Lee (1988). Distribution of Practice in Motor Skill Acquisition: Learning and Performance Effects Reconsidered.

Reviewed by Tony Ingram, PhD
Review posted November 8, 2024

Full Citation

Lee, T. D. & Genovese, E. D. (1988). Distribution of Practice in Motor Skill Acquisition: Learning and Performance Effects Reconsidered. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 59(4), 277–287.

Abstract

Recent reviews about the effects of distribution of practice in motor learning have produced quite divergent conclusions. While there is agreement that massed practice depresses performance, the effect on learning has no firm consensus. One position is that massed practice depresses learning, although there are many that argue for no learning effect. In the present paper we review this literature. When distribution is considered in terms of the length of the inter-trial interval, there is strong evidence that massed practice depresses performance and learning (when learning is assessed by absolute retention measures). This conclusion was confirmed by the results of a meta-analysis. This finding is discussed relative to other literature on distribution of practice as well as some recent issues in motor learning.

Key Results

Result Name

Effect Size

Reliability

Spaced Practice vs. Massed Practice (Performance)

Large

Medium

Spaced Practice vs. Massed Practice (Learning)

Study Characteristics

Learning Domain	Procedural Learning
Study Topic	Massed Practice, Spaced Practice
Study Type	Membership Required
Task Studied	Membership Required
Subject Type	Membership Required
Number of Studies	Membership Required
Quality Score (%)*	Membership Required

Unlock Full Access

* Study quality assessed using JBI Systematic Review Checklist.

Reviewer Notes

This was a fairly influential study about spaced (distributed) practice versus massed practice for motor learning. It’s a meta-analysis of 116 studies (but only 47 were included in the analysis), and was made more valuable given the differentiation between performance and learning effects. However, this study lacks a lot of detail that would have made it much more useful.

Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Donec fermentum. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Link to Study