↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Health Sciences Education, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
The mediating effect of context variation in mixed practice for transfer of basic science
Published in
Advances in Health Sciences Education, December 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10459-014-9574-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 19%
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Master 6 14%
Other 3 7%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 6 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 21%
Social Sciences 5 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 9 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 23 February 2022.
All research outputs
#13,149,381
of 23,189,371 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#478
of 858 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,170
of 358,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#8
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,189,371 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 858 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 358,669 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.