The Effect of Spaced Repetition on Learning and Knowledge Transfer in a Large Cohort of Practicing Physicians.

IF 5.3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Academic Medicine Pub Date : 2024-09-09 DOI:10.1097/acm.0000000000005856
David W Price,Ting Wang,Thomas R O'Neill,Zachary J Morgan,Prasad Chodavarapu,Andrew Bazemore,Lars E Peterson,Warren P Newton
{"title":"The Effect of Spaced Repetition on Learning and Knowledge Transfer in a Large Cohort of Practicing Physicians.","authors":"David W Price,Ting Wang,Thomas R O'Neill,Zachary J Morgan,Prasad Chodavarapu,Andrew Bazemore,Lars E Peterson,Warren P Newton","doi":"10.1097/acm.0000000000005856","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PURPOSE\r\nSpaced repetition is superior to repeated study for learning and knowledge retention, but literature on the effect of different spaced repetition strategies is lacking. The authors evaluated the effects of different spaced repetition strategies on long-term knowledge retention and transfer.\r\n\r\nMETHOD\r\nThis prospective cohort study, conducted from October 1, 2020, through July 20, 2023, used the American Board of Family Medicine Continuous Knowledge Self-Assessment (CKSA) to assess learning and knowledge transfer of diplomates and residents. Participants were randomized to a control group or 1 of 5 spaced repetition conditions during 5 calendar quarters (January 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022). Participants in the spaced repetition groups received 6 repeated questions once or twice. Incorrectly but confidently answered questions were prioritized for repetition, with decreasing priority for questions answered incorrectly with lesser confidence. All participants received 6 rewritten questions corresponding to their initial questions chosen for repetition in quarter 10 (second quarter of calendar year 2023).\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nA total of 26,258 family physicians or residents who completed the CKSA in the baseline period were randomized. Spaced repetition was superior to no spaced repetition for learning at quarter 6 (58.03% vs 43.20%, P < .001, Cohen d = 0.62) and knowledge transfer at quarter 10 (58.33% vs 52.39%, P < .001, Cohen d = 0.26). Double-spaced repetitions were superior to single-spaced repetitions for learning (62.24% vs 51.83%, P < .001, Cohen d = 0.43) and transfer (60.08% vs 55.72%, P < .001, Cohen d = 0.20). There were no meaningful differences in learning or transfer between repetition strategy chosen in the single- or double-repetition groups.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nThis study affirms the value of spaced repetition in improving learning and retention in medical education and ongoing professional development.","PeriodicalId":50929,"journal":{"name":"Academic Medicine","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000005856","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

PURPOSE Spaced repetition is superior to repeated study for learning and knowledge retention, but literature on the effect of different spaced repetition strategies is lacking. The authors evaluated the effects of different spaced repetition strategies on long-term knowledge retention and transfer. METHOD This prospective cohort study, conducted from October 1, 2020, through July 20, 2023, used the American Board of Family Medicine Continuous Knowledge Self-Assessment (CKSA) to assess learning and knowledge transfer of diplomates and residents. Participants were randomized to a control group or 1 of 5 spaced repetition conditions during 5 calendar quarters (January 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022). Participants in the spaced repetition groups received 6 repeated questions once or twice. Incorrectly but confidently answered questions were prioritized for repetition, with decreasing priority for questions answered incorrectly with lesser confidence. All participants received 6 rewritten questions corresponding to their initial questions chosen for repetition in quarter 10 (second quarter of calendar year 2023). RESULTS A total of 26,258 family physicians or residents who completed the CKSA in the baseline period were randomized. Spaced repetition was superior to no spaced repetition for learning at quarter 6 (58.03% vs 43.20%, P < .001, Cohen d = 0.62) and knowledge transfer at quarter 10 (58.33% vs 52.39%, P < .001, Cohen d = 0.26). Double-spaced repetitions were superior to single-spaced repetitions for learning (62.24% vs 51.83%, P < .001, Cohen d = 0.43) and transfer (60.08% vs 55.72%, P < .001, Cohen d = 0.20). There were no meaningful differences in learning or transfer between repetition strategy chosen in the single- or double-repetition groups. CONCLUSIONS This study affirms the value of spaced repetition in improving learning and retention in medical education and ongoing professional development.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
间隔重复对大批执业医师的学习和知识迁移的影响》(The Effect of Spaced Repetition on Learning and Knowledge Transfer in a Large Cohort of Practicing Physicians)。
目的在学习和知识保持方面,间隔复述优于重复学习,但缺乏有关不同间隔复述策略效果的文献。作者评估了不同间隔重复策略对长期知识保留和转移的影响。方法这项前瞻性队列研究于 2020 年 10 月 1 日至 2023 年 7 月 20 日进行,采用美国全科医学委员会连续知识自我评估(CKSA)来评估毕业证书获得者和住院医师的学习和知识转移情况。在 5 个日历季度(2021 年 1 月 1 日至 2022 年 3 月 31 日)内,参与者被随机分配到对照组或 5 种间隔重复条件中的一种。间隔重复组的参与者会收到一次或两次重复的 6 个问题。回答错误但有把握的问题优先被重复,回答错误但信心不足的问题优先级递减。所有参与者在第 10 季度(公历 2023 年第二季度)都会收到 6 道重新编写的问题,这些问题与他们最初选择重复的问题相对应。结果共有 26258 名家庭医生或住院医师在基线期完成了 CKSA,他们被随机分配。在第 6 季度的学习(58.03% vs 43.20%,P < .001,Cohen d = 0.62)和第 10 季度的知识迁移(58.33% vs 52.39%,P < .001,Cohen d = 0.26)方面,间隔重复优于无间隔重复。在学习(62.24% vs 51.83%,P < .001,Cohen d = 0.43)和知识迁移(60.08% vs 55.72%,P < .001,Cohen d = 0.20)方面,双间距复述优于单间距复述。单重复组和双重复组所选择的重复策略在学习和迁移方面没有明显差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Academic Medicine
Academic Medicine 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.50%
发文量
982
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Medicine, the official peer-reviewed journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, acts as an international forum for exchanging ideas, information, and strategies to address the significant challenges in academic medicine. The journal covers areas such as research, education, clinical care, community collaboration, and leadership, with a commitment to serving the public interest.
期刊最新文献
Validating the 2023 Association of American Medical Colleges Graduate Medical Education Leadership Competencies. World Federation for Medical Education Recognizes 5 International Accrediting Bodies. Irony. Teaching Opportunities for Postgraduate Trainees in Primary Care. How Many Is Too Many? Using Cognitive Load Theory to Determine the Maximum Safe Number of Inpatient Consultations for Trainees.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1