↓ Skip to main content

The effects of interleaving versus blocking on foreign language pronunciation learning

Overview of attention for article published in Memory & Cognition, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 Mendeley
Title
The effects of interleaving versus blocking on foreign language pronunciation learning
Published in
Memory & Cognition, January 2013
DOI 10.3758/s13421-012-0291-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shana K. Carpenter, Frank E. Mueller

Abstract

Many studies have shown that students learn better when they are given repeated exposures to different concepts in a way that is shuffled or interleaved, rather than blocked (e.g., Rohrer Educational Psychology Review, 24, 355-367, 2012). The present study explored the effects of interleaving versus blocking on learning French pronunciations. Native English speakers learned several French words that conformed to specific pronunciation rules (e.g., the long "o" sound formed by the letter combination "eau," as in bateau), and these rules were presented either in blocked fashion (bateau, carreau, fardeau . . . mouton, genou, verrou . . . tandis, verglas, admis) or in interleaved fashion (bateau, mouton, tandis, carreau, genou, verglas . . .). Blocking versus interleaving was manipulated within subjects (Experiments 1-3) or between subjects (Experiment 4), and participants' pronunciation proficiency was later tested through multiple-choice tests (Experiments 1, 2, and 4) or a recall test (Experiment 3). In all experiments, blocking benefited the learning of pronunciations more than did interleaving, and this was true whether participants learned only 4 words per rule (Experiments 1-3) or 15 words per rule (Experiment 4). Theoretical implications of these findings are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 100 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 17%
Student > Master 15 15%
Student > Bachelor 15 15%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 20 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 37 36%
Social Sciences 12 12%
Linguistics 9 9%
Neuroscience 6 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 2%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 26 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 December 2022.
All research outputs
#1,584,753
of 23,221,875 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#106
of 1,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,940
of 287,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#2
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,221,875 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,571 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 287,323 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.