Advances in Health Sciences Education

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 953–968 | Cite as

The mediating effect of context variation in mixed practice for transfer of basic science

  • Kulamakan Kulasegaram
  • Cynthia Min
  • Elizabeth Howey
  • Alan Neville
  • Nicole Woods
  • Kelly Dore
  • Geoffrey Norman
Article

Abstract

Applying a previously learned concept to a novel problem is an important but difficult process called transfer. Practicing multiple concepts together (mixed practice mode) has been shown superior to practicing concepts separately (blocked practice mode) for transfer. This study examined the effect of single and multiple practice contexts for both mixed and blocked practice modalities on transfer performance. We looked at performance on near transfer (familiar contexts) cases and far transfer (unfamiliar contexts) cases. First year psychology students (n = 42) learned three physiological concepts in a 2 × 2 factorial study (one or two practice contexts and blocked or mixed practice). Each concept was practiced with two clinical cases; practice context was defined as the number of organ systems used (one system per concept vs. two systems). In blocked practice, two practice cases followed each concept; in mixed practice, students learned all concepts before seeing six practice cases. Transfer testing consisted of correctly classifying and explaining 15 clinical cases involving near and far transfer. The outcome was ratings of quality of explanations on a 0–3 scale. The repeated measures analysis showed a significant near versus far by organ system interaction [F(1,38) = 3.4, p < 0.002] with practice with a single context showing lower far transfer scores than near transfer [0.58 (0.37)–0.83 (0.37)] compared to the two contexts which had similar far and near transfer scores [1.19 (0.50)–1.01 (0.38)]. Practicing with two organ contexts had a significant benefit for far transfer regardless of mixed or blocked practice; the single context mixed practice group had the lowest far transfer performance; this was a large effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.81). Using only one practice context during practice significantly lowers performance even with the usually superior mixed practice mode. Novices should be exposed to multiple contexts and mixed practice to facilitate transfer.

Keywords

Basic science Transfer Cognition Teaching strategies Instructional design 

References

  1. Baghdady, M. T., Pharoah, M. J., Regehr, G., Lam, E. W., & Woods, N. N. (2009). The Role of basic sciences in diagnostic oral radiology. Journal of Dental Education, 73(10), 1187–1193.Google Scholar
  2. Baghdady, M. T., Carnahan, H., Lam, E. W., & Woods, N. N. (2013). Integration of basic sciences and clinical sciences in oral radiology for dental students. Journal of Dental Education, 77(6), 757–763.Google Scholar
  3. Eva, K. W., Neville, A. J., & Norman, G. R. (1998). Exploring the etiology of content specificity: Factors influencing analogical transfer and problem solving. Academic Medicine, 73(10 Suppl), S1–S5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 306–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Goldszmidt, M., Minda, J. P., Devantier, S., Skye, A. L., & Woods, N. N. (2012). Expanding the basic sciences debate: The role of physics knowledge in interpreting clinical findings. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 17(4), 547–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hatala, R. (2011). Practice makes perfect… sometimes. Medical Education, 45(2), 114–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hatala, R. M., Brooks, L. R., & Norman, G. R. (2003). Practice makes perfect: The critical role of mixed practice in the acquisition of ECG interpretation skills. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 8(1), 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Helsdingen, A. S., Gog, T., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2010). The effects of practice schedule on learning a complex judgment task. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 383–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Holyoak, K. (1989). Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction. Cognitive Science, 13(3), 295–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Holyoak, K. J., & Koh, K. (1987). Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer. Memory and Cognition, 15(4), 332–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M., & Heckler, A. F. (2009). Concrete instantiations of mathematics: A double-edged sword. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(2), 90–93.Google Scholar
  12. Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M., & Heckler, A. F. (2013). The Cost of concreteness: The effect of nonessential information on analogical transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19(1), 14–29.Google Scholar
  13. Kulasegaram, K., Martimianakis, M. A., Mylopoulos, M., Whitehead, C. R., & Woods, N. N. (2013). Cognition before curriculum: Rethinking the integration of basic science and clinical learning. Academic Medicine, 88(10), 1578–85.Google Scholar
  14. Kulasegaram, K., Min, C., Ames, K., Howey, E. H., Neville, A. J., & Norman, G. R. (2012). The effect of conceptual and contextual familiarity on transfer performance. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 17(4), 489–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Laksov, K. B., Lonka, K., & Josephson, A. (2008). How do medical teachers address the problem of transfer? Advances in Health Sciences Education : Theory and Practice, 13(3), 345–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee, T. D., Magill, R. A., & Weeks, D. J. (1985). Influence of practice schedule on testing schema theory predictions in adults. Journal of Motor Behaviour, 17(3), 283–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lowenstein, J., Thompson, L., & Gentner, D. (2003). Analogical encoding facilitates transfer in negotiation. Psychological Bulleting Review, 6(4), 586–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Magill, R. A., & Hall, K. G. (1990). A review of the contextual interference effect in motor skill acquisition. Human Movement Science, 9, 241–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 16(5), 519–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Needham, D. R., & Begg, I. M. (1991). Problem-oriented training promotes spontaneous analogical transfer: Memory-oriented training promotes memory for training. Memory and Cognition, 19(6), 543–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Norman, G. R. (2009). Teaching basic science to optimize transfer. Medical Teacher, 31(5), 807–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Norman, G. R., Dore, K., Krebs, J., & Neville, A. J. (2007). The power of the plural: Effect of conceptual analogies on successful transfer. Academic Medicine, 82(10 Suppl), S16–S18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Paas, F. G. W. C., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(1), 122–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reeves, L. M., & Weisberg, R. W. (1994). The role of content and abstract information in analogical transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 115(3), 381–400.Google Scholar
  25. Roher, D., & Taylor, K. (2007). The shuffling of mathematics problems improves learning. Instructional Science, 35(6), 481–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2010). Recent research on human learning challenges conventional instructional strategies. Educational Researcher, 39, 406–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ross, B. H. (1987). This is like that: The use of earlier problems and the separation of similarity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13(4), 629–639.Google Scholar
  28. Ross, B. H., & Kennedy, P. T. (1990). Generalization from the use of earlier examples in problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(1), 42–55.Google Scholar
  29. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1989). The rocky road to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24(2), 113–142.Google Scholar
  30. Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3(4), 207–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Simon, D. A. (2008). Scheduling and learning. Advances in Psychology, 139(1), 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Clark, R. E., & de Croock, M. B. M. (2002). Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID-model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 39–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Kester, L., & Paas, F. (2006). Teaching complex rather than simple tasks: Balancing intrinsic and germane load to enhance transfer of learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(3), 343–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Woods, N. N. (2007). Science is fundamental: The role of biomedical knowledge in clinical reasoning. Medical Education, 41(12), 1173–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Woods, N. N., Brooks, L. R., & Norman, G. R. (2005). The value of basic science in clinical diagnosis: Creating coherence among signs and symptoms. Medical Education, 39(1), 107–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Woods, N. N., Neville, A. J., Levinson, A. J., Howey, E. H., Ockowski, W. J., & Norman, G. R. (2006). The value of basic science in clinical diagnosis. Academic Medicine, 81(10 Suppl), S124–S127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Woods, N. N., Brooks, L. R., & Norman, G. R. (2007a). The role of biomedical knowledge in diagnosis of difficult clinical cases. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 12(4), 417–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Woods, N. N., Brooks, L. R., & Norman, G. R. (2007b). It all make sense: Biomedical knowledge, causal connections and memory in the novice diagnostician. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 12(4), 405–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kulamakan Kulasegaram
    • 1
  • Cynthia Min
    • 2
  • Elizabeth Howey
    • 3
  • Alan Neville
    • 5
  • Nicole Woods
    • 4
  • Kelly Dore
    • 3
  • Geoffrey Norman
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Family & Community Medicine & The Wilson CentreUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Centre for Health Education ScholarshipUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  3. 3.Programme for Education Research and Development, Faculty of Health SciencesMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  4. 4.Department of Surgery & The Wilson Centre, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  5. 5.Department of Oncology, Faculty of Health SciencesMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations