Literature DB >> 21805688

Testing to enhance retention in human anatomy.

Jessica M Logan1, Andrew J Thompson, David W Marshak.   

Abstract

Recent work in cognitive psychology has shown that repeatedly testing one's knowledge is a powerful learning aid and provides substantial benefits for retention of the material. To apply this in a human anatomy course for medical students, 39 fill-in-the-blank quizzes of about 50 questions each, one for each region of the body, and four about the nervous system, were developed. The quizzes were optional, and no credit was awarded. They were posted online using Blackboard, which provided feedback, and they were very popular. To determine whether the quizzes had any effect on retention, they were given in a controlled setting to 21 future medical and dental students. The weekly quizzes included questions on regional anatomy and an expanded set of questions on the nervous system. Each question about the nervous system was given three times, in a slightly different form each time. The second quiz was given approximately half an hour after the first one, and the third was given one week after the second to assess retention. The quizzes were unpopular, but students showed robust improvement on the questions about the nervous system. The scores increased by almost 9% on the second quiz, with no intervention except viewing the correct answers. The scores were 29% higher on the third quiz than on the first, and there was also a positive correlation between the grades on the quizzes and the final examination. Thus, repeated testing is an effective strategy for learning and retaining information about human anatomy.
Copyright © 2011 American Association of Anatomists.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21805688      PMCID: PMC3172386          DOI: 10.1002/ase.250

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anat Sci Educ        ISSN: 1935-9772            Impact factor:   5.958


  18 in total

1.  The influence of retrieval on retention.

Authors:  M Carrier; H Pashler
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1992-11

2.  Test-enhanced learning: taking memory tests improves long-term retention.

Authors:  Henry L Roediger; Jeffrey D Karpicke
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2006-03

3.  Medical student retention of embryonic development: impact of the dimensions added by multimedia tutorials.

Authors:  Karen R Marsh; Bruce F Giffin; Donald J Lowrie
Journal:  Anat Sci Educ       Date:  2008 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.958

4.  Self-directed learning in gross human anatomy: assessment outcomes and student perceptions.

Authors:  Gayle Smythe; Diane Hughes
Journal:  Anat Sci Educ       Date:  2008 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.958

5.  The influence of study methods and knowledge processing on academic success and long-term recall of anatomy learning by first-year veterinary students.

Authors:  Peter J Ward; James J Walker
Journal:  Anat Sci Educ       Date:  2008 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.958

Review 6.  How much anatomy is enough?

Authors:  Esther M Bergman; Katinka J A H Prince; Jan Drukker; Cees P M van der Vleuten; Albert J J A Scherpbier
Journal:  Anat Sci Educ       Date:  2008 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.958

7.  "Anatomizing" reversed: Use of examination questions that foster use of higher order learning skills by students.

Authors:  E Robert Burns
Journal:  Anat Sci Educ       Date:  2010 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.958

8.  Is expanding retrieval a superior method for learning text materials?

Authors:  Jeffrey D Karpicke; Henry L Roediger
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2010-01

9.  Cue strength as a moderator of the testing effect: the benefits of elaborative retrieval.

Authors:  Shana K Carpenter
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 3.051

Review 10.  The anatomy of anatomy: a review for its modernization.

Authors:  Kapil Sugand; Peter Abrahams; Ashish Khurana
Journal:  Anat Sci Educ       Date:  2010 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.958

View more
  8 in total

1.  The context of learning anatomy: does it make a difference?

Authors:  Claire F Smith; Concepción Martinez-Álvarez; Stephen McHanwell
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2013-08-12       Impact factor: 2.610

2.  Perception of health-related case studies in the context of introduction to clinical medicine course: students' and teachers' perspective.

Authors:  Dragan Jovanovic; Tatjana Gazibara; Ranjan Solanki; Caleb Ackermann; Emily Satkovich
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2019-05-18       Impact factor: 1.568

3.  Changing paradigms in anatomy teaching-learning during a pandemic: Modification of curricular delivery based on student perspectives.

Authors:  Sushma Prabhath; Anne DSouza; Akhilesh K Pandey; Arvind K Pandey; Lokandolalu C Prasanna
Journal:  J Taibah Univ Med Sci       Date:  2021-12-03

4.  What is more effective: a daily or a weekly formative test?

Authors:  Leonieke N Palmen; Marc A T M Vorstenbosch; Esther Tanck; Jan G M Kooloos
Journal:  Perspect Med Educ       Date:  2015-04

5.  How can we teach medical students to choose wisely? A randomised controlled cross-over study of video- versus text-based case scenarios.

Authors:  Sascha Ludwig; Nikolai Schuelper; Jamie Brown; Sven Anders; Tobias Raupach
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2018-07-06       Impact factor: 8.775

6.  The Effect of Passive and Active Education Methods Applied in Repetition Activities on the Retention of Anatomical Knowledge.

Authors:  Jan G M Kooloos; Esther M Bergman; Marieke A G P Scheffers; Annelieke N Schepens-Franke; Marc A T M Vorstenbosch
Journal:  Anat Sci Educ       Date:  2019-11-06       Impact factor: 5.958

7.  Use of Puzzles as an Effective Teaching-Learning Method for Dental Undergraduates.

Authors:  Latha Nirmal; M S Muthu; Madhavan Prasad
Journal:  Int J Clin Pediatr Dent       Date:  2020 Nov-Dec

8.  Comparison of a newly established emotional stimulus approach to a classical assessment-driven approach in BLS training: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Karl Kuckuck; Hanna Schröder; Rolf Rossaint; Lina Stieger; Stefan K Beckers; Sasa Sopka
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-02-22       Impact factor: 2.692

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.