Whether Interleaving or Blocking Is More Effective for Long-Term Learning Depends on One’s Learning Strategy
Abstract
1. Introduction
1.1. Optimal Sequence for Learning Depends on Strategy
1.2. Category Learning over a Delay
1.3. The Present Research
2. Experiment 1
2.1. Method
2.1.1. Participants and Design
2.1.2. Materials
2.1.3. Procedure
“Rule-based strategies involve trying to come up with a reason for why items are in each category (e.g., trying to find a pattern in letters, sounds, etc. that shows up in all of the words in the category, breaking the code).”
“Memorization strategies might involve repeating an item over and over to yourself or coming up with a trick for remembering an item (e.g., associating something you already know with those new words, making up a rhyme to remember all of the items in a category, coming up with acronyms using the first letters of the items in the category, etc.).”
2.2. Results and Discussion
2.2.1. Manipulation Check
2.2.2. Performance for Trained Items
2.2.3. Performance for Transfer Items
2.2.4. Discussion
3. Experiment 2
3.1. Method
3.1.1. Participants
3.1.2. Design
3.1.3. Materials and Procedure
3.2. Results
3.2.1. Manipulation Check
3.2.2. Session 1 Performance
3.2.3. Performance Across Delay
3.2.4. Considering Both Experiments
3.2.5. Discussion
4. General Discussion
4.1. Optimal Sequence for Learning Depends on Strategy
4.2. A Role for Individual Differences
4.3. Additional Limitations
4.4. Educational Applications
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
1 | Following the hypothesis, these were planned comparisons. Because the scores were not normally distributed, we also conducted independent-sample Mann–Whitney U tests to corroborate the interpretation of these planned comparisons. Indeed, for those instructed to memorize, interleaving was better than blocking, U = 572.50, p = 0.005; for those instructed to find a rule, the difference was unreliable, U = 1024.50, p = 0.113. |
2 | We also conducted independent-samples Mann–Whitney U tests to corroborate the interpretation of these planned comparisons. Indeed, for those instructed to find a rule, the difference was reliable, U = 3179.50, p < 0.001. Additionally, the non-parametic test revealed that for those instructed to memorize, interleaving was better than blocking, U = 2581.50, p = 0.043. |
3 | Because we did not see any drop in performance for rule-finders, we did not analyze re-training performance. |
4 | We also conducted independent-samples Mann–Whitney U tests to corroborate the interpretation of these planned comparisons. Indeed, for those instructed to find a rule, blocking was more effective than interleaving, U = 7810.00, p < 0.001. For those instructed to memorize, interleaving was more effective than blocking, U = 5708.00, p = 0.001. |
References
- 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, 392–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bourne, L. E., Jr., Raymond, W. D., & Healy, A. F. (2010). Strategy selection and use during classification skill acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 500–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brunmair, M., & Richter, T. (2019). Similarity matters: A meta-analysis of interleaved learning and its moderators. Psychological Bulletin, 145(11), 1029–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carvalho, P. F., & Goldstone, R. L. (2014a). Effects of interleaved and blocked study on delayed test of category learning generalisation. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Carvalho, P. F., & Goldstone, R. L. (2014b). Putting category learning in order: Category structure and temporal arrangement affect the benefit of interleaved over blocked study. Memory & Cognition, 42(3), 481–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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, 1699–1719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chi, M. T., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Craig, S., & Lewandowsky, S. (2012). Whichever way you choose to categorize, working memory helps you learn. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 439–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Craik, F. I., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dobson, J. L. (2011). Effect of selected ‘desirable difficulty’ learning strategies on the retention of physiology information. Advances in Physiology Education, 35, 378–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dominowski, R. L., & Buyer, L. S. (2000). Retention of problem solutions: The re-solution effect. The American Journal of Psychology, 113(2), 249–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(5), i–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eglington, L. G., & Kang, S. H. (2017). Interleaved presentation benefits science category learning. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6, 475–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eich, E., & Metcalfe, J. (1989). Mood dependent memory for internal versus external events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(3), 443–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Firth, J., Rivers, I., & Boyle, J. (2021). A systematic review of interleaving as a concept learning strategy. Review of Education, 9(2), 642–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fisher, R. P., & Craik, F. I. M. (1977). Interaction between encoding and retrieval operations in cued recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 3(6), 701–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 306–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15(1), 1–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Godden, D. R., & Baddeley, A. D. (1975). Context-dependent memory in two natural environments: On land and underwater. British Journal of Psychology, 66(3), 325–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldwater, M. B., Don, H. J., Krusche, M. J., & Livesey, E. J. (2018). Relational discovery in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(1), 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gouravajhala, R., Wahlheim, C. N., & McDaniel, M. A. (2020). Individual and age differences in block-by-block dynamics of category learning strategies. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(4), 578–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jacoby, L. L. (1978). On interpreting the effects of repetition: Solving a problem versus remembering a solution. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17(6), 649–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Juslin, P., Jones, S., Olsson, H., & Winman, A. (2003). Cue abstraction and exemplar memory in categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 924–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, S. H., & Pashler, H. (2012). Learning painting styles: Spacing is advantageous when it promotes discriminative contrast. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(1), 97–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Learning concepts and categories: Is spacing the “enemy of induction”? Psychological Science, 19(6), 585–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kurtz, K. H., & Hovland, C. I. (1956). Concept learning with differing sequences of instances. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51(4), 239–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linderholm, T., Dobson, J., & Yarbrough, M. B. (2016). The benefit of self-testing and interleaving for synthesizing concepts across multiple physiology texts. Advances in Physiology Education, 40(3), 329–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Little, J. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2015a). Individual differences in category learning: Memorization versus rule abstraction. Memory & Cognition, 43(2), 283–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Little, J. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2015b). Some learners abstract, others memorize examples: Implications for education. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 1(2), 158–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Little, J. L., Nepangue, J. A., & Longares, A. (2025). The optimal sequence for learning can depend on one’s strategy: An individual differences approach. Learning and Individual Differences, 120, 102648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z., Liao, S., & Seger, C. A. (2023). Rule and exemplar-based transfer in category learning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 35(4), 628–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McDaniel, M. A., & Butler, A. C. (2011). A contextual framework for understanding when difficulties are desirable. In A. S. Benjamin (Ed.), Successful remembering and successful forgetting: A festschrift in honor of Robert A. Bjork (pp. 175–198). Psychology Press. [Google Scholar]
- McDaniel, M. A., Cahill, M. J., Robbins, M., & Wiener, C. (2014). Individual differences in learning and transfer: Stable tendencies for learning exemplars versus abstracting rules. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 668–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richland, L. E., & McDonough, I. M. (2010). Learning by analogy: Discriminating between potential analogs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(1), 28–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rohrer, D., Dedrick, R. F., & Stershic, S. (2015). Interleaved practice improves mathematics learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 900–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rohrer, D., & Taylor, K. (2007). The shuffling of mathematics problems improves learning. Instructional Science, 35, 481–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samani, J., & Pan, S. C. (2021). Interleaved practice enhances memory and problem-solving ability in undergraduate physics. NPJ Science of Learning, 6(1), 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sorensen, L. J., & Woltz, D. J. (2016). Blocking as a friend of induction in verbal category learning. Memory & Cognition, 44, 1000–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80(5), 352–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wahlheim, C. N., Dunlosky, J., & Jacoby, L. L. (2011). Spacing enhances the learning of natural concepts: An investigation of mechanisms, metacognition, and aging. Memory & Cognition, 39, 750–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wahlheim, C. N., McDaniel, M. A., & Little, J. L. (2016). Category learning strategies in younger and older adults: Rule abstraction and memorization. Psychology and Aging, 31(4), 346–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weisberg, R. W., & Alba, J. W. (1981). An examination of the alleged role of “fixation” in the solution of several “insight” problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110(2), 169–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wulf, G., & Shea, C. H. (2002). Principles derived from the study of simple skills do not generalize to complex skill learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(2), 185–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaman, J., Yu, K., & Lee, J. C. (2023). Individual differences in stimulus identification, rule induction, and generalization of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 49(6), 1004–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zulkiply, N. (2013). Effect of interleaving exemplars presented as auditory text on long-term retention in inductive learning. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 97, 238–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zulkiply, N., & Burt, J. S. (2013). Inductive learning: Does interleaving exemplars affect long-term retention? Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 10, 133–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Little, J.L.; Nepangue, J.A. Whether Interleaving or Blocking Is More Effective for Long-Term Learning Depends on One’s Learning Strategy. Behav. Sci. 2025, 15, 662. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15050662
Little JL, Nepangue JA. Whether Interleaving or Blocking Is More Effective for Long-Term Learning Depends on One’s Learning Strategy. Behavioral Sciences. 2025; 15(5):662. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15050662
Chicago/Turabian StyleLittle, Jeri L., and Jexy A. Nepangue. 2025. "Whether Interleaving or Blocking Is More Effective for Long-Term Learning Depends on One’s Learning Strategy" Behavioral Sciences 15, no. 5: 662. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15050662
APA StyleLittle, J. L., & Nepangue, J. A. (2025). Whether Interleaving or Blocking Is More Effective for Long-Term Learning Depends on One’s Learning Strategy. Behavioral Sciences, 15(5), 662. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15050662