Norman Geoffrey, Dore Kelly, Krebs Jennifer, Neville Allan J
MDCL 3519, McMaster University, 1200 Main St. W., Hamilton ON L8N 3Z5, Canada.
Acad Med. 2007 Oct;82(10 Suppl):S16-8. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181405ad7.
Transfer, using a previously learned concept to solve a new, apparently different problem, is difficult. Students who know a concept will typically only be able to access it to solve new problems 10% to 30% of the time. However, one solution is to have students work through parallel, apparently different problems.
Learning materials for three cardiology-related concepts--Laplace Law, Starling Law, and Right Heart Strain--were devised. One group read a physiological explanation; two other groups read a combination of physiological and mechanical explanations, either paired up or separate. The sample was students in an undergraduate health sciences program (n = 35) who did the study for course credit. Outcomes were measured by accuracy of explanation on a test of nine clinical cases, as rated by one clinician on a seven-point scale.
Groups who read two explanations did significantly better on the test, with mean scores of 3.6/5 and 4.1/5 versus 1.8/5 for the single group. Effect sizes were 1.3 and 1.7, respectively, against the single-example group.
Active learning with multiple examples can have large effects on a student's ability to apply concepts to solve new problems.
运用先前学过的概念去解决一个新的、表面上不同的问题是困难的。了解某个概念的学生通常只有10%到30%的时间能够运用该概念去解决新问题。然而，一种解决方法是让学生处理平行的、表面上不同的问题。
设计了与三个心脏病学相关概念——拉普拉斯定律、斯塔林定律和右心劳损——相关的学习材料。一组阅读生理学解释；另外两组阅读生理学和力学解释的组合，要么配对阅读，要么分开阅读。样本是本科健康科学专业的学生（n = 35），他们参与这项研究以获得课程学分。通过一名临床医生在七点量表上对九个临床病例测试中解释的准确性来衡量结果。
阅读两种解释的组在测试中表现明显更好，平均得分分别为3.6/5和4.1/5，而单例组为1.8/5。与单例组相比，效应量分别为1.3和1.7。
通过多个例子进行主动学习对学生运用概念解决新问题的能力有很大影响。
