Want to make it easier to ace the final exam?
Do well on SAT? The GRE? The MCAT?
- Studying A Study and Testing a Test: Reading Evidence-based Health Research;
- Studying A Study and Testing a Test.
- "Studying A Study and Testing a Test: Reading Evidence-based Health Res" by Richard K. Riegelman.
- Shop now and earn 2 points per $1!
- Projection and Quasi-Compressibility Methods for Solving the Incompressible Navier-Stokes Equations.
Many standardized tests are cumulative, often forcing students to draw on knowledge from a class taken years ago. There are a handful of inexpensive and effective study skills that can help. And cramming isn't one of them. The authors argue that these strategies should be incorporated by students and teachers: 1 spacing i.
Half of the students were given 30 minutes to learn all the vocab words, while the other half studied the words on 3 consecutive days for 10 minutes each. Test results showed that, although the students who studied for 30 minutes straight performed better on a test right after studying, the students who spread out their study sessions spacing! To examine the effects of testing on memory , Roediger and Karpicke compared the long-term recall of three groups of students who were told to read a passage.
One group simply read the passage four times. Another group read it three times and took a test. A third group read the passage only once and then took three tests. As expected, those who read the most did the best on an assessment given right afterwards. For the assessment, they had to write down everything they could remember from the reading. However, one week later, the group who took the most tests but studied only once recalled the most information from the reading. Studies also back up the benefits of asking yourself questions as you read.
One group was periodically asked questions involving why the facts were true. In the other group, students simply read the section twice. One group had to think out loud and monitor their own learning, by asking themselves questions about their learning experience as they read the text i. The other group were simply told to think out loud.
The next day, all students took a test. Results indicated that the students who engaged in self-monitored learning self-explanation were much better able to apply their skills to novel kinds of math problems. Did I know this? Furthermore, these tricks are relatively simple and cost-effective, unlike some other reforms.
Furthermore, there is very little data to indicate that iPads actually help students learn more effectively. They also can be implemented at minimal cost. Students can easily try to turn some of these techniques into habits, and teachers can attempt to restructure their lesson plans. Based on the research, here are some applicable studying tricks:.
Most students probably intuitively know that they shouldn't just cram. Teachers, however, can sneakily incorporate these evidence-based studying techniques in their curriculum. For example, teachers can teach a little of each concept every day, to spread the lesson out. They can also give more quizzes and tests, or prompt students with a simple "why does that make sense? These tricks can help students better retain important concepts, even if students think these study skills seem harder at first. Bloom, K. Effects of massed and distributed practice on the learning and retention of second-language vocabulary.
Journal of Educational Research , 74 4 , Roediger, H. Test-enhanced learning taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological science , 17 3 , Inexpensive techniques to improve education : Applying cognitive psychology to enhance educational practice.
Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition , 1 4 , Smith, D. Smith, B. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 47 4 , Taylor, K. The effects of interleaved practice. Applied Cognitive Psychology , 24 6 , Wong, R. The effects of self-explanation training on students' problem solving in high-school mathematics.
- Studying a study & testing a test: reading evidence-based health research?
- American Women of Science since 1900 2 volumes.
- The Promise-Plan of God: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments.
- Elementary Food Science;
Learning and Instruction , 12 2 , This is especially so during recent decades when applied research methods have been developed for observation and experimentation in increasingly naturalistic and complex clinical settings. Furthermore, because applied research methods are based on assessing probabilities for relationships and the effects of interventions, rather than underlying mechanistic explanations, EBM posits that practitioners must be ready to accept and deal with uncertainty rather than seeking the reductionist allure of basic science , and to acknowledge that management decisions are often made in the face of relative ignorance of their underlying nature or true impact for individual patients.
A fundamental assumption of EBM is that practitioners whose practice is based on an understanding of evidence from applied health care research will provide superior patient care compared with practitioners who rely on understanding of basic mechanisms and their own clinical experience. So far, no convincing direct evidence exists that shows that this assumption is correct.
Scientific approaches to studying health care problems developed at a leisurely pace until the end of World War II when some of the public funding that had been dedicated to killing was reallocated to saving lives through health research. Initial investments were directed firstly to basic research, to better understand the determinants and pathophysiology of disease, and medical schools reflected this stage of development in their teaching of the basic sciences of biology, pathology, physiology and biochemistry, as the foundation of medical knowledge.
Increasing shares of investment were then allocated to the development and applied testing of innovations in clinical settings. Although these applied research methods were initially rooted in the observational techniques of epidemiology, clinical epidemiologists such as Archie Cochrane in the UK, Alvan Feinstein in the US, and David Sackett in Canada, pioneered and legitimized the use of experimentation in clinical settings, leading to the randomized controlled trial becoming the hallmark of testing. It is important to recognize that experimental designs were added to observational designs, not substituted for them.
Different methods, observational or experimental, are needed for exploring different questions. The first trial in which randomization was formally described and applied was published in the British Medical Journal in [ 5 ] and heralded a new era of antibiotic treatment, streptomycin for tuberculosis. Today, methodologies from other scientific disciplines have been added. For example, nonexperimental and qualitative research methods have been adopted from the social sciences.
Thus, the research methods of medical science are pluralistic and expanding, driven by attempts to address a broader range of questions, and undoubtedly by the priority that people place on personal health, the obvious benefits that biomedical research has already brought, and the prospect that these benefits are just the beginning. EBM does not clearly address the role of basic science in medical discovery, except to indicate that, in most circumstances of relevance to individual patient care, basic science alone does not provide valid and practical guidance.watch
22 Science-Backed Study Tips to Ace a Test
There are some exceptions: certain deficiency disorders, such as type 1 diabetes mellitus, for example. However, even though basic science provides definitive evidence that insulin deficiency is the underlying problem in this disorder, determining which of many possible ways of delivering exogenous insulin therapy results in the best care for patients has required myriads of applied research studies, with clear evidence concerning the benefit of multiple dose insulin regimens coming less than a decade ago [ 6 ].
In many such situations, empirical solutions, tested by applied research methods, are "holding the fort" until basic understanding — of mechanisms and interventions — is forthcoming. This will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future, the marvelous advances in genomics notwithstanding. This schism between basic and applied research is, however, more rhetoric than reality.
Rather, basic and applied research are different ends of a spectrum of health research, progressing from "bench" to "bedside". The best applied research studies are often founded on excellent basic science findings, even if basic research is neither necessary nor sufficient for the management of most medical problems. This is because applied research is a complementary way of knowing, not a participant in a scientific turf war competing to be the best way of knowing.
Nevertheless, from a pragmatic, clinical focus, applied research provides evidence to practitioners and patients that is often better suited for the specific problems they must deal with. Confusion between the objectives of science and those of the practice of medicine has perhaps led to much of the misunderstanding and criticism leveled at EBM. An example illustrates the complex relationship between basic and applied research, and in turn, between both of these and clinical practice.
Narrowing of the arteries to the front part of the brain the internal carotid artery and its tributaries, the anterior and middle cerebral arteries is associated with stroke, in which a part of the brain dies when it loses its blood supply. Narrowings of the internal carotid artery above the level of the neck can be bypassed through connecting the superficial temporal artery STA , on the outside of the head, with a branch of the middle cerebral artery MCA , just inside the skull. This increased blood supply was thought, on physiological grounds, to be exactly what the brain needed to prevent future strokes in people who had had minor strokes in this vascular distribution.
About reports of case series of patients undergoing STA-MCA bypass were reported in the medical literature up to , almost all of them interpreted by their surgeon authors as indicating benefits for patients. In these case series studies, patients are described before and after undergoing the procedure, and sometimes compared with findings in previous reports "historical controls" , with and without the procedure. In , a large randomized controlled trial was reported [ 7 ]. This showed no reduction in the subsequent rate of stroke with the procedure when compared with the rate for patients who did not have the procedure.
On further analysis, it was found that patients with STA-MCA bypass who had higher rates of blood flow were actually worse off, and that surgery blunted the natural rate of recovery from the initial stroke that led to selection of patients for surgery [ 8 ]. Dissemination of these findings was rapid and led to the elimination of this procedure for attempting to prevent stroke recurrence. Subsequently, randomized controlled trials were conducted for patients with narrowing of the internal carotid artery in the neck. Removing this narrowing surgically, a procedure called carotid endarterectomy, had been practiced for longer than STA-MCA bypass at the time but had not been adequately tested in controlled trials.
Its use was brought into question because of the negative findings of the STA-MCA bypass trial, which appeared to undermine the physiological rationale for the procedure, namely, that opening a partially blocked internal carotid artery would reduce the risk for subsequent stroke.
[Download] PDF Studying a Study and Testing a Test: Reading Evidence-…
As it happens, several randomized controlled trials of carotid endarterectomy that ensued showed that it has substantial benefit for symptomatic patients with severe narrowing of the carotid artery, but not for those who had mild narrowing or who had no symptoms associated with the narrowing [ 9 ]. These trials of STA-MCA bypass and carotid endarterectomy have led to better understanding of the basic mechanisms of stroke, elimination of a harmful surgical procedure, promotion of another procedure, and provision of evidence for tailoring the findings to individual patients [ 10 ].
These advances in knowledge have benefited many patients. Unfortunately, surveys of patient care also show that some patients receive endarterectomy when they are unlikely to benefit from it, while others who might benefit are not offered it [ 11 ]. In fact, there are numerous examples of underapplied evidence of both the benefits and harms of treatments [ 12 ].
Eliminating this mismatch between who could benefit and who is offered health care interventions is the prime objective of EBM. A current definition of EBM is "the explicit, judicious, and conscientious use of current best evidence from health care research in decisions about the care of individuals and populations" [ 1 ]. A more pragmatic definition is a set of tools and resources for finding and applying current best evidence from research for the care of individual patients. This practical definition reflects the fact that there are now many information resources in which evidence from health care research has been pre-graded for validity by people with expertise in research methods, and, better still, also assessed by experienced practitioners for clinical relevance.
Thus, the user's task is changing from the largely hopeless one of reading the original medical literature to find out about current best care, to one of finding the right pre-assessed research evidence, judging whether it applies to the health problem at hand, and then working the evidence into the decision that must be made.
Grades of the quality of evidence are derived from scientific principles of epidemiology and its offspring, clinical epidemiology. The grades are based on several notions, the most elementary of which are as follows.