Comparison of the Impact of Spaced Instruction versus Massed Instruction on Salivary Cortisol Hormone Levels and Salivary Glucose in Beginner English Language Learners

Document Type : Original Article(s)

Authors

1 PhD Student, English Department, Na. C., Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, English Department, Na. C., Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran

3 Associate Professor, English Department, Na. C., Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran

10.48305/jims.v43.i838.1480

Abstract

Background: Educational methods influence English language learning and may affect physiological markers. This study compared spaced versus massed learning effects on salivary cortisol and glucose in Iranian language learners.
Methods: In this quasi-experimental study, 118 beginner learners (60 male, 58 female) from Shahreza high schools were randomly selected. After a placement test, baseline saliva samples were collected. Participants were divided into spaced learning (n = 60, age 13.4 ± 0.5) and massed learning (n = 58, age 13.8 ± 0.4) groups. The spaced group learned 30 phonetic items in session 1 with review one week later. The massed group learned 15 new items per session without review. Post-intervention saliva samples were analyzed for cortisol (ELISA) and glucose, one-way ANCOVA for analysis (P < 0.05).
Findings: Massed learning showed significantly higher cortisol (5.68 ng/mL vs 4.59 ng/mL, P < 0.05) but insignificantly higher glucose levels (7.74 vs 7.38 mg/dL, P > 0.05) compared to spaced learning, indicating greater stress response.
Conclusion: It can be concluded that massed learning may increase anxiety and negatively impact health, while spaced learning appears less stressful. These findings can guide educators in selecting optimal teaching methods.

Highlights

Roya Baharlouei: Google Scholar

Hadi Salehi: PubMed, Google Scholar

Omid Tabatabaei: Google Scholar 

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Horwitz EK, Young DJ. Language anxiety: From theory and research to classroom implications. New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 1991.
  2. MacIntyre PD, Noels KA, Clément R. Biases in self‐ratings of second language proficiency: The role of language anxiety. Language Learning 1997; 47(2): 265-87.
  3. Na Z. A study of high school students’ English learning anxiety. Asian EFL Journal 2007; 9(3): 22-34.
  4. Joëls M. Corticosteroid effects in the brain: U-shape it. Trends Pharmacol Sci 2006; 27(5): 244-50.
  5. Lupien SJ, De Leon M, De Santi S, Convit A, Tarshish C, Nair NPV, et al. Cortisol levels during human aging predict hippocampal atrophy and memory deficits. Nat Neurosci 1998; 1(1): 69-73.
  6. Moriarty O, McGuire BE, Finn DP. The effect of pain on cognitive function: a review of clinical and preclinical research. Prog Neurobiol 2011; 93(3): 385-404.
  7. Lupien SJ, Maheu F, Tu M, Fiocco A, Schramek TE. The effects of stress and stress hormones on human cognition: Implications for the field of brain and cognition. Brain Cogn 2007; 65(3): 209-37.
  8. Wirth MM. Hormones, stress, and cognition: the effects of glucocorticoids and oxytocin on memory. Adapt Human Behav Physiol 2015; 1(2): 177-201.
  9. Horwitz EK, Horwitz MB, Cope J. Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal. 1986; 70(2): 125-32.
  10. Tiongco R-E, Bituin A, Arceo E, Rivera N, Singian E. Salivary glucose as a non-invasive biomarker of type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Clin Exp Dent 2018; 10(9): e902–e907.
  11. Alkalifah B, Shaheen MT, Alotibi J, Alsubait T, Alhakami H. Evaluation of machine learning-based regression techniques for prediction of diabetes levels fluctuations. Heliyon 2025; 11(1): e41199.
  12. Messier C. Glucose improvement of memory: a review. Eur J Pharmacol 2004; 490(1-3): 33-57.
  13. Kongdee R, Parsia B, Thabit H, Harper S. Glucose interpretation meaning and action: enhancing type 1 diabetes decision-making with textual descriptions. Ther Adv Endocrinol Metab 2025; 16: 20420188251362089.
  14. Manning CA, Parsons MW, Gold PE. Anterograde and retrograde enhancement of 24-h memory by glucose in elderly humans. Behav Neural Biol 1992; 58(2): 125-30.
  15. Lee H-B, Kwon S-Y, Park J-H, Kim B, Kim G-H, Choi J-H, et al. Machine learning based prediction of cognitive metrics using major biomarkers in SuperAgers. Sci Rep 2025; 15(1): 18735.
  16. Scholey AB, Harper S, Kennedy DO. Cognitive demand and blood glucose. Physiol Behav 2001; 73(4): 585-92.
  17. Benton D, Owens DS. Blood glucose and human memory. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1993; 113(1): 83-8.
  18. Sapolsky RM. Glucocorticoids, stress, and their adverse neurological effects: relevance to aging. Exp Gerontol 1999; 34(6): 721-32.
  19. Aliakbari M, Safavi E, Nejad AM. Effect of psychological stress on the salivary alpha amylase and cortisol levels in EFL teachers. Archives of Medical Laboratory Sciences 2017; 3(2): 16.
  20. Ferguson DB, Fort, A., & Botchway, C. A. The determination of glucose in human parotid saliva1973.
  21. Schipper RG, Silletti E, Vingerhoeds MH. Saliva as research material: biochemical, physicochemical and practical aspects. Arch Oral Biol 2007; 52(12): 1114-35.
  22. Heidari M. The impact of intensive learning on cognitive load and anxiety in EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 2024; 15(1): 112–25.
  23. Lotfolahi AR, Salehi H. Spacing effects in vocabulary learning: Young EFL learners in focus. Cogent Education 2017; 4(1): 1287391.
  24. Cepeda NJ, Pashler H, Vul E, Wixted JT, Rohrer D. Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychol Bull 2006; 132(3): 354-80.
Journal of Isfahan Medical School
Volume 43, Issue 838
2nd Week, January
January and February 2026
Pages 1480-1487

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 11 September 2025
  • Accept Date: 14 February 2026

Share

How to cite

Statistics