EARLY VERSUS DELAYED REVIEW I N MEANINGFUL LEARNING’ DAVID P. AUSUBEL

Bureau of Educational Research University of Illinois

The role and significance of frequency are different for meaningful than for rote learning and retention, precisely because rote and meaningful learning pro- cesses themselves are so different from one another. Repeated encounters with the same array of stimulation presumably enhance rote learning and retention by in- creasing the strength of discrete, arbitrary, and verbatim associative linkages, i .e . , their resistance to the short-term interfering effects of prior and subsequent stimu- lation. The same repetition, on the other hand, presumably enhances meaningful learning and retention by increasing the availability of learned instructional mater- ials that have been nonarbitrarily and substantively incorporated in relation to an existing concept or principle in cognitive structure, i.e., by facilitating the emergence of clear and stable rneanings and their resistance to forgetting (Ausubel, 1963).

Thus it is reasonable to assume that sheer repetition would play a more sig- nificant role in the learning and short-term retention of discrete and arbitrary asso- ciations that are largely isolated from cognitive structure, than it would in the learn- ing and longer-term retention of materials that can be meaningfully incorporated within that structure. In meaningful as opposed to rote learning situations, such other factors as the availability of clear and stable referents in cognitive structure, the discriininability between these subsumers and the learning task, and the in- ternal logic and lucidity (the potential meaningfulness) of the learning task un- doubtedly detract from the role played by repetition. Nevertheless, the influence of repetition is still considerable in the establishment and consolidation of meanings, and in the enhancement of their resistance to decreniental processes. I n any case, it cannot be dismissed as basically extrinsic to the process whereby increments in availability are effected.

From the standpoint of frequency, the chief practical implication of the differ- ences between rote and meaningful learning for classroom teaching is that review can, and largely should, take the place of practice. Since meaningful learning occurs relatively quickly, and since the forgetting of meaningfully learned materials takes place relatively slowly, much of the potentially facilitating effects of frequency can be used more profitably for review than for original learning purposes. In terms of what is actually learned and retained, in other words, the relatively long interval between the initial learning and the review sessions, in the case of meaningful learn- ing, is comparable to the short inter-trial practice interval, in the case of advanced stages of rote learning. Thus, in teaching the meanings of a series of programmed scientific terms, Reynolds and Glaser (1964) recently found that “repetition had only transitory effects upon retention,” whereas “spaced reviews produced a signi- ficant facilitation in retention of the reviewed material.”

For purposes of meaningful learning and retention, should review be introduced shortly after original learning, when the material is still fresh in mind and relatively little has been forgotten, or would it be more effective to introduce review after an appreciable amount of material has been forgotten? This issue has significant im- plications for student study practices and for the programming of potentially mean-

’The assistance of Professors G. Lutte and A. Ronco of the Salesian University of Rome in furnish- ing subjects, in translating materials, and in administering the experiment is gratefully acknowledged.

196 DAVID P. AUSUBEL

ingful instructional materials. It also has important theoretical implications for the psychology of meaningful learning and retention. Credible arguments can be ad- duced in support of each alternative, but the issue can obviously be decided only by empirical test.

The findings of two previous studies are particularly relevant for the problem a t issue. Peterson, Ellis, Toohill, and Kloess (1935) reported no difference between the effects of a rereading review introduced one or nine days after original learning. Sones and Stroud (1940) found that there was a slight but nonsignificant tendency for a delayed rereading review to be more effective than an early rereading review. In both instances, however, these findings were somewhat equivocal because the criterion retention test was given an equal number of days from the original learn- ing. Hence there was a greater time interval between the early review and the re- tention test than between the delayed review and the retention test, thereby tending to bias the results in favor of the latter condition. The present study, therefore, was designed to eliminate this methodological difficulty. The review session was ad- ministered on the same day for both early and delayed review groups and was followed by the retention test after an equal time interval for both groups. The same relearning of the material constituted early or delayed review for the two groups as a result of varying the interval between original learning and review.

Subjects. The experimental population consisted of 97 students in a general psychology and a developmental psychology class at the Salesian University of Rome. Their average age was 26.9. For the most part, they were either priests or preparing to become priests. Within each class, Ss were assigned randomly to the early and delayed review groups. The experiment was conducted separately in each class as a required laboratory exercise, and was performed during regularly scheduled class hours. In order to maximize ego-involvement, Ss were informed that after the data were processed their individual scores, as well as the class results, would be reported to them.

Learning Passage and Test. The learning material used in this study was a specially prepared, 2500-word passage dealing with Buddhist conceptions of God, immortality, soul, faith, salvation, moralit , and responsibility. The topic of Buddhism was chosen because it was explicitly unfamiliar to the A. Knowledge of the material was tested by a 45item multiple-choice test that yielded a cor- rected split-half reliabilit of .73 for the retention scores. The distribution of the scores did not de- viate significantly from t t e normal curve. Unfamiliarity of the material was established by admin- istering the test to a comparable control group who did not study the passage; the immediate re- tention scores of the latter group were not significantly greater than chance.

As each group studied the Buddhism passage for the first time, the other group studied a passage of comparable length and difficulty on the causes and types of drug addiction. This made it possible to draw both groups from the same population, and to conduct the original learning in the same group setting. The topic of drug addiction was chosen because it is so dissimilar to the learning passage as to cause no retroactive interference.

All materials were written in the Italian language.

PROCEDURE During the first session, seven days prior to review, the delayed review group studied the Bud-

dhism passage, and the early review group studied the addiction passage. Ss were requested to read the material only once; after finishing a given page they were not permitted to turn back. A time limit of 30 minutes, sufficient to accommodate the slowest reader, was imposed.

During the second session, one day prior to review, the delayed review group studied the addiction passage, and the earl review group studied the Buddhism passage.

During the thirdr or review session, both groups restudied the Buddhism passage. The reading conditions were the same as during the first passage except for a time limit of 25 minutes.

During the fourth session, six days after review, both groups took the Buddhism test A time limit of 45 minutes was imposed.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Confirming the findings of Peterson, et al., (1935) and of Sones and Stroud

(1940), there was a small and statistically nonsignificant difference between the mean retention scores of the early ( M = 19.14 -t 5.21) and delayed ( M = 17.87

EARLY VERSUS DELAYED REVIEW IN MEANINGFUL LEARNING 197

& 5.77) review groups. For a two-tailed t-test, this difference was significant a t about the .30 level. Evidently, then, early and delayed review were not significantly different in enhancing the meaningful learning and retention of school material.

The results of this experiment can be best explained, in my opinion, by sup- posing that the respective advantages of early and delayed review counterbalance each other. The theoretical advantages of delayed review are perhaps more self- evident than those of early review. In the first place, after a longer retention inter- val, when more material is forgotten, the learner is more highly motivated to profit from the opportunity for review. He is less likely to regard this opportunity as un- necessary and superfluous, and is hence more disposed to take good advantage of it in terms of effort, attention, and concentration. Second, and even more important, prior forgetting presumably has a facilitating effect on meaningful learning and re- tention because, as a result of both trying and failing to remember material, the learner tends to become aware of negative factors in the learning and retention situations that promote forgetting, that is, of areas of instability, ambiguity, con- fusion, and lack of discriminability (Ausubel & Youssef, 1965). Thus forearmed, he can take the necessary steps during the relearning session to strengthen particularly weak components of the learning task, to resolve existing confusion and ambiguity, and to increase discriminability between previously learned ideas and related new propositions. Furthermore, greater potential benefit can always be anticipated from repetition when a larger proportion of the learning task is forgotten.

I n what ways can early review conceivably counterbalance these evident ad- vantages of delayed review? The most likely possibility is that repetition (review) has a specially potent consolidating effect on recently learned material while it is still appreciably above the threshold of availability, and that this consolidating effect decreases as the material becomes progressively less available. Obviously, another trial provides additional opportunity for the learner to interact cognitively with the learning material, and to relate the potential meaning it embodies to his existing structure of knowledge, thereby enabling actual or experienced meanings to eventuate and/or be consolidated. He has, in other words, another opportunity to acquire meanings potential in the material that he partially or completely missed on the first trial, as well as to consolidate meanings initially established at that time.

Another study trial also provides the learner with informational feedback in the form of textual reference, for testing the correctness of the knowledge he retained from the first trial. This testing confirms correct meanings, clarifies ambiguities, corrects misconceptions, and indicates areas of weakness requiring differential con- centrated study. The net effect is consolidation of learning.

In addition to enhancing meaningful learning and retention in the two afore- mentioned direct ways, repetition also influences these processes in another indirect way through modifications in cognitive structure wrought by earlier trials. Not only do repeated presentations of the learning task determine and enhance cognitive content, but the newly acquired cognitive content also reciprocally induces changes in the perceived learning task which make it more learnable. That is, initial contact with the material sensitizes the learner to the meanings it contains when he encoun- ters it again. Since he had previously derived meanings from the learning material on the first trial-by incorporating potential meanings into his cognitive structure- now the ideas as a whole, not merely the component words, immediately convey

198 DAVID P. AUSUBEL

actual rather than merely potential meaning to him on second reading. Hence, on the second trial, actual rather than potential meanings interact with the residue of those recently acquired meanings in his cognitive structure which were established as a consequence of his first encounter with the material. This type of interaction particularly enhances consolidation of the previously established meanings, since this time the learner does not have to grasp meanings and can concentrate solely on trying to remember them. Moreover, establishment of gross meanings on the first trial sensitizes the learner to more refined meanings and subtle distinctions on the second trial. It stands to reason, therefore, that both the consolidation and “sensitizing effects” of repetition are greater earlier rather than later during the re- tention interval, when more of the learned material is still available.

In summary, then, the principal advantage of early review would appear to be its superior consolidating and “sensitizing” effects on more highly available material; whereas the principal advantage of delayed review probably inheres in superior re- learning of forgotten material, both on motivational and cognitive grounds. Thus, since each kind of review has its own distinctive function and advantage, the two varieties are presumably complementary rather than redundant or mutually ex- clusive, and can thus be profitably combined.

REFERENCES AUSUBEL, D. P. The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune & Straiton, 1963. AUSUBEL, D. P., & YOUSSEF, M. The effect of spaced repetition on meaningful retention. Journal

PETERSON, H. A., ELLIS, M., TOOHILL, H., & KLOESS, P. Some meaaurernents of the effects of re-

REYNOLDS, J. H., & GLASER, R. Effects of repetition and spaced review upon retention of a complex

SONES, A. M., & STROUD, J. B. Review with special reference to temporal position. Journal of Edu-

of General Psychology, 1965, 73, 147-150.

views. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1935, 26, 65-72.

learning task. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1964, 55, 297-308.

cational Psychology, 1940, 31, 665-676.

MEANIKGFUL VERBAL LEARNING: CURRENT THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES’

ALBERT J. CARON

Laboratory of Psychology National Institute of Mental Health

In his recent volume, The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning, Ausubel (1963) turns a hard, pedagogical eye on psychology, particularly its rote verbal learn- ing tradition. Concluding that neither this tradition nor behaviorist approaches to cognition have anything to bring to the problem of school learning, he counsels edu- cational psychology to reject the guidance of a myopic science and to find its own theoretical way in the classroom. The remainder of the book constitutes a thoughtful first step in this direction, in the form of a thoroughgoing cognitive theory of mean- ingful verbal learning and retention.

IThis paper was presented at a Division 15 symposi~im on “Mennirigfd Verbal Learning” nt the American Psychological Association meetings in Los Angeles in September 1964.