John L Dobson

Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA, United States

Are you John L Dobson?

Claim your profile

Publications (3)3.65 Total impact

  • John L Dobson
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although a great deal of empirical evidence has indicated that retrieval practice is an effective means of promoting learning and memory, very few studies have investigated the strategy in the context of an actual class. The primary purpose of this study was to determine if a series of very brief retrieval quizzes could significantly improve the retention of previously tested information throughout an anatomy and physiology course. A second purpose was to determine if there were any significant differences between expanding and uniform patterns of retrieval that followed a standardized initial retrieval delay. Anatomy and physiology students were assigned to either a control group or groups that were repeatedly prompted to retrieve a subset of previously tested course information via a series of quizzes that were administered on either an expanding or a uniform schedule. Each retrieval group completed a total of 10 retrieval quizzes, and the series of quizzes required (only) a total of 2 h to complete. Final retention of the exam subset material was assessed during the last week of the semester. There were no significant differences between the expanding and uniform retrieval groups, but both retained an average of 41% more of the subset material than did the control group (ANOVA, F = 129.8, P = 0.00, ηp(2) = 0.36). In conclusion, retrieval practice is a highly efficient and effective strategy for enhancing the retention of anatomy and physiology material.
    AJP Advances in Physiology Education 06/2013; 37(2):184-191. · 1.22 Impact Factor
  • John L Dobson
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to compare the retention of selected physiology concepts throughout 30 days of two different uniform schedules of retrieval and two different expanding schedules of retrieval. Participants (n = 250) first read and reread 30 immunology and reproductive physiology concepts and were then repeatedly assessed, without feedback, according to one of the following four randomly assigned schedules: 1) immediately after learning and again 9 and 19 days later [uniform (days 1, 10, and 20)]; 2) 7, 14, and 21 days after learning [uniform (days 8, 15, and 22)]; 3) immediately after learning and again 5 and 15 days later [expanding (days 1, 6, and 16)]; and 4) 1, 6, and 16 days after learning [expanding (days 2, 7, and 17)]. All participants completed a final assessment 29 days after learning the physiology concepts. Mean final assessment scores ± SE for the uniform (days 1, 10, and 20), uniform (days 8, 15, and 22), expanding (days 1, 6, and 16), and expanding (days 2, 7, and 17) groups were 36.15 ± 1.97, 32.31 ± 1.87, 45.80 ± 2.56, and 39.71 ± 2.48, respectively. There were no differences in final assessment scores between the two expanding retrieval groups, but expanding (days 1, 6, and 16) group scores were significantly higher than those in both uniform retrieval groups (ANOVA, F = 6.52, P = 0.00). Also, the combined mean of the two expanding retrieval conditions (42.57 ± 1.80) was significantly higher (F = 14.09, P = 0.00) than the combined mean of the two uniform retrieval conditions (34.10 ± 1.36). The results indicate that participants benefited more from expanding retrieval practice, particularly when the first assessment was administered immediately after learning.
    AJP Advances in Physiology Education 03/2012; 36(1):6-12. · 1.22 Impact Factor
  • John L Dobson
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of interleaving and expanding retrieval on the retention of physiology concepts. Participants (n = 189) read and then reread 30 immunology and reproductive physiology passages. Half of the participants read and then reread the passages in a blocked manner (e.g., a(1)a(2)a(3)b(1)b(2)b(3)), and the other half did so in an interleaved manner (e.g., a(1)b(1)b(2)a(2)a(3)b(3)). Participants were then repeatedly assessed, without feedback, after either a uniform or an expanding series of intervals. Half of the students from both the blocked and interleaved groups completed the assessments 1, 2, and 3 days after rereading the passages (uniform), whereas the other half completed the assessments immediately and 1 and 3 days after rereading the passages (expanding). All participants completed a final assessment 10 days after rereading the passages. There were no significant differences between the blocked and interleaved groups on any of the assessments, nor were there any significant interactions between the groups on any of the assessments. Those in the expanding retrieval group scored significantly higher than those in the uniform group on all four assessments (ANOVA; assessment 1: F = 35.12, P = 0.00; assessment 2: F = 13.88, P = 0.00; assessment 3: F = 10.87, P = 0.00; and assessment 4: F = 6.79, P = 0.01). Mean final assessment scores were 47.58 ± 19.81 and 40.50 ± 17.17 for the expanding and uniform groups, respectively. The results indicate that participants benefited more from expanding retrieval practice.
    AJP Advances in Physiology Education 12/2011; 35(4):378-83. · 1.22 Impact Factor

Publication Stats

2 Citations
3.65 Total Impact Points

Institutions

  • 2011–2013
    • Georgia Southern University
      • Department of Health and Kinesiology
      Statesboro, GA, United States