During training of cognitive and motor skills, the effects of massed, distributed, and spaced trial sequencing were evaluated relative to performance. Eleven severely handicapped students in four isolated special education classrooms were involved. Correct, error, and refusal responses were monitored during three conditions of training: massed, distributed, and spaced trial sequencing. An overall comparison of the three conditions of trial scheduling showed no difference in the mean level or the slope of the three types of responses. A comparison of distributed and massed trial sequencing showed only the superior effect of distributed trial sequencing for the mean level of responding. These findings were significant 1) for both correct and refusal responses for an overall comparison and 2) for students living in the home rather than in an institution. The results of this study support the addition of distributed trial sequencing to the technology of instruction for severely handicapped learners.
HolvoetJ.UtleyB.Implementing a functional curriculum with the severely handicapped. Paper presented at Kansas Statewide Inservice Conference, Topeka, Kansas, 1978.
2.
GargaglianoC.The effects of massed versus distributed practice on the acquisition and maintenance of basic sight words. Working Paper Number 5, Experimental Education Unit, Child Development and Retardation Center, Seattle: University of Washington, 1974.
3.
HelmstetterE.The effects of distributed practice on learning by a severely handicapped adolescent. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Kansas, 1980.
4.
AdamsJ. A.Warm-up decrement in performance on the pursuit rotor. American Journal of Psychology, 1952, 55, 404–414.
5.
BaumeisterA. A.BerryM.Distribution of practice and specificity of learning in normals and retardates. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1976, 72, 227–231.
6.
BarlowD. H.HayesS. C.Alternating treatments design: One strategy for comparing the effects of two treatments in a single subject. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1979, 12, 199–210.
7.
BrownL.NietupskiJ.Hamre-NietupskiS.Criterion of ultimate functioning., In ThomasM. A. (Ed.), Hey, don't forget about me. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children, 1976.
8.
CanoverW. J.Practical nonparametric statistics. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1971.
9.
CarronA. V.Performance and learning in a discrete motor task under massed vs. distributed practice. The Research Quarterly, 1969, 40, 481–489.
10.
ChaseyW. C.Distribution of practice, learning and retention. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1976, 43, 159–164.
11.
CookB. S.HilgardE. R.Distributed practice in motor learning: Progressively increasing and decreasing rests. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1949, 39, 196–172.
12.
DeeseJ.The psychology of learning. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1958.
13.
DennyM. R.FrisbeyN.WeaverJ.Jr.Rotary pursuit performance under alternate conditions of distributed and massed practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1955, 49, 48–54.
14.
DentH.JohnsonR.The effects of massed versus distributed practice on the learning of organic familial defectives. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1964, 68, 533–536.
15.
DoreL. R.HilgardE. R.Spaced practice as a test of Snoddy's two processes in mental growth. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1938, 23, 359–374.
16.
DuncanC. P.The effect of unequal amounts of practice on motor learning before and after rest. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1951, 42, 257–264.
17.
DunlapG.KoegelR. L.Motivating autistic children through stimulus variation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1980, 13, 619–627.
18.
ElmesD. G.SandersL. W.DovelJ. C.Isolation of massed and distributed items. Memory and Cognition, 1973, 1, 77–79.
19.
EricksenS. C.Variability of attack in massed and distributed practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1942, 31, 339–345.
20.
GuessD.HornerR.UtleyB.HolvoetJ.MaxonD.TuckerD.WarrenS.A functional curriculum sequencing model for teaching the severely handicapped. AAESPH Review, 1978, 3, 202–215.
21.
HolvoetJ.GuessD.MulliganM.BrownF.The individualized curriculum sequencing model (II): A teaching strategy for severely handicapped students. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 1980, 5, 337–352.
22.
HovlandI. C.Experimental studies in rote-learning theory, V. Comparison of distribution of practice in serial and paired associate learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1939, 26, 622–633.
23.
HovlandI. C.Experimental studies in rote-learning theorty, VII. Distribution of practice with varying lengths of lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1940a, 27, 271–284.
24.
HovlandI. C.Experimental studies in rote-learning theory, VI. Comparisons of retention following learning to same criterion by massed and distributed practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1940b, 27, 568–587.
25.
KientzleM. J.Properties of learning curves under varied distributions of practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1946, 36, 187–211.
26.
KimbleG. A.Performance and reminiscence in motor learning as a function of the degrees of distribution of practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1949a, 39, 500–510.
27.
KimbleG. A.An experimental test of a two-factor theory of inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1949b, 39. 15–23.
28.
KimbleG. A.BilodeauE. A.Work and rest as variables in cyclical motor learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1949, 39, 150–157.
29.
KleckaW. R.NieN. H.HullC. H.Statistical packages for the social sciences: Primer. McGraw-Hill, 1975.
30.
MadsenM. C.Distribution of practice and level of intelligence. Psychological Reports, 1963, 13, 39–42.
31.
MulliganM.GuessD.HolvoetJ.BrownF.The individualized curriculum sequencing model (I): Implications from research on massed, distributed, and spaced trial training. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 1980, 5, 325–336.
32.
NeefN. A.IwataB. A.PageT. J.The effects of known item interspersal on acquisition and retention of spelling and sight reading words. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1977, 10, 738.
33.
ReynoldsB.AdamsJ. A.Effect of distribution and shift in distribution within a single training session. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1953, 46, 137–145.
34.
StelmachG. E.Efficiency of motor learning as a function of intertrial rest. The Research Quarterly, 1969, 40, 198–202.
35.
TsaoJ. C.Studies in spaced and massed learning, II: Meaningfulness of material and distribution of practice. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1948, 40, 198–202.
36.
UnderwoodB. J.Distributed practice on the Tsai-Partington Numbers Test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1961, 12, 325–326.
37.
UnderwoodB. J.Studies in distributed practice: IV. The influence of rest interval activity in serial learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1952, 43, 329–341.
38.
UnderwoodB. J.Studies in distributed practice: VIII. Learning and retention as a function of interlist similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1953, 45, 133–141.
39.
UnderwoodB. J.GoadD.Studies of distributed practice: I. The influence of intralist similarity in serial learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 42, 1951, 125–134.
40.
UnderwoodB. J.KapelakS. M.MalmiR. A.The spacing effect: Additions to the theoretical and empirical puzzles. Memory and Cognition, 1976, 4, 391–400.
41.
WhitleyJ. D.Effects of practice distribution on learning of a fine motor task. The Research Quarterly, 1970, 41, 576–582.
42.
WoodworthR. S.SchlosbergH.Experimental psychology. New York: Henry Holt, 1954.
