{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020589872008903727, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00667779632721202, 'mean_word_length': 5.784905660377358, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Massed versus Distributed Team Practice

The current study provides the first investigation of practice schedules on team performance. Research involving practice schedules in individual learning supports the notion that distributed practice schedules result in better long-term retention but appear to impede acquisition (Schmidt & Bjork, 1992). Massed practice schedules, on the other hand, lead to poorer long-term retention but better performance during acquisition. This effect is thought to occur because distributed practice schedules increase information processing activities in individuals by providing practice retrieving information (Schmidt & Bjork, 1992). If the known benefits of distributed practice occur as a consequence of increased information processing activities as suggested by theory, then teams should also display similar learning under the two practice schedules since teams also process information and are subject to encoding, storage, and retrieval phenomenon (Hinsz, Tindale, & Vollrath, 1997). It was hypothesized that teams, like individuals, who learn under a distributed practice schedule would perform poorer than massed practice teams during acquisition, but would perform better during a long-term retention test. However, the results of the current investigation suggest the known benefits that distributed practice has on individual learning may not apply to team learning. Given the increased emphasis of team training in many work environments, it is important to determine which practice schedules optimize team learning since differences may suggest a re-examination of team training methodologies. Results of the current study indicate that more research is needed in this area before recommendations for scheduling team practice sessions can be made.