Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: 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. METHOD: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: Active learning with multiple examples can have large effects on a student's ability to apply concepts to solve new problems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Norman et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: