Interleaving versus Blocking Instruction on Separate单独交叉与封闭指令
To-Be-Learned Tasks要学习的任务
Interleaving the practice of separate topics or tasks is an excellent way to introduce spacing and other learning dynamics. In a classic comparison of interleaving and blocking (Shea & Morgan, 1979), participants practiced three different movement patterns, each requiring the participants to knock down three of six hinged barriers rapidly on a pinball-like apparatus in a prescribed order. All participants received 18 trials on each pattern, but in the interleaved condition, practice on a given trial was randomly determined, whereas in the blocked condition, one pattern at a time was practiced.
As you probably suspect, participants given blocked practice improved more rapidly than those given interleaved/random practice. Thus, if the researchers had stopped their study at the end of training, blocking of practice would have seemed the superior learning procedure. But, instead, participants returned 10 days later and were retested under either blocked or interleaved/random conditions. Under interleaved/random testing conditions, participants who had practiced under interleaved conditions performed far better than did the blocked-practice participants, who appeared, when tested under a random schedule, to have learned virtually nothing. Under blocked testing conditions, performance was essentially the same for both groups, but the small difference still favored the interleaved group.
The skills literature includes many replications of the pattern that blocked practice appears optimal for learning, but interleaved practice actually results in superior long-term retention and transfer of skills, and research illustrates that learners—as well as instructors—are at risk of being fooled by that pattern. For example, when participants who had learned three different keystroke patterns were asked to predict their performance on a test the next day, those given interleaved practice predicted their performance quite closely, whereas those given blocked practice were markedly overconfident (Simon & Bjork, 2001). In effect, the blocked-practice group misinterpreted their good performance during practice as evidence of long-term learning, rather than a product of the local (that is, blocked) conditions. Said differently, they misinterpreted the retrieval strength of a given keystroke pattern as an index of its storage strength.
技能文献包括许多重复的模式,封锁实践看起来最适合学习,但交错练习实际上导致了优秀的长期保留和技能转移,研究表明,学习者以及教师有被愚弄的风险通过这种模式。例如,当学习三种不同的按键模式的参与者在第二天被要求在测试中预测他们的表现时,那些交错练习预测了他们的表现非常接近,而那些被封锁的练习显然过于自信(Simon&Bjork,2001) 。实际上,封锁实践组在实践中误解了他们的良好表现,作为长期学习的证据,而不是当地(即封锁)条件的产物。换句话说,他们误解了给定按键模式的检索强度作为其存储强度的指标。
Other results illustrate that the benefits of interleaved practice extend beyond the learning of motor skills. For example, when participants were asked to learn formulas for calculating the volumes of different solids, such as a truncated cone, in either a blocked or interleaved manner, interleaved instruction enhanced performance on a delayed test. The size of the long-term advantage of interleaved practice was striking: 63 percent versus 20 percent of new problems worked correctly a week later (Rohrer & Taylor, 2007).
More recently and surprisingly, we have found that interleaving even enhances inductive learning (Kornell & Bjork, 2008). When participants were asked to learn the styles of each of 12 artists based on a sample of 6 paintings by each artist, interleaving a given artist’s paintings among the paintings by other artists—versus presenting that artist’s paintings one after another (blocking)—enhanced participants’ later ability to identify the artist responsible for each of a series of new paintings. This result is surprising because blocking would seem to make it easier to note the commonalities that characterize a particular artist’s style. Indeed, as illustrated in Figure 1, the majority of participants—when asked after the test whether interleaving or blocking had helped them learn an artist’s style better—definitely had the impression that blocking had been more effective than interleaving, the opposite of their actual learning. Blocking may indeed have facilitated noticing commonalities, but the final test required distinguishing among the artists, and interleaving may have fostered learning the differences as well as similarities among the styles of different artists.
FIGURE 1 The left panel shows the proportion of participants who selected “blocked,” “interleaved,” or “the same” in response to the question: “Under which condition do you believe you learned better?” The right panel indicates the proportion of participants who actually performed better in the blocked or interleaved conditions or performed the same in the two conditions. (Kornell & Bjork, 2008)
posite of their actual learning. Blocking may indeed have facilitated noticing commonalities, but the final test required distinguishing among the artists, and interleaving may have fostered learning the differences as well as similarities among the styles of different artists.
Why might interleaving enhance long-term retention and transfer? One theory suggests that having to resolve the interference among the different things under study forces learners to notice similarities and differences among them, resulting in the encoding of higher-order representations, which then foster both retention and transfer. Another explanation suggests that interleaving forces learners to reload memories: If required to do A, then B, then C, and then A again, for example, the memory for how to do A must be reloaded a second time, whereas doing A and then A again does not involve the same kind of reloading. Such repeated reloadings are presumed to foster learning and transfer to the reloading that will be required when that knowledge or skill is needed at a later time.
From the standpoint of our theoretical framework (Bjork & Bjork, 1992), learning from reloading is an instance of a broader dynamic in human memory: Namely, that forgetting (losing retrieval strength) creates the opportunity for increasing the storage strength of to-be-learned information or skills. Said differently, when some skill or knowledge is maximally accessible from memory, little or no learning results from additional instruction or practice.
Interleaving versus Blocking Instruction on Separate 单独交叉与封闭指令
To-Be-Learned Tasks 要学习的任务
Interleaving the practice of separate topics or tasks is an excellent way to introduce spacing and other learning dynamics. In a classic comparison of interleaving and blocking (Shea & Morgan, 1979), participants practiced three different movement patterns, each requiring the participants to knock down three of six hinged barriers rapidly on a pinball-like apparatus in a prescribed order. All participants received 18 trials on each pattern, but in the interleaved condition, practice on a given trial was randomly determined, whereas in the blocked condition, one pattern at a time was practiced.
交流单独课题或任务的做法是引入间距和其他学习动力学的绝佳方式。在经典的交错和阻挡比较(Shea&Morgan,1979)中,参与者练习了三种不同的运动模式,每种运动模式都要求参与者以规定的顺序在弹球状装置上快速击倒六个铰接障碍物中的三个。所有参与者在每个模式上接受了18次试验,但是在交错状态下,随机确定给定试验的实践,而在阻塞状态下,一次进行一种模式。
As you probably suspect, participants given blocked practice improved more rapidly than those given interleaved/random practice. Thus, if the researchers had stopped their study at the end of training, blocking of practice would have seemed the superior learning procedure. But, instead, participants returned 10 days later and were retested under either blocked or interleaved/random conditions. Under interleaved/random testing conditions, participants who had practiced under interleaved conditions performed far better than did the blocked-practice participants, who appeared, when tested under a random schedule, to have learned virtually nothing. Under blocked testing conditions, performance was essentially the same for both groups, but the small difference still favored the interleaved group.
您可能怀疑,参与者被阻止的做法比那些交错/随机练习更快地改进。因此,如果研究人员在训练结束时停止学习,阻止实践似乎是优越的学习过程。但是,相反,参与者10天后返回,并在阻塞或交错/随机条件下重新测试。在交错/随机测试条件下,在交织条件下练习的参与者的表现远远优于被阻止的练习参与者,当被随机的时间表测试时,出现的几乎没有任何东西。在阻塞测试条件下,两组的表现基本相同,但差异较小仍然有利于交织组。
The skills literature includes many replications of the pattern that blocked practice appears optimal for learning, but interleaved practice actually results in superior long-term retention and transfer of skills, and research illustrates that learners—as well as instructors—are at risk of being fooled by that pattern. For example, when participants who had learned three different keystroke patterns were asked to predict their performance on a test the next day, those given interleaved practice predicted their performance quite closely, whereas those given blocked practice were markedly overconfident (Simon & Bjork, 2001). In effect, the blocked-practice group misinterpreted their good performance during practice as evidence of long-term learning, rather than a product of the local (that is, blocked) conditions. Said differently, they misinterpreted the retrieval strength of a given keystroke pattern as an index of its storage strength. 技能文献包括许多重复的模式,封锁实践看起来最适合学习,但交错练习实际上导致了优秀的长期保留和技能转移,研究表明,学习者以及教师有被愚弄的风险通过这种模式。例如,当学习三种不同的按键模式的参与者在第二天被要求在测试中预测他们的表现时,那些交错练习预测了他们的表现非常接近,而那些被封锁的练习显然过于自信(Simon&Bjork,2001) 。实际上,封锁实践组在实践中误解了他们的良好表现,作为长期学习的证据,而不是当地(即封锁)条件的产物。换句话说,他们误解了给定按键模式的检索强度作为其存储强度的指标。
Other results illustrate that the benefits of interleaved practice extend beyond the learning of motor skills. For example, when participants were asked to learn formulas for calculating the volumes of different solids, such as a truncated cone, in either a blocked or interleaved manner, interleaved instruction enhanced performance on a delayed test. The size of the long-term advantage of interleaved practice was striking: 63 percent versus 20 percent of new problems worked correctly a week later (Rohrer & Taylor, 2007).
其他结果表明,交错练习的好处超出了运动技能的学习。例如,当参与者被要求学习用于计算不同固体的体积的公式时,例如截断锥体,以阻塞或交错方式,交错指令在延迟测试中增强性能。交织实践的长期优势的大小是惊人的:63%,而20%的新问题在一周后正常工作(Rohrer&Taylor,2007)。
More recently and surprisingly, we have found that interleaving even enhances inductive learning (Kornell & Bjork, 2008). When participants were asked to learn the styles of each of 12 artists based on a sample of 6 paintings by each artist, interleaving a given artist’s paintings among the paintings by other artists—versus presenting that artist’s paintings one after another (blocking)—enhanced participants’ later ability to identify the artist responsible for each of a series of new paintings. This result is surprising because blocking would seem to make it easier to note the commonalities that characterize a particular artist’s style. Indeed, as illustrated in Figure 1, the majority of participants—when asked after the test whether interleaving or blocking had helped them learn an artist’s style better—definitely had the impression that blocking had been more effective than interleaving, the opposite of their actual learning. Blocking may indeed have facilitated noticing commonalities, but the final test required distinguishing among the artists, and interleaving may have fostered learning the differences as well as similarities among the styles of different artists.
最近和令人惊讶的是,我们发现交织甚至增强了归纳学习(Kornell&Bjork,2008)。当参与者被要求学习每个艺术家的风格时,基于每个艺术家的6幅作品样本,将某一艺术家的绘画与其他艺术家的绘画交错在一起,而不是将艺术家的绘画(封锁) - 增加参与者“后来识别艺术家负责每一幅新作品的能力。这个结果令人惊讶,因为封锁似乎使得更容易注意到特定艺术家风格的共同点。实际上,如图1所示,大多数参与者 - 在测试后询问是否插入或阻塞有助于他们更好地学习艺术家的风格 - 绝对有一种印象,即阻止比交织更有效,与其实际学习相反。阻止可能确实有助于注意到共同点,但最后的测试需要区分艺术家,并且交织可能促进了学习不同艺术家风格的差异以及相似之处。
FIGURE 1 The left panel shows the proportion of participants who selected “blocked,” “interleaved,” or “the same” in response to the question: “Under which condition do you believe you learned better?” The right panel indicates the proportion of participants who actually performed better in the blocked or interleaved conditions or performed the same in the two conditions. (Kornell & Bjork, 2008)
FIGURE 1左侧面板显示选择“被阻止”,“交错”或“相同”的参与者的比例,以回答以下问题:“在哪种情况下,您相信您学得更好?”右侧面板显示了实际上在阻塞或交错条件下表现更好或在两种情况下表现相同的参与者。 (Kornell&Bjork,2008)
posite of their actual learning. Blocking may indeed have facilitated noticing commonalities, but the final test required distinguishing among the artists, and interleaving may have fostered learning the differences as well as similarities among the styles of different artists.
假定他们的实际学习。阻止可能确实有助于注意到共同点,但最后的测试需要区分艺术家,并且交织可能促进了学习不同艺术家风格的差异以及相似之处。
Why might interleaving enhance long-term retention and transfer? One theory suggests that having to resolve the interference among the different things under study forces learners to notice similarities and differences among them, resulting in the encoding of higher-order representations, which then foster both retention and transfer. Another explanation suggests that interleaving forces learners to reload memories: If required to do A, then B, then C, and then A again, for example, the memory for how to do A must be reloaded a second time, whereas doing A and then A again does not involve the same kind of reloading. Such repeated reloadings are presumed to foster learning and transfer to the reloading that will be required when that knowledge or skill is needed at a later time.
为什么交织会增加长期保留和转移?一个理论认为,必须解决不同研究之间的干扰,迫使学习者注意到它们之间的相似之处和差异,从而导致对高阶表示的编码,从而促进保留和转移。另一种解释表明,交织迫使学习者重新加载内存:如果需要做A,然后B,然后C,然后A再次,例如,如何做A的内存必须重新加载第二次,而做A然后A再次不涉及同样的重新加载。推测这种反复的重新加载是为了促进学习和转移到当需要这种知识或技能时需要的重新加载。
From the standpoint of our theoretical framework (Bjork & Bjork, 1992), learning from reloading is an instance of a broader dynamic in human memory: Namely, that forgetting (losing retrieval strength) creates the opportunity for increasing the storage strength of to-be-learned information or skills. Said differently, when some skill or knowledge is maximally accessible from memory, little or no learning results from additional instruction or practice.
从我们的理论框架(Bjork&Bjork,1992)的观点来看,从重新加载学习是人类记忆中更广泛动态的一个例子:即,忘记(失去检索力量)创造了增加存储强度的机会 - 了解信息或技能。换句话说,当一些技能或知识从记忆中最大程度地获得时,很少或根本没有学习来自额外的指导或实践。