Intensive Exposure Experiences in Second Language Learning

By Carmen Muñoz

Multilingual Matters

Copyright © 2012 Carmen Muñoz and the authors of individual chapters
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-84769-805-6

Contents

Contributors,
Acknowledgements,
Introduction,
Part 1: Theoretical Underpinnings of Intensive Learning,
1 Is Intensive Learning Effective? Reflecting on the Results from Cognitive Psychology and the Second Language Acquisition Literature Raquel Serrano,
Part 2: Intensive Instruction,
2 Intensive L2 Instruction in Canada: Why not Immersion? Patsy M. Lightbown,
3 Closing the Gap: Intensity and Proficiency Laura Collins and Joanna White,
4 When Comprehensible Input is not Comprehensive Input: A Multi-dimensional Analysis of Instructional Input in Intensive English as a Foreign Language Laura Collins, Joanna White, Pavel Trofimovich, Walcir Cardoso and Marlise Horst,
5 What Language is Promoted in Intensive Programs? Analyzing Language Generated from Oral Assessment Tasks Joanna White and Carolyn E. Turner,
6 Time and Amount of L2 Contact Inside and Outside the School – Insights from the European Schools Alex Housen,
Part 3: Learners’ Perceptions and Intensive Exposure,
7 The Significance of Intensive Exposure as a Turning Point in Learners’ Histories Carmen Muñoz,
8 Change or Stability in Learners’ Perceptions as a Result of Study Abroad Elsa Tragant,
Part 4: Naturalistic Immersion,
9 The Impact of Study Abroad and Age on Second Language Accuracy Development Àngels Llanes,
10 Oral and Written Development in Formal Instruction and Study Abroad: Differential Effects of Learning Context Carmen Pérez-Vidal, Maria Juan-Garau, Joan C. Mora and Margalida Valls-Ferrer,
11 Differences in L2 Segmental Perception: The Effects of Age and L2 Learning Experience Romana Kopecková,
Index,

CHAPTER 1

Is Intensive Learning Effective? Reflecting on the Results from Cognitive Psychology and the Second Language Acquisition Literature

Raquel Serrano

The Spacing Effect in the Cognitive Psychology Literature

Introduction

The main objective of this chapter is to consider the effect of time distribution of instructional hours on second language learning. In order to understand this effect better it is crucial to know how time distribution affects learning in general. That is why a brief review of some of the most relevant articles in the cognitive psychology literature will be presented. Cognitive psychologists have demonstrated that spacing the time devoted to learning is more beneficial than concentrating it in short periods of time. This phenomenon is known as the spacing effect. In contrast, in the second language acquisition literature, intensive (or concentrated) courses have been shown to be highly effective for students’ language development. This chapter shows that the apparently contradictory results can be explained if we consider the characteristics of the experiments in cognitive psychology discussed in this section. Additionally, some accounts of the spacing effect (especially the ‘study-phase retrieval’), or the fact that the spacing effect often disappears at short retention intervals (see below), can easily explain the findings from the second language acquisition literature.

In the cognitive psychology literature it has been demonstrated that repeated practice strengthens the memory representation of an item or structure (Pavlik & Anderson, 2005). Similarly, a large amount of empirical evidence suggests that an item is better recalled and learned when it is repeated in spaced sequences (with other intervening items or long time lapses between the repetitions) than in massed presentations, in which repetitions appear subsequently or within short time lapses. This phenomenon is well known in the literature as the spacing effect. As explained in the following paragraphs, the spacing effect has been found mostly in verbal learning (involving words in the participants’ first language, non-words and foreign language words), but experiments have also been conducted that examine the effect of time distribution on learning to solve mathematical problems, recognizing faces or identifying advertisements.

Spacing effect in verbal learning

Verbal learning tasks are probably the most common tasks used in studies investigating the spacing effect (Delaney & Knowles, 2005; Dempster, 1988; Elmes et al., 1983; Greene, 1989; Ross & Landauer, 1978; Seabrook et al., 2005; Toppino et al., 2002). Participants see lists of words on a computer screen that they have to recall (either in cued-memory tasks, for which retrieval cues are provided, or in free recall tasks) in one or several tests at different time intervals. For example, Greene (1989) included a list of 96 common words, the repetitions of which appeared separated by 0, 1, 2, 4, 8 or 16 intervening words. The spacing effect was significant in both free- and cued-recall tasks.

Toppino et al. (2002) examined recall of items that belonged to three different sets: words that were presented once; words that were repeated three times in massed repetitions (one presentation after the other); and words that were repeated in spaced sequences (separated by three or four intervening words). As in the previous case, spaced items were recalled significantly more accurately than massed items. Significant differences were also obtained between items presented once and repeated items in favor of the latter.

Spacing effect in foreign language vocabulary learning

Experiments analyzing foreign language vocabulary learning (Bahrick, 1979; Bahrick & Phelps, 1987; Bloom & Shuell, 1981; Pavlik & Anderson, 2005; Rohrer & Pashler, 2007) tend to suggest that spacing training sessions is beneficial for long-term retention, even though immediate recall tends to be comparable for spaced and massed items. Bloom and Shuell (1981) performed a classroom experiment including 28 high-school students who received distributed foreign vocabulary practice (one 1 minute unit a day on three successive days) and 28 who received massed practice (three 10 minute units on one day). An immediate test demonstrated that the performance of the two groups was identical; however, a delayed post-test four days later showed that the distributed practice led to significantly better retention.

Pavlik and Anderson (2005) included 104 Japanese–English pairs that were presented to a group of 40 participants, who were then tested with 2, 14 or 98 intervening presentations in one session. Retention was then examined after one day (N = 20) or seven days (N = 20). The results show that, in the first session, the greater the spacing between presentation and trial, the worse participants’ performance was. Nevertheless, in session 2 (after seven days), wider spacing resulted in less forgetting (as reflected in the performance in the initial trial in session 2 as compared with the final trial in session 1). Regarding the two retention intervals considered, participants forgot less at the one-day retention interval than at the seven-day interval.

Bahrick and Hall (2005) analyzed the learning of 40 Swahili–English word-pairs by 41 undergraduate students who followed four training sessions under different schedules: massed (all sessions in one day); one-day between-session interval; and 14-day between-session interval. The participants were tested at the end of each session and 14 days after the last session (session 5). The results of the analyses show that the participants performed similarly at the end of the first session; however, in sessions 2–4 the massed group and the one-day group performed significantly better than the participants assigned to the 14-day interval, suggesting forgetting between training sessions for the more spaced schedule. Nevertheless, when all participants were tested 14 days after their last session, it was found that both the one-day interval and the 14-day interval group significantly outperformed the massed group, indicating that massed practice is detrimental to long-term retention.

Other experiments examining the spacing effect: Solving problems, face recognition and identification of advertisements

Even though most experiments examining the spacing effect deal with word learning, others have analyzed different practice schedules for teaching participants to solve mathematical problems. Rohrer and Taylor (2006) report on an experiment in which 116 undergraduate students were taught how to solve a specific type of mathematical problem under two schedules: massed (10 problems in one day) and distributed (5 problems/day with a seven-day interval). Retention was examined after one week and after four weeks. The results of the analyses show that there was no difference in the performance of students undergoing massed and distributed practice after one week; however, those following a spaced schedule scored significantly higher at a four-week retention interval.

Mammarella et al. (2002) examined face recognition, considering the lags between repetitions (zero, two and four intervening items) of 84 unfamiliar faces. Eighteen students were shown 84 faces and 84 ‘non-faces’ (manipulated faces with, for example, only two eyes in the middle of the face and no nose or mouth) for 4 seconds. Participants had to decide whether the picture they saw on their computer screen was a face or a non-face. As expected, participants were faster when the repetitions occurred at shorter lags. After this task, participants underwent an unexpected recognition memory task in which they had to decide whether the faces they saw (only real faces were considered) had been included in the previous task. In this case, the faces that had been presented in spaced sequences were recalled better than those in massed sequences. Another variable that was examined in this study was pose: sometimes the same faces were presented in a different pose during the study session. An interesting finding of the study was that the spacing effect disappeared when different poses were presented.

Appleton-Knapp et al. (2005) examined how spacing and repetition type among other factors affected the identification of printed advertisements. In one of the experiments included in their study, 74 undergraduates were exposed to 48 different advertisement sequences in two 12-page booklets. The adverts were repeated after zero, two or four intervening advertisements. Some repetitions were exact, while others were modified. Participants had 10 seconds to study each advertisement and then performed a cued-recall test. The results show that spaced items were more accurately recalled than massed. Nevertheless, there was an interaction effect between type of repetition and spacing, indicating that at short retention intervals modified repetitions helped retrieval, while at longer lags, exact repetitions were better remembered.

Summary

In general, then, most experiments in the cognitive psychology literature demonstrate that, when subsequent presentations of the same item appear either (1) among other intervening items or (2) in widely-spaced sessions, the item is more easily remembered in test trials (immediate, and especially delayed) than an item repeated in a massed schedule (in which repetitions appear subsequently or with few intervening items, or in sessions with short intervals). The spacing considered in previous experiments can range from a few seconds or minutes when the presentation and testing take place in a single session (Appleton-Knapp et al., 2005; Greene, 1989; Mammarella et al., 2002; Toppino et al., 2002), to days or weeks in the case of experiments that include several training sessions (Bahrick, 1979; Bahrick & Hall, 2005; Bloom & Shuell, 1981; Rohrer & Taylor, 2006). It should be noted that there is no objective characterization of how many intervening items should appear for a sequence to be considered spaced or massed, nor is there a specific session interval that would make learning massed or distributed. In general, comparisons are established between different time distributions, some being more concentrated than others. Generally, the more spaced the intervals between repetitions of the same item or between learning sessions, the more accurately participants tend to remember what they have learned.

The spacing effect is one of the most robust effects found in the cognitive psychology literature (Demptser, 1988). The following verse by the psychologist Ulric Neisser, quoted by Bjork (1988), is highly illustrative in terms of the belief about the superiority of distributed over massed practice:

You can get a good deal from rehearsal If it just has the proper dispersal. You would just be an ass To do it en masse:

your remembering would turn out much worsal.

Why is learning enhanced when repetitions occur in spaced or distributed intervals rather than in massed sequences?

Proposed answers to this question fall into the following groups: (1) encoding variability theories; (2) deficient-processing theories; and (3) study-phase retrieval accounts. Lately, though, many researchers have used a combination of different theories to account for the spacing effect (Raaijmakers, 2003; Riches et al., 2005; Russo & Mammarella, 2002; Verkoeijen et al., 2005). Moreover, some mathematical models have been proposed to account for the spacing effect, such as those provided by Raaijmakers (2003) or Pavlik and Anderson (2005).

Encoding variability theories

According to encoding variability theories, the more spaced two items are, the more likely it is that they will be encoded differently in the participant’s mind (Glenberg, 1979; Melton, 1970; Johnston & Uhl, 1976). This variability in memory representation, which is facilitated by the different contexts in which spaced items appear, provides more retrieval cues. Consequently, remembering is favored in spaced distributions more so than in massed, for which the context of the first and the second presentation is the same, encouraging a similar encoding.

Deficient processing theories

Deficient processing theories suggest that the reason spaced items are better recalled than massed is that they are more deeply processed. When participants are exposed to two items simultaneously or within a short period of time, they do not devote as much attention to these items as when they are presented with sufficient spacing. When the memory trace is too accessible, processing is deficient and so is learning (Challis, 1993; Greeno, 1970; Hintzman, 1976; Jacoby, 1978). In the words of Cuddy and Jacoby’s (1982: 465), ‘If the trace of a prior presentation is too readily accessible when an item is repeated, few of the operations originally required to encode that item will be repeated and the result will be an impoverished trace of the later presentation’.

In spaced sequences, the first presentation (P1) is not easily accessible at the time of the second presentation (P2), and full processing of P2 is thus necessary (Cuddy & Jacoby, 1982; Dellarosa & Bourne, 1985; Dempster, 1988; Glover & Corkill, 1987; Jacoby, 1978). This processing facilitates learning and retention. In the case of massed presentations, P1 is too accessible when P2 appears; as a consequence, less processing is involved (and also less attention on the participant’s part), which explains why massed items are not as efficiently recalled.

Apart from spacing, there are other factors that can hinder accessibility and will thus encourage processing. One is paraphrased rather than verbatim repetitions in massed presentations. Glover and Corkill (1987) report that the remembering of brief lectures in massed paraphrased repetitions is much better than in massed verbatim repetitions. Moreover, massed paraphrased repetitions can be remembered equally as well as spaced paraphrased repetitions.

Another study that supports this effect is that of Mammarella et al. (2002), reported in the previous section. When faces were presented in different poses, the spacing effect disappeared, suggesting that making P1 less accessible at the time of P2 in massed presentations can reduce the spacing effect. Similar results were obtained in their Experiment 5, which included 96 non-words repeated twice at lag 0 or 6 in the same or different font: there was a large spacing effect when the non-words were repeated in the same font. Additionally, for spaced items, there was no difference between non-words presented in the same or different font. Nevertheless, for massed presentations this difference was significant, favoring non-words in different fonts.

In conclusion, as Dellarosa and Bourne (1985: 533) suggest, ‘Anything that increases the probability of a repetition receiving full processing, or conversely, anything that decreases the probability of the item being recognized as a repetition, should improve memorability of the item’. Conversely, when accessibility of P1 is not simply hindered but made impossible owing to very long lags between P1 and P2, contrary effects can be obtained. If the trace of P1 is no longer in the participant’s memory, P2 will not be able to strengthen that trace (Verkoeijen et al., 2005) and the repeated presentations may simply count as two separate items.

Apart from the accessibility of P1 at the time of P2, another factor that influences the spacing effect is the complexity of the to-be-learned material. In their meta-analysis of studies on the effect of time distribution, Donovan and Radosevich (1999) observed that the spacing effect is less common in complex tasks than in simple tasks.

Study-phase retrieval theories

According to study-phase retrieval theories, retrieving P1 at the time of P2 determines recall (Appleton et al., 2005; Russo et al., 2002; Thios & D’Agostino, 1976; Toppino & Bloom, 2002; Toppino et al., 2002). Some studies have demonstrated empirically that, when participants are asked to retrieve P1 when P2 appears, they recall the item more accurately than when they are simply presented with the items without any need for retrieval (Thios & D’Agostino, 1976).

According to Toppino and Bloom (2002: 443), ‘The point of maximum performance would be expected to occur at higher or lower levels of spacing depending on whether conditions were more or less favorable for successful study-phase retrieval’. Similarly, Bahrick and Phelps (1987: 349) claim that ‘The optimum interval is likely to be the longest interval that avoids retrieval failures’.

(Continues…)Excerpted from Intensive Exposure Experiences in Second Language Learning by Carmen Muñoz. Copyright © 2012 Carmen Muñoz and the authors of individual chapters. Excerpted by permission of Multilingual Matters.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.