The Effects of Interleaving Versus Blocking for
Learning to Conjugate Verbs in the Spanish Language
Jon Student, Psychology 199, Spring and Fall 2016
PID# A1234567
Thurgood Marshall College
Faculty Advisor: Professor Timothy Rickard
_________________________________________ ______________________
Faculty advisor signature Date
Your faculty advisor will have to read the completed paper prior to submission. Their
signature and date, indicating approval of the paper, is required.
This example was written by a student who had the opportunity to assist with
multiple aspects of experimental research in a laboratory at UCSD (including
completion of data collection and subsequent data analysis).
For further information about the BS paper requirement, please visit:
http://www.psychology.ucsd.edu/undergraduate-program/majors-effective-fall-
2015/research-paper-guidelines.html
For information and tips about writing research papers in APA style, please visit:
http://www.psychology.ucsd.edu/undergraduate-program/academic-writing-
resources/index.html
Name, when research was
conducted
,
PID
College, faculty advisor
Article title
B.S. Research Paper Example (Empirical Research Paper)
This is an example of a research paper that was written in fulfillment of the B.S.
research paper requirement. It uses APA style for all aspects except the cover
sheet (this page; the cover sheet is required by the department). It describes
research that the author was involved in while taking the PSYC 199 course.
Running head: INTERLEAVING AND LANGUAGE LEARNING 1
The Effects of Interleaving Versus Blocking for
Learning to Conjugate Verbs in the Spanish Language
Jon Student
Department of Psychology
University of California, San Diego
Author Note
Jon Student, Department of Psychology, University of California, San Diego.
This article was completed in fulfillment of the requirements for the author’s Bachelor of
Science (B.S.) degree in Psychology at the University of California, San Diego. The author was
advised by Steven C. Pan and Professor Timothy C. Rickard.
Please address correspondence to: Jon Student, Department of Psychology, University of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0109. Email: jstuden[email protected]
This is the title page in traditional APA style.
Name and
affiliation
Article title
Author note
Author Notes have up to four paragraphs. These often discuss author affiliation, any
change affiliation, acknowledgments, and addresses for correspondence.
INTERLEAVING AND LANGUAGE LEARNING 2
Abstract
Interleaving, a learning technique which involves practicing on multiple skills in parallel, goes
against the standard method of blocking (or blocked training) that is common in schools and in
many types of implicit skill training (for example, practicing a sport). While blocked training is
convenient for many learners, several previous studies have shown that interleaving can yield
statistically significant advantages in learning and in improving memory over blocking. The
present study explored the effects of interleaving versus blocked training for learning Spanish
verb conjugation skills. Participants with many different language backgrounds (excepting
Spanish) learned to conjugate verbs in the Spanish imperfect and preterite tenses in either a
blocked format or interleaved format (in a between-subjects design). After a one-week delay, a
verb conjugation test was administered. On average, participants learned Spanish verb
conjugation skills better if they had been trained using interleaving. This result suggests that
interleaving can be beneficial for foreign language learning.
The Abstract is typically no more than 250 words in length. It is prefaced with the
centered word “Abstract”, and is a one-paragraph summary. It is not indented.
INTERLEAVING AND LANGUAGE LEARNING 3
The Effects of Interleaving Versus Blocking for
Learning to Conjugate Verbs in the Spanish Language
For over a decade, learning scientists have compared the effects of learning one skill or
topic at a time (blocking or blocked training) against a technique in which two or more skills are
learned simultaneously by switching back and forth between them (interleaving or interleaved
training). Some studies have found benefits of interleaving and others have found benefits to
blocking. For instance,interleaving benefits have been observed for learning algebraic rules
(e.g., Mayfield & Chase, 2002) and geometric concepts (e.g., Taylor & Rohrer, 2010), whereas
blocking benefits have been observed for learning to identify degrees of varying line segments
(e.g., Goldstone, 1996) and French pronunciation rules (e.g., Carpenter & Mueller, 2013).
Most schools implement blocking for a variety of topics because classes typically do not
have enough time during the day to get through entire lesson plans. The use of blocked
scheduling, wherein only one skill or concept is covered at one time, alleviates these types of
problems. Other reasons include the fact that it is easier for both teachers and students to use
blocking because it involves simpler schedules. But is this type of training method optimal for
learning, and more importantly, does it yield better retention of learned information and skills
over time than interleaving?
To date, there has been little evidence of benefits of interleaving for language learning,
relative to blocking. Specifically, in an experiment where English-speaking participants learned
French pronunciation rules (e.g., Carpenter and Mueller, 2013), practice occurred in blocked or
interleaved format and was immediately followed by a final test. Performance was better after
blocked training. However, that study measured the direct and immediate retention of learned
information and not necessarily the information that would still be remembered after participants
The Introduction section is the first major section of text. It introduces the topic under
investigation, reviews prior research on it, and discusses the research that is to follow.
Article title
INTERLEAVING AND LANGUAGE LEARNING 4
were able to spend time doing other everyday tasks. By contrast, in the present study, which
examined the use of blocked or interleaved training for learning Spanish verb conjugation skills
(i.e., a type of grammar), such time was given by forcing participants to wait a week before
another practice session and another week before testing measures were conducted. This was
implemented to ensure that participants were retaining learned information in long-term memory
over an extended period and not just immediately after exposure. The differences between
blocked learning and interleaving were then measured and compared between subjects after the
testing session to see which yielded better learning and memory of that learning.
Method
Participants
Ninety-six participants with no prior Spanish experience whatsoever participated in order
to earn experimental credit for psychology classes taken at the University of California, San
Diego. Forty-one participants were randomly assigned into the blocked learning group and 47
participants were randomly assigned into the interleaved learning group. About half were native
English speakers and the remainder spoke a variety of different languages.
Design
The experiment was split into three sessions that consisted of two learning sessions
followed by a testing session. Each session was separated by exactly one week (7 days) of time.
Across both sessions, participants in the blocked and interleaved learning groups learned to
conjugate verbs in the Spanish preterite and imperfect tenses. Across both groups, assignment of
tense (preterite or imperfect) to the first or second sessions was counterbalanced, some
participants had learned the imperfect rules first and preterite rules second, while others had
learned the reverse order.
The Method section details how the study was performed. It typically details
Participants, Design, Materials, and Procedure.
Level 1 and 2 headings are
used for these two section titles
INTERLEAVING AND LANGUAGE LEARNING 5
Materials
The materials included four rules each for the preterite and imperfect tenses, written as
single sentences in English; three rules for each tense which describe conjugating verbs paired
with the ‘I’, ‘you’, and ‘we’ forms of Spanish pronouns; three example sentences in English and
Spanish for each of those rules; 32 short answer fill-in-the-blank practice questions in English
and Spanish; and 30 multiple-choice final test questions in English and Spanish, with six answer
choices each. All materials were shown in English and accompanied by their exact Spanish
translations.
Procedure
During the first session, participants began by reading instructions on a computer screen
informing them that they would be learning to conjugate verbs in the Spanish language. For
participants assigned to the blocked learning group, the first session was spent learning to
conjugate verbs in one tense only. For example, in the first session, the rules for conjugating
verbs in the preterite tense were shown. Participants then learned to conjugate verbs paired with
the ‘I’, ‘you’, and ‘we’ forms of Spanish pronouns in the preterite tense and with respect to three
different verbs each. They then practiced conjugating verbs in the preterite tense by completing
16 short answer fill-in-the-blank practice trials. On each trial, after an answer was typed, the
correct answer was shown. After the practice trials were finished, the first session concluded. A
week later during the second session, the process was repeated for the imperfect tense.
At the end of each learning session, participants were asked two questions in a survey.
The first question asked them to rate how difficult it was for them to learn Spanish conjugation
that day. The possible ratings were available on a 5-point scale ranging from ‘Very Easy’ to
‘Very Difficult’. The second question asked them to judge how well they thought they had
The Method section should include a level of detail that would be necessary for
another researcher to replicate the study.
INTERLEAVING AND LANGUAGE LEARNING 6
learned Spanish verb conjugation skills during that session. The possible ratings were also
available on a 5-point scale, this time ranging from ‘Excellent’ to ‘Poor’.
For participants assigned to the interleaved learning group, the preterite and imperfect
rules were both presented as the first session began. After the rules were shown, participants
learned to conjugate verbs paired with the ‘I’, ‘you’, and ‘we’ pronouns for both the preterite and
imperfect tenses. They then practice conjugating verbs in both tenses by completing 16 short
answer fill-in-the-blank practice trials. After the practice trials were finished, the first session
concluded. Critically, participants were exposed to both the preterite and imperfect tenses,
unlike the participants in the blocked learning group. During the second session, the participants
again practiced conjugating verbs in preterite and imperfect tenses. Thus, during this session,
participants were re-exposed to both tenses. After each learning session was concluded,
participants were asked the same two questions as the participants in the blocked learning group.
Both questions also had the same available responses as the ones mentioned before.
In the final session, all participants were tested on how well they learned and
remembered to conjugate verbs in both tenses. This test consisted of 30 multiple-choice
questions wherein they had to choose one of six verbs with the correct pronoun as well as form
of the pronoun. After this testing block, the experiment ended and results were measured.
Results
Test results were analyzed for both the blocked and interleaved learning groups after both
groups had concluded the same test. Figure 1 shows the proportion of correct responses on the
multiple-choice test in both groups. As shown, the interleaved learning group answered
correctly 64% of the time whereas participants in the blocked learning group answered correctly
at rate of 52%. This shows that participants in the interleaved learning group answered verb
The Results section details how data were analyzed and what the results were.
Statistical tests are recommended but optional for B.S. degree research papers.
INTERLEAVING AND LANGUAGE LEARNING 7
conjugation questions more accurately than participants in the blocked learning group.
At the end of each learning session, participants in both groups were asked the question,
“How difficult was it to learn Spanish conjugation today?”. Figure 2 shows that the answers
‘Very Easy’ and ‘Easy’ were chosen more often in both learning sessions in the blocked learning
group compared to the interleaved learning group in response to how difficult it was for them to
learn verb conjugation skills. In contrast, the answers ‘Very Difficult’ and ‘Somewhat Difficult’
were chosen more often in both learning sessions in the interleaved learning group compared to
the blocked learning group.
Again at the end of each session, a second survey question was asked. This question was,
“How well do you believe you learned Spanish conjugation today?". Figure 3 shows
participants’ responses to this question. The results show that the answers ‘Excellent’ and
‘Good’ were chosen more often in both learning sessions in the blocked learning group
compared to the interleaved learning group. In contrast, the answers ‘Poor’ and ‘Fair’ were
chosen more often in both learning sessions in the interleaved learning group compared to the
blocked learning group.
Discussion
Previous studies have shown that blocked learning can yield better results compared to
interleaving, including for language learning. However, such experiments (e.g., Carpenter &
Mueller, 2013) have not tested the long-term effect of interleaving. As such, the finding that
blocked learning sometimes yields better results may reflect recent exposure to practice. Indeed,
the present study demonstrated that interleaving has benefits for language learning when such
learning is measured after a delay as compared to right away. When participants learned both
tenses in session one and were then able to re-practice those tenses during a second session,
The Discussion section summarizes what was learned from the study and what the
practical and theoretical implications were.
INTERLEAVING AND LANGUAGE LEARNING 8
results were much better compared to learning one tense in the first session and then learning a
new tense in the second session. This indicates that participants in the interleaved learning group
were able to more fully learn the rules of when to use the imperfect and preterite tenses and what
those tenses corresponded to in the Spanish language, vs. the blocked learning group. In both
groups however, there was learning being accomplished. On the final test, since there were six
possible multiple-choice responses per question, a chance rate would be 16.66% of responding
correctly, and both groups scored on average substantially better than that.
Why Interleaving Improved Language Learning
It seems unintuitive that the participants who did better on the final test, namely those in
the interleaved learning group, thought that the material was more difficult to learn as compared
to the blocked learning group. It would seem logical to think that if participants thought material
was easier to learn, then they would perform better on the final test than individuals who thought
the material was hard to learn. However, a major theoretical explanation for the benefits of
interleaving is that it strengthens memory associations by changing the solution to the practice
problem with each attempt (Rohrer, 2012). That is, because of the switching between different
skills or concepts that occurs during interleaving, the solution to any given practice problem is
not the same as the previous problem. This makes with using interleaving seem difficult. By
contrast, if the practice problems in a single session have the same pathway to get to a similar
solution each and every time, as occurs during blocking, then answering such problems seems
much easier. However, this method is less effective at strengthening memory associations.
Thus, in this case, the easier method of training does not yield better learning.
How exactly might interleaving strengthen memory associations? One possibility is that
the brain requires a higher level of functioning during interleaved learning as compared to
There should be evidence of critical thinking about the research. For example, here
the author postulates theoretical explanations for the results that were observed.
INTERLEAVING AND LANGUAGE LEARNING 9
blocked learning. By having to answer using different responses, the brain is engaged in the
materials all the way through a learning session. In the current study, as the learning session
continued, this process was likely repeated over and over again, and in doing so, it reinforced
neuronal connections in the brain associated with responding in a correct manner to the proper
Spanish verb conjugation rules. By contrast, under blocked training, participants are responding
in the same way each and every time. Their short-term memory is sufficient to answer questions
and it seems easier as compared to the interleaved learning group, but less long-term learning
occurs as a result.
Another possibility is that participants in the blocked learning group were only learning
to conjugate verbs for a particular tense instead of learning both tenses and the rules for when to
use one tense over another in a proper sentence (as the interleaving participants learned to do).
As such, in addition to not adequately learning how to use the two particular tenses by
themselves, participants in the blocked learning group probably did not adequately learn how to
discriminate between them.
The logic behind these explanations reappear when participants are asked how well they
thought that they learned the material. After participants in the blocked learning group finished a
training session, they usually had a higher tendency to think that they had learned the material
well than participants in the interleaved learning group because the material was easier to learn.
This is likely because of the fact that as they were moving through a learning session, they were
providing the same types of responses over and over again repeatedly (and executing the same
type of response yields a higher chance of being correct). But this type of responding is
redundant. Overall, participants in the blocked learning group thought that they had learned the
material better, but they actually did not.
Overall, the B.S. degree research paper should have at least 6 pages of text. This
example has 8.5 counting the Abstract.
INTERLEAVING AND LANGUAGE LEARNING 10
Study Implications
Overall, many learning techniques seem to be easier for people, but this does not always
mean that they yield better results. When a learning process is more difficult, it can mean that
there was an increase in effort during learning (as long as the participants actually tried learning
to the best of their ability). This can indicate that the brain has higher levels of activation
throughout the cortex and that neuronal connections associated with learning occur more often as
compared to a learning process that seems easy.
Everyday, people try to better themselves by learning a particular skill, language, or
subject of interest. The present study suggests that the time that is needed to learn and relearn
materials can be drastically reduced, and the chance of long-lasting learning improved, if people
learn the material through a process of interleaving instead of blocking. If these results are true,
and hold true in other areas of learning, then academic success in schools could be heightened as
with post-graduate research, skills such as learning a sport or a particular type of medical
procedure could be learned quicker and with higher success, and learning different languages
could be faster and with longer-lasting effects. The possibility for higher academic achievement
as well as other successes has vast implications that this world has yet to even imagine.
However, at present more studies need to be conducted and end with the same conclusion in
order to generalize these results to the world population. Interleaving also needs to be
investigated for different types of materials in order to determine whether it has similar dramatic
effects on teaching and learning.
It is common for Discussion sections to mention any limitations of the study and/or
directions for future research.
INTERLEAVING AND LANGUAGE LEARNING 11
References
Carpenter, S. K., & Mueller, F. E. (2013). The effects of interleaving versus blocking on foreign
language pronunciation learning. Memory & Cognition, 41, 671- 682.
Goldstone, R. L. (1996). Isolated and interrelated concepts. Memory & Cognition, 24,
608–628.
Mayfield, K. H., & Chase, P. N. (2002). The effects of cumulative practice on mathematics
problem solving. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 105– 123.
Pan, S. C. (2015, August 4). The Interleaving Effect: Mixing It Up Boosts Learning. Retrieved
November 17, 2016, from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-interleaving-
effect-mixing-it-up-boosts-learning/
Rohrer, D. (2012). Interleaving helps students distinguish among similar concepts. Educational
Psychology Review, 24(3), 355-367
Rohrer, D., & Taylor, K. (2006). The effects of overlearning and distributed practice on the
retention of mathematics knowledge. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 1209–1224.
B.S. degree research papers should cite at least 5 references, including at least 3
empirical (i.e., peer-reviewed experimental research) papers, and cite those
references in the text and in a References section using APA format.
INTERLEAVING AND LANGUAGE LEARNING 12
Figure 1. Percentage of correct responses during Spanish verb conjugation test after exposure
during interleaving and blocked learning sessions. The participants in the interleaving group, on
average, answered questions on this test more accurately compared to participants in the blocked
learning group.
In this example, figures are placed at the end of the paper in accordance with APA
style. However, in an exception from that style, figures, tables, and graphs can be
embedded in the text (if the author and their advisor prefers to do so).
INTERLEAVING AND LANGUAGE LEARNING 13
Figure 2. Participants’ rankings of how difficult it was for them to learn Spanish verb
conjugation skills during each session. Participants in the blocked learning group on average
thought that it was easier to learn Spanish verb conjugation skills in both sessions compared to
participants in the interleaved learning group.
INTERLEAVING AND LANGUAGE LEARNING 14
Figure 3. Participants’ rankings of how well they thought they learned Spanish verb conjugation
skills after each learning session. Participants in the blocked learning group on average thought
that they learned Spanish verb conjugation skills better than participants in the interleaved
learning group.
