Skip to content
PaperFren

Learning

Do spaced sessions and feedback improve vocabulary recall?

· Frontiers in Psychology · 2021

Open access · CC BY · source: Europe PMC

German-speaking learners recalled more Finnish vocabulary after distributed sessions, while retrieval trials benefited from corrective feedback; spacing groups were not fully randomised.

Save to libraryView originalAsk PaperFrenStudy these flashcards
Watch this

How this study connects

Role on claims

Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.

  • SupportsLearningconcept

    Newly covered practice-schedule studies show better delayed vocabulary recall after distributed sessions, better transfer after retrieval with feedback than plain rereading, and benefits of mixed physics homework on surprise tests. Their comparisons and outcomes differ, so they do not justify a single universal learning gain.

    Evidence for the claim as stated.

  • SupportsSpaced Repetitionconcept

    Distributed sessions helped vocabulary recall here, with a selection caveat.

    In a vocabulary web experiment, four spaced sessions produced higher delayed recall than one massed session with the same total study time. Spacing allocation was partly non-random, and initial performance differences weaken a pure causal interpretation.

    Evidence for the claim as stated.

  • SupportsSpaced Repetitionconcept

    The studies use different intervals, materials and tests: word-pair recall over days and weeks, novice diagnostic interpretation, and course-end exams. They do not yield one optimal spacing interval or one pooled gain.

    Evidence for the claim as stated.

  • SupportsRetrieval Practiceconcept

    Attempted recall and useful feedback need to be considered together.

    In the vocabulary web experiment, a higher proportion of retrieval trials had no overall main effect. Corrective feedback interacted with retrieval frequency; more testing by itself was not reliably better.

    Evidence for the claim as stated.

  • SupportsRetrieval Practiceconcept

    Laboratory transfer questions, delayed word translations, and medical-school examinations are different outcomes. These studies do not isolate a single retrieval mechanism or establish transfer to clinical work.

    Evidence for the claim as stated.

Open questions

Tensions this paper is part of

From concept pages' “where studies disagree.” Disagreement means the same question; scope means different assays, populations, or outcomes.

History

When this study was placed

Dated entries from the concept change log — when this paper was added or removed as support, challenge, or qualifier on a claim.

  1. 2026-10-01

    Placed as supporting evidence on Learning

    Newly covered practice-schedule studies show better delayed vocabulary recall after distributed sessions, better transfer after retrieval with feedback than plain rereading, and benefits of mixed physics homework on surprise tests. Their comparisons and outcomes differ, so they do not justify a single universal learning gain.

Study at a glance

Design
Human experiment — Mixed factorial experiment; spacing allocation partly constrained by scheduling
N
N=79 · 87 recruited; 79 analysed
Population
Native or advanced German speakers, ages 16–77, without prior Finnish knowledge
Outcome
Delayed cued recall of Finnish–German translations
Comparison
One 80-minute session versus two 40-minute or four 20-minute sessions; feedback and retrieval proportions varied within participants
Test delay
Two-day gap planned; actual mean gaps across participants ranged about 43–77 hours

Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.

Inspect source passages

Do spaced sessions and feedback improve vocabulary recall?

These passages occur verbatim in the stored paper text. They support the points listed below; they do not verify every statement in the explanation.

What was the main finding?

In support of H1, participants in which learning was distributed the most (four sessions) had the highest recall performance (M = 77.2, SD = 29).

What is the main limit on applying this result?

The levels of the variable Spacing (one, two, or four sessions) were equally distributed among the experimenters, but the participant allocation to the levels was not done entirely at random: the rigid scheduling of several sessions would have made it impossible for some to participate.
Read passages in the original paper

Key findings

Mean delayed recall was 77.2% after four sessions, 59.1% after two, and 52.5% after one massed session. Corrective feedback improved recall. There was no overall benefit of the higher retrieval-trial proportion or audio presentation, but feedback helped particularly with the higher proportion of retrieval trials. The combined conditions should not be interpreted as a pure spacing or pure testing effect.

Methodology

The analysis included 79 German-speaking participants learning 48 Finnish word pairs in a web application. Everyone received 80 minutes of study, divided into one, two, or four sessions. The planned gap between sessions and before the final cued-recall test was two days, although actual gaps varied. Feedback, retrieval-trial proportion, and audio presentation were varied within participants. Scheduling preferences influenced assignment to the spacing groups.

Limitations

Spacing groups were not fully randomly assigned, and performance already differed during the first learning block. Participant differences may therefore explain part of the spacing result. The test occurred roughly two to three days after learning, not months later. Word-pair translation is not the same as conversational proficiency or examination performance, and session spacing does not validate any particular flashcard scheduling algorithm.

Related papers in this topic

Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.