the student simply logs on and the program introduces new words along with words that are due for review.
A number of SLA scholars have talked about the spacing effect for vocabulary learning (Nation, 2001,  Schmidt, 2000; Takac, 2008; Thornbury, 2002). There are a few scholars (Bird, 2010; Year, 2009, and yours truly included) who have investigated applying the spacing effect to grammar instruction with positive results. In the future I’ll probably post more on the spacing effect, including some of our own research on the subject.

scottmiles

The most common image search result for ‘Scott Miles’.

 Here comes the smolder…

 

 

  1. This is not to say that expanding repetition schedule is the only way to go. A number of researchers (Cepeda et al., 2008; Mozer et al., 2009; Rohrer & Pashler, 2007; Bird, 2010) have explored uniform intervals (e.g., review sessions every two weeks) with considerable success. From my reading of the research, uniform intervals have some advantages, but for practical classroom applications in the classroom I’ve found that expanding repetition schedules work best.

 

References 

Bahrick, H.P., & Hall, L. (2005). The importance of retrieval failures to long-term retention: A metacognitive explanation of the spacing effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(4), 566-577.

Bird, S. (2010). Effects of distributed practice on the acquisition of L2 English syntax. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31(4), 635-650.

Bloom, K. F., & Shuell, T. J. (1981). Effects of massed and distributed practice on the learning and retention of second-language vocabulary. Journal of Educational Research, 74, 245–248.

Cepeda, N. J., Vul, E., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J., & Pashler, H. (2008). Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention Psychological Science,19(11), 1095-1102.

Dempster, F.N. (1996). Distributing and managing the conditions of encoding practice. In E.L. Bjork and R.A. Bjork (Eds.), Memory (pp. 318-339). London: Academic Press.

Donovan, J., & Radosevich, D. (1999). A meta-analytic review of the distribution of practice effect: Now you see it, now you don’t. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 795-805.

Landauer, T. K., & Bjork, R. A. (1978). Optimum rehearsal patterns and name learning. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory (pp. 625–632). New York: Academic Press.

Miles, S. (2014).  Spaced vs. massed distribution instruction for L2 grammar learning, System, 42, 412-428.

Miles, S., & Kwon, C.J. (2008). Benefits of using CALL vocabulary programs to provide systematic word recycling. English Teaching, 63(1), 199-216.

Mozer, M. C., Pashler, H., Cepeda, N., Lindsey, R., & Vul, E. (2009). Predicting the optimal spacing of study: A multiscale context model of memory. In Y. Bengio, D. Schuurmans, J. Lafferty, C. K. I. Williams, & A. Culotta (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems 22 (pp. 1321-1329). La Jolla, CA: NIPS Foundation.

Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pimsleur, P. (1967). A memory schedule. Modern Language Journal, 51(2), 73-75.

Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2007). Increasing retention without increasing study time. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(4), 183-186.

Schmidt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Takac, V. P. (2008). Vocabulary learning strategies and foreign language acquisition. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Thornbury, S. (2002). How to teach vocabulary. Harlow: Longman.

Year, J. (2009). Korean speakers’ acquisition of the English ditransitive construction: The role of input frequency and distribution. Unpublished dissertation. Teacher’s College, Columbia University.

 

Comments Off on Totally Spaced Out: When to review?

Filed under Vocabulary Pedagogy

Remember to Repeat to Remember: Vocabulary Learning and Repetition

A language learner needs thousands of words just to reach an intermediate level of proficiency, and as many as 9000 words to have reliable access to reading and listening materials made for native speakers (Nation, 2006). This is no small task, made much harder by the fact that most language learners struggle to remember the vocabulary that they study.

This was certainly my experience when I first started studying Korean. I still have some of my pocket notebooks with lists of Korean words written on one side of the page and the English translations on the other. I added about 10 words every day and studied my rapidly expanding list of words while riding the subway to and from work. The number of pages grew quickly, which gave the impression that I was making progress. However, almost every time I went back to the earlier pages of my notebook to review words, I struggled to recall even a quarter of them. It was a frustrating process of spending so much time studying thousands of words while realizing that the majority of them just weren’t sticking.

3076294-play-sand-flowing-through-sieve

Like sands through the sieve, so were the words of my study

I eventually just quit and relied on reading and listening to keep building up my vocabulary. Reading and listening are certainly essential parts of a good vocabulary study program, but I always suspected that input alone was not the fastest way to get the vocabulary that I sorely needed. Explicit study of vocabulary can work, but I just wasn’t doing it the right way.

Why did I forget so much of what I had tried to memorize? One of the main reasons was my failure to review the words properly. Hermann Ebbinghaus, a meticulous German researcher in the late 19th century, established that after learning something most forgetting happens very quickly, with more than half of the content learned being lost within hours after initial study or exposure. He detailed his experiments, all done on himself, in his most famous publication, Memory: A Contribution to Experimental Psychology.

Ebbinghaus2

Tragically less popular was his book on how to grow a properly manly beard.

Ebbinghaus presented what has come to be known as the forgetting curve. In the chart below (taken from the Wikipedia entry), the red line represents the rate of forgetting without any repetition. It shows that after a week, very little, if anything, is still retained without any reviews, while the green lines represent how the severity of the forgetting curve is lessened with each repetition.

400px-ForgettingCurve.svg

Ebbinghaus writes,

The series are gradually forgotten, but — as is sufficiently well known — the series which have been learned twice fade away much more slowly than those which have been learned but once. If the re-learning is performed a second, a third or a greater number of times, the series are more deeply engraved and fade out less easily and finally, as one would anticipate, they become possessions of the soul as constantly available as other image-series which may be meaningful and useful.

So repetition is essential to help new vocabulary become ‘possessions of the soul’ (or in far less poetic terminology, move vocabulary knowledge from short to long-term memory). Note that though the forgetting curve shown in the graph implies that content memorized without review would soon be completely forgotten, subsequent research has found that a small but significant percentage will stick even without further review.

Now it is easy for me to see why my initial study of Korean vocabulary was so unproductive. Though I did review words learned from the previous day, weeks and often months had passed before I checked them again, so it is no surprise that I failed to recall even half of what I had been studying. When first studying a word, an engaging vocabulary activity can result in much better retention, of course. Mnemonic techniques such as the keyword method, for example, have good results for helping students remember a new word. However, regardless of the quality of initial study (referred to as ‘initial encoding’ by scholars), a sizable percentage of what is learned will fade without further review.

 

How many repetitions are needed?

It’s impossible to come up with a specific number on this. A number of factors can have a strong effect on how easy it is to remember a given word. Some words can be learned with only a few reviews; words that are cognates in the learner’s first language might not need any reviews at all. Others are closely related to other English words the student may have already learned (e.g., learning the word elevation after already knowing the word elevator), while other words might lend themselves well to mnemonic aids such as the keyword method. Anyone who has studied a foreign language has had experiences in which one encounter with a new word was enough to retain it, while other words remain elusive even after dozens of encounters. Another major factor is how the timing of reviews can have a big impact on retention. This is known as the ‘spacing effect,’ and I’ll go into this in more detail in the next blog entry.

Nonetheless, research on the subject has given some fairly good guidance as to how many times a student will, in general, need to review a word before it sticks in long-term memory. Ebbinghaus needed six repetitions to memorize lists of ‘nonsense words’ to bring them “to the point of first possible reproduction” (but it took Ebbinghaus only five repetitions to memorize 6 stanzas of Byron’s Don Juan–an interesting but perhaps understandable choice of literature for a researcher who may not have gotten out so much).

 

donjuan_johnny (1)

Too much ‘spacing effect’ for this to qualify as a beard. 

 

Kachroo (1962) found that words repeated seven times or more in a course book were known by most learners. Crothers and Suppes (1967) also found 6-7 repetitions were enough to help students retain 80% of the 216 Russian-English word pairs studied in their experiment. So to answer the question, 6-7 explicit reviews may be enough for the average word. In conditions where students are learning words through reading, Nation (2014) suggests a minimum of 12 encounters with the word. “Twelve repetitions…are enough to allow the opportunity for several dictionary look-ups, several unassisted retrievals, and an opportunity to meet each word in a wide variety of contexts.”

Speaking of ‘wide variety of contexts’, repetition doesn’t need to be limited to only remembering the meaning of a word, but also can be useful for increasing knowledge about the word, or what is also known as developing ‘depth’ of vocabulary knowledge. How is the word used by native speakers? What other words (collocations) commonly occur with it? How is the word pronounced? Can you recognize the word when you hear it? This is the downside of simple L1-L2 flash card activities that do little, if anything, to improve the depth vocabulary knowledge. I’ll have more on how Praxis deals with this in a future article.

 

What does this mean for your teaching?

praxisprof

First off, it’s my opinion that teachers should make sure vocabulary growth is a central part of their syllabus, regardless of the particular purpose of their language class. At every level of proficiency, vocabulary tops the expressed needs of students (Folse, 2004). Students know they need more vocabulary and most will appreciate any opportunity given by teachers to expand their vocabulary. However, teachers should keep in mind that without consideration for repetition, students will forget the bulk of what is learned in the class, and just as I experienced when learning Korean, this can be demotivating.

 

I see three things teachers can do to keep their students building up their vocabulary in a meaningful and lasting way:

  1. Build vocabulary review lessons into your syllabus

Ebbinghaus concluded his book with the following advice for the teacher:

The school-boy doesn’t force himself to learn his vocabularies and rules altogether at night, but knows that he must impress them again in the morning. A teacher distributes his class lesson not indifferently over the period at his disposal, but reserves in advance a part of it for one or more reviews.

New vocabulary should be reviewed systematically throughout the course. These reviews can (and generally should) be brief. A simple reminder quiz at the beginning of each class can be enough. Don’t be surprised or discouraged if some students get many of the answers wrong, as this is an expected part of the learning process. The act of simply testing and then reviewing the answers is enough to count as a good review session. As we expect some degree of forgetting to occur from test to test, I recommend not grading the quizzes. Simply give the quiz and then check the answers as a class. If the students are attentive and making an effort, learning will happen.

Of course, activities other than quizzes can be useful for reviews. There are a number of quick vocabulary games that will do the trick.  Brief reading or listening passages that give further exposure to the vocabulary can be useful (though they take up a bit more time and some target words might be ignored or overlooked by students). Speaking activities likewise could be ideal, should the target vocabulary lend themselves to such.

As noted earlier, the next article will concern the timing of the reviews. For now, I’ll leave you with a schedule that I use with my students and give the rationale in more detail in the next article.

  • Initial presentation
  • First review in the next class (or as homework)
  • Second review roughly 1 week after the initial presentation
  • Third review 3-4 weeks after the initial presentation
  • Fourth review (if possible) 3-4 months after the initial presentation

As may be readily apparent, words that are introduced later in the semester will not have the option for the fourth (and perhaps even the third) review. Nonetheless, a sizable percentage of the vocabulary introduced in the class will be well on its way to mastery.

  1. Extensive reading and listening

With enough exposure to English, students can get needed reviews of words naturally through reading and listening extensively. As this is a practice that can extend beyond one semester and delivers benefits beyond vocabulary learning, extensive reading and listening are key to long-term language success. Extensive reading and listening do require a lot of time and motivation on the part of the students, but then again, what complex skill does not? This guide, put out by the Extensive Reading Foundation, can help teachers new to the practice understand exactly what extensive reading is and how it can be introduced into the classroom.

  1. Use online vocabulary programs  

Of course, vocabulary learning websites like Praxis are designed with repetition in mind. These programs generally allow individual students to study vocabulary that matches their levels and needs and provide adaptive feedback (extra practice only where needed). They also have the advantage of giving vocabulary practice outside of the classroom, and thus can free up time for other classroom activities. These programs can also save the teacher a considerable amount of time as they automatically give corrections to the students and allow teachers to monitor student progress easily.

One major factor in making Praxis was to give not only the necessary number of repetitions needed for long-term learning, but also additional information about the word.  With each repetition, learners engage the word in a different way. For example, learners might see the word in a new context, have to recognize the word when they hear it, or be tested on spelling and proper usage of the word. As John Medina says in Brain Rules (a must read for any educator) “Deliberately re-expose yourself to the information if you want to retrieve it later. Deliberately re-expose yourself to the information more elaborately if you want the retrieval to be of higher quality.” (p.133)
There’s a lot more to say on the subject of repetition, including the importance of having some variety with each encounter and the timing of repetitions. I’ll write more about how Praxis does this in the next blog entry.

 

 

Sources

Anderson, J. P., & Jordan, A. M. (1928). Learning and retention of Latin words and phrases. Journal of Educational Psychology, 19, 485-496.

Crothers, E., & Suppes, P. (1967). Experiments in second-language learning. New York: Academic Press.

Folse, K. (2004).  Vocabulary myths: Applying second language research to classroom teaching. University of Michigan Press Ann Arbor, MI

Folse, K. (2006). The effect of type of written exercise on L2 vocabulary retention. TESOL Quarterly, 40(2), p. 273-293.

Kachroo, J. N. (1962). Report on an investigation into the teaching of vocabulary in the first year of English. Bulletin of the Central Institute of English, 2, 67-72.

Nation, I. S. P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 59–82.

Nation, I. S. P. (2014). How much input do you need to learn the most frequent 9,000 words? Reading in a Foreign Language, 26(2). 1–16

Seibert, L. C. (1927). An experiment in learning French vocabulary. Journal of Educational Psychology, 18, 294-309.

Seibert, L. C. (1930). An experiment on the relative efficiency of studying French vocabulary in associated pairs versus studying French vocabulary in context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 21, 297-314.

Comments Off on Remember to Repeat to Remember: Vocabulary Learning and Repetition

Filed under Uncategorized, Vocabulary Pedagogy