Search for: All records

Adaptive generation of spacing intervals in learning using response times improves learning relative to both adaptive systems that do not use response times and fixed spacing schemes (Mettler, Massey & Kellman, 2016). Studies have often used limited presentations (e.g., 4) of each learning item. Does adaptive practice benefit learning if items are presented until attainment of objective mastery criteria? Does it matter if mastered items drop out of the active learning set? We compared adaptive and non-adaptive spacing under conditions of mastery and dropout. Experiment 1 compared random presentation order with no dropout to adaptive spacing and mastery using the ARTS (Adaptive Response-time-based Sequencing) system. Adaptive spacing produced better retention than random presentation. Experiment 2 showed clear learning advantages for adaptive spacing compared to random schedules that also included dropout. Adaptive spacing performs better than random schedules of practice, including when learning proceeds to mastery and items drop out when mastered. 

Spacing presentations of learning items across time improves memory relative to massed schedules of practice – the well-known spacing effect. Spaced practice can be further enhanced by adaptively scheduling the presentation of learning items to deliver customized spacing intervals for individual items and learners. ARTS - Adaptive Response-time-based Sequencing (Mettler, Massey, & Kellman 2016) determines spacing dynamically in relation to each learner’s ongoing speed and accuracy in interactive learning trials. We demonstrate the effectiveness of ARTS when applied to chemistry nomenclature in community college chemistry courses by comparing adaptive schedules to fixed schedules consisting of continuously expanding spacing intervals. Adaptive spacing enhanced the efficiency and durability of learning, with learning gains persisting after a two-week delay and generalizing to a standardized assessment of chemistry knowledge after 2-3 months. Two additional experiments confirmed and extended these results in both laboratory and community college settings. 

Adaptive learning systems that generate spacing intervals based on learner performance enhance learning efficiency and retention (Mettler, Massey & Kellman, 2016). Recent research in factual learning suggests that initial blocks of passive trials, where learners observe correct answers without overtly responding, produce greater learning than passive or active trials alone (Mettler, Massey, Burke, Garrigan & Kellman, 2018). Here we tested whether this passive + active advantage generalizes beyond factual learning to perceptual learning. Participants studied and classified images of butterfly genera using either: 1) Passive Only presentations, 2) Passive Initial Blocks followed by active, adaptive scheduling, 3) Passive Initial Category Exemplar followed by active, adaptive scheduling, or 4) Active Only learning. We found an advantage for combinations of active and passive presentations over Passive Only or Active Only presentations. Passive trials presented in initial blocks showed the best performance, paralleling earlier findings in factual learning. Combining active and passive learning produces greater learning gains than either alone, and these effects occur for diverse forms of learning, including perceptual learning.