The Impact of Task Number and Working Memory Capacity on Interleaving Learning

WANG Jiawei; XIAN Meijun; XING Qiang

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2022.01.003

Studies of Psychology and Behavior >

2022 , Vol. 20 >Issue 1: 15 - 21

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12139/j.1672-0628.2022.01.003

The Impact of Task Number and Working Memory Capacity on Interleaving Learning

WANG Jiawei ,
XIAN Meijun ,
XING Qiang

Expand

1. Department of Psychology, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006;
2. Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, Padova 35131, Italy

Received date: 2021-09-25

Online published: 2022-01-20

Fold

Abstract

The study aimed to investigate the stability of the interleaving effect in rule-based category learning. Participants were asked to learn in single- or dual-task conditions where the stimuli were presented in blocked and interleaved conditions. Operation span, rotation span, and symmetry span tasks were used to measure working memory capacity (WMC). The results showed that those whose majors belonged to the liberal arts were benefited more from the interleaved presentation. In contrast, those whose majors belonged to the sciences benefited from blocking learning. In addition, neither task number nor WMC affected the interleaving effect, indicating that the advantage of interleaving learning is stable in both single and dual-task conditions, and individuals with different WMC benefit from interleaving learning.

Key words： interleaved presentation; dual task; working memory capacity; subject type

Cite this article

WANG Jiawei , XIAN Meijun , XING Qiang . The Impact of Task Number and Working Memory Capacity on Interleaving Learning[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2022 , 20(1) : 15 -21 . DOI: 10.12139/j.1672-0628.2022.01.003

References

宋广文, 王瑞明. (2003). 文理科大学生不同阅读特点的实验研究. 心理科学, 26(1), 151–152, 139.
杨伟刚, 陈婉茹, 王有智, 宋宝萍. (2015). 知识背景效应对分类加工过程影响的眼动研究. 心理与行为研究, 13(2), 211–216
张厚粲, 郑日昌. (1982). 关于认知方式的测验研究——对我国大、中、小学生场依存性特征的调查分析. 心理科学, (2), 14–18
Ashby, F. G., Alfonso-Reese, L. A., Turken, A. U., & Waldron, E. M. (1998). A neuropsychological theory of multiple systems in category learning. Psychological Review, 105(3), 442–481.
Birnbaum, M. S., Kornell, N., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2013). Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval. Memory & Cognition, 41(3), 392–402, doi: 10.3758/s13421-012-0272-7.
Caggiano, D. M., Jiang, Y., & Parasuraman, R. (2006). Aging and repetition priming for targets and distracters in a working memory task. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 13(3–4), 552–573, doi: 10.1080/138255890969555.
Carvalho, P. F., Braithwaite, D. W., De Leeuw, J. R., Motz, B. A., & Goldstone, R. L. (2016). An in vivo study of self-regulated study sequencing in introductory psychology courses. PLoS One, 11(3), e0152115, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152115.
Carvalho, P. F., & Goldstone, R. L. (2014). Effects of interleaved and blocked study on delayed test of category learning generalization. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 936, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00936.
Carvalho, P. F., & Goldstone, R. L. (2015). The benefits of interleaved and blocked study: Different tasks benefit from different schedules of study. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(1), 281–288, doi: 10.3758/s13423-014-0676-4.
Carvalho, P. F., & Goldstone, R. L. (2017). The sequence of study changes what information is attended to, encoded, and remembered during category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(11), 1699–1719, doi: 10.1037/xlm0000406.
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(4), 769–786, doi: 10.3758/BF03196772.
Eglington, L. G., & Kang, S. H. K. (2017). Interleaved presentation benefits science category learning. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 475–485, doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.005.
Foster, J. L., Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., Hicks, K. L., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2015). Shortened complex span tasks can reliably measure working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition, 43(2), 226–236, doi: 10.3758/s13421-014-0461-7.
Guzman-Munoz, F. J. (2017). The advantage of mixing examples in inductive learning: A comparison of three hypotheses. Educational Psychology, 37(4), 421–437, doi: 10.1080/01443410.2015.1127331.
Kim, S. W., & Rehder, B. (2011). How prior knowledge affects selective attention during category learning: An eyetracking study. Memory & Cognition, 39(4), 649–665, doi: 10.3758/s13421-010-0050-3.
Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Learning concepts and categories: Is spacing the “enemy of induction”. Psychological Science, 19(6), 585–592, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02127.x.
Maddox, W. T., & Ashby, F. G. (2004). Dissociating explicit and procedural-learning based systems of perceptual category learning. Behavioural Processes, 66(3), 309–332, doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2004.03.011.
Mutlu, M., & Temiz, B. K. (2013). Science process skills of students having field dependent and field independent cognitive styles. Educational Research and Reviews, 8(11), 766–776, doi: 10.5897/ERR2012.1104.
Noh, S. M., Yan, V. X., Bjork, R. A., & Maddox, W. T. (2016). Optimal sequencing during category learning: Testing a dual-learning systems perspective. Cognition, 155, 23–29, doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.06.007.
Rawson, K. A., Thomas, R. C., & Jacoby, L. L. (2015). The power of examples: Illustrative examples enhance conceptual learning of declarative concepts. Educational Psychology Review, 27(3), 483–504, doi: 10.1007/s10648-014-9273-3.
Sana, F., Yan, V. X., & Kim, J. A. (2017). Study sequence matters for the inductive learning of cognitive concepts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(1), 84–98, doi: 10.1037/edu0000119.
Sana, F., Yan, V. X., Kim, J. A., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2018). Does working memory capacity moderate the interleaving benefit. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7(3), 361–369, doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.05.005.
Wang, J. W., Liu, Z. Y., Xing, Q., & Seger, C. A.,. (2020). The benefit of interleaved presentation in category learning is independent of working memory. Memory, 28(2), 285–292, doi: 10.1080/09658211.2019.1705490.
Wang, J. W., & Xing, Q. (2019). Metacognitive illusion in category learning: Contributions of processing fluency and beliefs. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 15(2), 100–110, doi: 10.5709/acp-0260-3.
Zaki, S. R., & Salmi, I. L. (2019). Sequence as context in category learning: An eyetracking study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(11), 1942–1954, doi: 10.1037/xlm0000693.
Zulkiply, N., & Burt, J. S. (2013). The exemplar interleaving effect in inductive learning: Moderation by the difficulty of category discriminations. Memory & Cognition, 41(1), 16–27, doi: 10.3758/s13421-012-0238-9

Options

Outlines

模态框（Modal）标题

Abstract

Cite this article

References