| Title |
Influence of PBL with open-book tests on knowledge retention measured with progress tests
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Advances in Health Sciences Education, June 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10459-012-9386-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
M. Heijne-Penninga, J. B. M. Kuks, W. H. A. Hofman, A. M. M. Muijtjens, J. Cohen-Schotanus |
| Abstract |
The influence of problem-based learning (PBL) and open-book tests on long-term knowledge retention is unclear and subject of discussion. Hypotheses were that PBL as well as open-book tests positively affect long-term knowledge retention. Four progress test results of fifth and sixth-year medical students (n = 1,648) of three medical schools were analyzed. Two schools had PBL driven curricula, and the third one had a traditional curriculum (TC). One of the PBL schools (PBLob) used a combination of open-book (assessing backup knowledge) and closed-book tests (assessing core knowledge); the other two schools (TC and PBLcb) only used closed-book tests. The items of the progress tests were divided into core and backup knowledge. T tests (with Bonferroni correction) were used to analyze differences between curricula. PBL students performed significantly better than TC students on core knowledge (average effect size (av ES) = 0.37-0.74) and PBL students tested with open-book tests scored somewhat higher than PBL students tested without such tests (av ES = 0.23-0.30). Concerning backup knowledge, no differences were found between the scores of the three curricula. Students of the two PBL curricula showed a substantially better long-term knowledge retention than TC students. PBLob students performed somewhat better on core knowledge than PBLcb students. These outcomes suggest that a problem-based instructional approach in particular can stimulate long-term knowledge retention. Distinguishing knowledge into core and backup knowledge and using open-book tests alongside closed-book tests could enhance long-term core knowledge retention. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 80 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 12% |
| Researcher | 9 | 11% |
| Professor | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 10% |
| Other | 28 | 34% |
| Unknown | 11 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 37% |
| Social Sciences | 17 | 20% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 14% |
| Unknown | 15 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 April 2017.
All research outputs
#14,196,440
of 22,756,196 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#596
of 851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,568
of 164,490 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#8
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,756,196 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 851 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 164,490 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.