One factor that may determine the success or failure of encoding in declarative LTM is whether a massing or spacing learning technique is adopted when learning information. Massed learning involves long, intense periods of study, however these sessions occur infrequently and temporally close together (VandenBos, 2007). A common massing technique is cramming, which involves studying intensely in the days or hours preceding the necessary retrieval of this information, such as in an examination (Kornell, 2009); evidence suggests that between 23.5% (Vacha & McBride, 993) and 5% (Michaels & Miethe, 989) of university students use this method, often following procrastination (Brinthaupt & Shin, 200). Substantial evidence suggests that massing impairs learning and contributes to the failure of effectively encoding LTMs; this may occur because massing attenuates the degree of attention paid to information, as items become highly familiar when learning in this manner (Hintzman, 974), which requires less processing but leads to more forgetting in the long-term (Magliero, 983). In contrast, spaced learning is characterised by shorter, more frequent periods of study, with sufficient time left between learning sessions (VandenBos, 2007). Robust evidence suggests that this learning method is greatly beneficial and contributes to the successful encoding of LTMs. The reactivation theory of spacing effects (Mizuno, 2003) suggests this occurs because, in spacing, memory reactivation during subsequent learning sessions is greater than in massing. Research also indicates that spacing between sessions provides temporal distinctiveness, which appears to make memories more resistant to interference and thus improve long-term storage of material (Kelley &
Whatson, 203).
There is substantial evidence demonstrating the superiority of spaced learning in encoding LTMs compared to massed learning. In Bloom & Schuells (98) research, students studied words for a vocabulary test either distributed across three days, or all on the third day. Immediate testing did not produce a huge amount of difference in recall between the two groups, however, in a retest 4 days later, the massed learning groups recall was significantly poorer than the distributed group, reflecting the short-lived nature of massed information. This experiment has been widely replicated (e.g. McDaniel et al., 203) and has valuable real-life application as it demonstrates the benefits of spaced learning in classroom activities, compared to previous studies which were predominantly artificial, laboratory experiments, and so lack generalisability to everyday settings. Furthermore, Foot-Seymour et al. (209) found that spacing helped students to remember more facts, as well as develop their critical thinking skills. However, a notable limitation of this study is that it failed to find a benefit of spacing in one of the two fact learning measures, which was most likely due to fatigue as the 9-2 year old students were presented with a large number of questions following a ninety-minute lesson. Conflicting evidence from Brinthaupt & Shin (200) found massing to be beneficial for learning as it increases individuals flow state (Csikszentmihalyi, 990), which is characterised by enhanced concentration and goals, and a loss self-consciousness. However, in terms of long-term storage, evidence clearly indicates that massing is far superior in successfully encoding LTMs, despite the benefits that massing may present at the time of learning.