Impact of Spacing of Practice on Learning Brand Name and Generic Drugs

Abstract

Objective. To test the impact of schedules of retrieval practice on learning brand and generic name drug information in a self-paced course. Methods. Students completed weekly quizzes on brand and generic name conversions for 100 commonly prescribed drugs. Each student completed part of the drug list on a schedule of equal, expanding, or contracting spacing, one practice (massed) or study only in a partial block design. Results. On measures of long-term retention, the contracting spacing schedule led to superior retention (67%) compared to the massed practice (50%) and study-only condition (46%); contracting practice also was significantly higher than expanding practice (58%,) or equal practice (59%). Overall performance decreased by almost 50% (final exam 95%, long-term retention 55%) over a 6-week period. Conclusion. A contracting spacing schedule was the most effective schedule of practice, and all spacing schedules were superior to massed practice or study-only conditions.

Conceptualising spaced learning in health professions education: A scoping review

“…This table only shows the terms with definitions (21 total). Terms identified without definitions were: Dispersed learning; Distributed learning; Repeated retrieval practice; Spaced instruction; Spaced training; Spaced retrieval practice; Spaced studying, and Spaced testing …”

“…Almost half of the empirical research articles (n = 48, 47%) did not explicitly mention a theoretical framework. In total, nine theoretical frameworks were mentioned in the remaining studies of which the Spacing effect (n = 40) and Testing effect (n = 31) were named most often. Other frameworks were Cognitive Load Theory (n = 4), Desirable Difficulties Theory (n = 2), Retrieval hypothesis (n = 2), Total‐time hypothesis (n = 2), Learning Theory (n = 1), Metacognitive Theory (n = 1) and Kolb's Experiential Learning Theory (n = 1).…”

“…ies of which the Spacing effect (n = 40) and Testing effect[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][29][30][31][32][33]37,39,[41][42][43][51][52][53]55,[58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66] (n = 31) were named most often.Other frameworks were Cognitive Load Theory 50,57,67,68 (n = 4), Desirable Difficulties Theory 59,69 (n = 2), Retrieval hypothesis70,71 (n = 2), Total-time hypothesis70,71 (n = 2), Learning Theory 72 (n = 1), Metacognitive Theory 73 (n = 1) and Kolb's Experiential Learning Theory 61 (n = 1).Only a few studies26,[31][32][33][34][39][40][41]56,60,64,69,[74]…”

“…For the simulation setting, studies frequently used designs in which training sessions were distributed within a single day 56,75,88,92,95,100,106 (n = 7) or within a set number of consecutive days, weeks or months 56,67,68,76,86-88,93,95-100,106 (n = 15). Notably, there were numerous differences in the number of training sessions, total training time and duration of intervals.For the classroom setting, most studies described the use of interim (eg cumulative) testing58,61,62,65,66,70,103,[107][108][109][110][111][117][118][119] (n = 15) to enhance long-term retention of to-be-learned information. Other applications of spaced learning in the classroom involved the distribution of teaching or learning sessions over multiple days60,72,112 (n = 3), weeks49,50,59,73 (n = 3), or months 73 (n = 1).…”

Using Testing as a Learning Tool

“…72 Student pharmacists performed spaced practice (vs massed) on learning brand/generic names and 6 weeks after the semester showed better retention (d5.44). 73 information when given a cue or reminder (cued recall), and open-ended questions require students to generate a response with little or no provided structure (free recall). However, any format that encourages memory retrieval can improve learning better than restudying the information does (recognition, d50.36; cued recall, d50.72; free recall, d50.81).…”