Effect of Massed Versus Interleaved Teaching Method on Performance of Students in Radiology.

PURPOSE Radiology instruction is based on the principle that grouped (or massed) repetition of an intellectual activity leads to expertise. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that the spaced (or interleaved) method of teaching chest x-ray interpretation is more effective than the massed method. METHODS After institutional review board approval was obtained, 40 first- and second-year medical students were randomized into two groups matched by age, gender, and education experience. Both groups saw six examples of 12 common chest radiographic patterns, one grouped, the other scrambled randomly without repeating strings. After a distraction, participants took a multiple-choice test consisting of two cases in each radiographic pattern, one previously shown, one new. Results were analyzed using two-tailed Student's t test of proportion. RESULTS Comparing interleaved and massed groups, the average overall score was 57% versus 43% (P = .03), the recollection score was 61% versus 47% (P = .03), and the induction score was 53% versus 40% (P = 0.10), respectively. Comparing second- and first-year students, average scores were 67% and 39%, respectively (P < .01). First-year students in the interleaved and massed groups scored 55% and 36% (P = .02) in recall and 40% and 28% (P = .10) in induction. Second-year students in the interleaved and massed groups scored 71% and 63% (P = .36) in recall and 74% and 59% (P = .03) in induction. CONCLUSIONS The interleaved method of instruction leads to better results than the massed method across all levels of education. A higher level of medical education improves performance independent of method of instruction.

[1]  R. Bjork.  Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. , 1994 .

[2]  R. Bjork,et al.  Learning Concepts and Categories , 2008, Psychological science.

[3]  L. Squire,et al.  Parallel brain systems for learning with and without awareness. , 1994, Learning & memory.

[4]  M. Tarr,et al.  Training ‘greeble’ experts: a framework for studying expert object recognition processes , 1998, Vision Research.

[5]  Colleen M. Seifert,et al.  Learning “How” Versus Learning “When”: Improving Transfer of Problem-Solving Principles , 1994 .

[6]  Ernst Z. Rothkopf,et al.  Contextual Enrichment and Distribution of Practice in the Classroom , 1984 .

[7]  D. Medin,et al.  Concepts do more than categorize , 1999, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[8]  Robert Glaser,et al.  Effects of repetition and spaced review upon retention of a complex learning task. , 1964 .

[9]  Doug Rohrer,et al.  The shuffling of mathematics problems improves learning , 2007 .

[10]  David L. Sheinberg,et al.  The Training and Transfer of Real-World Perceptual Expertise , 2005, Psychological science.

[11]  L. Squire,et al.  Encapsulation of Implicit and Explicit Memory in Sequence Learning , 1998, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[12]  Shana K. Carpenter,et al.  Application of the Testing and Spacing Effects to Name Learning , 2005 .

[13]  A. Glenberg,et al.  Component-levels theory of the effects of spacing of repetitions on recall and recognition , 1979, Memory & cognition.

[14]  H. P. Bahrick,et al.  Maintenance of Foreign Language Vocabulary and the Spacing Effect , 1993 .

[15]  Robert A. Bjork,et al.  Information‐processing analysis of college teaching , 1979 .

[16]  Pierre Perruchet.  The effect of spaced practice on explicit and implicit memory , 1989 .

[17]  Kristine C. Bloom,et al.  Effects of Massed and Distributed Practice on the Learning and Retention of Second-Language Vocabulary , 1981 .

[18]  Murdock,et al.  The serial position effect of free recall , 1962 .