A Systematic Review of Interleaving as a Concept Learning Strategy
Firth, J., Rivers, I., & Boyle, J. · 2021
grade Creviewindependentreplicated
Sample
26 studies (17 in meta-analysis)
Population
Concept/category learning; lab-dominated (undergraduates); art- and science-based materials.
Design
Concept-learning-specific systematic review + meta. Reports effect-size ranges (upper bounds).
Key findings
For inductive/category learning, interleaving's benefit to TRANSFER (novel items) is as strong as to memory for studied items — so it is more than teaching-to-the-test here, unlike the more proximal math/verbal effects. Greatest use when differences between items are SUBTLE. Lab-dominated; calls for authentic classroom research.
Genetic confound
Domain discrimination outcome.
Replication notes
Corroborates Brunmair on the key point: for category learning, transfer to novel items is as strong as memory for studied items.
DOI / URL
10.1002/rev3.3266
Effects
| Outcome | Metric | Value | Measure | Timing | Vs | Horizon | Class |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Interleaving benefit for MEMORY (studied items) | g | up to 0.65 | researcher-designed | immediate+delayed; lab | unclear | end-of-treatment | domain-skill |
| Interleaving benefit for TRANSFER (novel items) | g | up to 0.66 (as strong as the memory benefit) | researcher-designed | immediate+delayed; lab | unclear | end-of-treatment | near-transfer |
Cited by
- Interleaving (mixing problem types vs blocking)moderate supportconf: mediumgc: low