Beyond the tensions within transfer theories: implications for adaptive expertise in the health professions.

Ensuring trainees develop the flexibility with their knowledge to address novel problems, and to efficiently build upon prior knowledge to learn new knowledge is a common goal in health profession education. How trainees come to develop this capacity to transfer and transform knowledge across contexts can be described by adaptive expertise, which focuses on the ability of some experts to innovate upon their existing knowledge to develop novel solutions to novel problems. While adaptive expertise is often presented as an alternative framework to more traditional cognitivist and constructivist expertise models, it is unclear whether the non-routine and routine forms of transfer it describes are distinct from those described by other accounts of transfer. Furthermore, whether what (e.g., knowledge) is transferred and how (e.g., cognitive processes) differs between these views is still debated. In this review, we describe various theories of transfer and present a synthesis clarifying the relationship between transfer and adaptive expertise. Informed by our analysis, we argue that the mechanisms of transfer in adaptive expertise share important commonalities with traditional accounts of transfer, which when understood, can complement efforts by educators and researchers to foster and study adaptive expertise. We present three instructional principles that may better support transfer and adaptive expertise in trainees: i) identifying and incorporating meaningful variability in practice, ii) integrating conceptual knowledge during practice iii) using assessments of trainees' transfer. Taken together, we offer an integrative perspective to how educational systems and experiences can be designed to develop and encourage adaptive expertise and transfer.

Making Concepts Material: A Randomized Trial Exploring Simulation as a Medium to Enhance Cognitive Integration and Transfer of Learning.

BACKGROUND: Simulation affords opportunities to represent functional relationships between conceptual (eg, anatomy) and procedural knowledge (eg, needle insertion technique) in ways that make them accessible to our many senses. Despite deprioritizing realism, such simulations may encourage trainees to create cognitive connections between these knowledge (ie, cognitive integration), which may improve transfer of learning. However, the impact of such "integrated instruction" has not been examined in simulation-based training. We developed integrated video- and simulator-based instructional modules for lumbar puncture training and compared their impacts on participants' retention, transfer, and conceptual knowledge. METHODS: During 1 hour of simulation-based training, we randomized 66 medical students to receive either (a) video-based procedural-only instruction, (b) integrated video-based instruction, or (c) integrated simulator-based instruction. One week later, we tested participants' retention and transfer performances and their conceptual knowledge on a written test. RESULTS: Simple mediation analyses revealed that compared with participants receiving procedural-only instruction, participants receiving integrated instruction had superior retention and transfer outcomes, mediated by gains in conceptual knowledge (all P < 0.01). We found no significant differences between the integrated groups for retention, transfer, or conceptual knowledge (all P > 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We extended previous findings, showing integrated instruction (video- or simulator-based) improved trainees' conceptual knowledge, which mediated their improved retention and transfer. As an innovation, we demonstrated how simulators can facilitate cognitive integration by making abstract conceptual-procedural relationships material. In suggesting how researchers might capitalize further on simulator-based integration, we offer an alternative framework for designing simulations that emphasizes cognitive processes rather than simulator fidelity.

The Benefits of Tying Yourself in Knots: Unraveling the Learning Mechanisms of Guided Discovery Learning in an Open Surgical Skills Course.

PURPOSE: Teaching technical skills through the use of guided discovery learning (GDL) is an ongoing topic of research. In this approach, learners practice and struggle before receiving formal instruction. This has shown promise in other domains of learning, yet in the realm of procedural skills, clarity is still needed. This study seeks to address these gaps by investigating efficacy and mechanisms relating to application for a GDL approach in teaching basic surgical skills. METHOD: In 2018, young surgical trainees (N = 16) undertook a 6-week open surgical course applying the principles of GDL, each lesson beginning with a discovery phase before subsequent instruction and practice. A concurrent triangulation mixed-methods approach was used with direct observation and collection of semistructured interviews using a framework designed from productive failure literature. At the end of the course, all participants took a conceptual knowledge test and a performance-based skills test. Performance on the skills test was rated using global ratings and checklists. RESULTS: The GDL cohort outperformed the historical cohort on the written exam (F [1,65] = 4.96, P = .029, d = .62), as well as on the summative suturing test (F [1,65] = 6.23, P = .015, d = .68). Furthermore, 3 main themes that highlight the mechanisms and mediators of efficient GDL were: (1) building conceptual knowledge, (2) motivating self-regulated learning, and (3) the type of skill and psychological safety. CONCLUSIONS: GDL can be an efficient approach to teaching procedural skills. Implications for future research and curricular design are discussed.

Why Content and Cognition Matter: Integrating Conceptual Knowledge to Support Simulation-Based Procedural Skills Transfer.

BACKGROUND: Curricular constraints require being selective about the type of content trainees practice in their formal training. Teaching trainees procedural knowledge about "how" to perform steps of a skill along with conceptual knowledge about "why" each step is performed can support skill retention and transfer (i.e., the ability to adapt knowledge to novel problems). However, how best to organize how and why content for procedural skills training is unknown. OBJECTIVES: We examined the impact of different approaches to integrating why and how content on trainees' skill retention and transfer of simulation-based lumbar puncture (LP). DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: We randomized medical students (N = 66) to practice LP for 1 h using one of three videos. One video presented only the how content for LP (Procedural Only). Two other videos presented how and why content (e.g., anatomy) in two ways: Integrated in Sequence, with why content followed by how content, or Integrated for Causation, with how and why content integrated throughout. MAIN MEASURES: Pairs of blinded raters scored participants' retention and transfer LP performances on a global rating scale (GRS), and written tests assessed participants' procedural and conceptual knowledge. KEY RESULTS: Simple mediation regression analyses showed that participants receiving an integrated instructional video performed significantly better on transfer through their intervention's positive impact on conceptual knowledge (all p < 0.01). Further, the Integrated for Causation group performed significantly better on transfer than the Integrated in Sequence group (p < 0.01), again mediated by improved conceptual knowledge. We observed no mediation of participants' skill retention (all p > 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: When teaching supports cognitive integration of how and why content, trainees are able to transfer learning to new problems because of their improved conceptual understanding. Instructional designs for procedural skills that integrate how and why content can help educators optimize what trainees learn from each repetition of practice.

Overshadowed by Assessment: Understanding Trainee and Supervisor Perspectives on the Oral Case Presentation in Internal Medicine Workplace-Based Assessment.

PURPOSE: The oral case presentation (OCP) is an essential part of daily clinical practice in internal medicine (IM) and a key competency in medical education. It is not known how supervisors and trainees perceive OCPs in workplace-based learning and assessment. METHOD: Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, 26 semistructured interviews were held with trainees and supervisors (18 clinical clerks and first- through third-year postgraduate trainees, and 8 supervisors) on the IM clinical teaching unit at the University of Toronto, 2015-2016. Interviews focused on how the OCP was viewed by both trainees and supervisors in clinical practice as a tool for patient care, learning, and assessment. Iterative, constant comparative techniques were used to analyze the interviews and develop a framework to understand trainee and supervisor perspectives. RESULTS: Supervisors and trainees viewed the OCP as an important part of informal trainee assessment in IM. Supervisors used OCPs to understand the patient through trainee-demonstrated skills including the use of narratives, information synthesis, and management of uncertainty. However, because of awareness of assessment, trainees sought to control the OCP, viewing it as a performance demonstrating their competence, mediated by senior residents and tailored to supervisor preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Preoccupied with assessment around OCPs, trainees often lost sight of the valuable learning taking place. Use of OCPs in assessment necessitates optimization of the educational activity for trainees. Providing explicit direction to both trainees and supervisors, defining expectations, and clarifying the assessment activity of the OCP can optimize the encounter for best educational practice.

Knowing How and Knowing Why: testing the effect of instruction designed for cognitive integration on procedural skills transfer.

Transfer is a desired outcome of simulation-based training, yet evidence for how instructional design features promote transfer is lacking. In clinical reasoning, transfer is improved when trainees experience instruction integrating basic science explanations with clinical signs and symptoms. To test whether integrated instruction has similar effects in procedural skills (i.e., psychomotor skills) training, we studied the impact of instruction that integrates conceptual (why) and procedural (how) knowledge on the retention and transfer of simulation-based lumbar puncture (LP) skill. Medical students (N = 30) were randomized into two groups that accessed different instructional videos during a 60-min self-regulated training session. An unintegrated video provided procedural How instruction via step-by-step demonstrations of LP, and an integrated video provided the same How instruction with integrated conceptual Why explanations (e.g., anatomy) for key steps. Two blinded raters scored post-test, retention, and transfer performances using a global rating scale. Participants also completed written procedural and conceptual knowledge tests. We used simple mediation regression analyses to assess the total and indirect effects (mediated by conceptual knowledge) of integrated instruction on retention and transfer. Integrated instruction was associated with improved conceptual (p < .001) but not procedural knowledge test scores (p = .11). We found no total effect of group (p > .05). We did find a positive indirect group effect on skill retention (B ab  = .93, p < .05) and transfer (B ab  = .59, p < .05), mediated through participants improved conceptual knowledge. Integrated instruction may improve trainees' skill retention and transfer through gains in conceptual knowledge. Such integrated instruction may be an instructional design feature for simulation-based training aimed at improving transfer outcomes.

Contexts, concepts and cognition: principles for the transfer of basic science knowledge.

CONTEXT: Transfer of basic science aids novices in the development of clinical reasoning. The literature suggests that although transfer is often difficult for novices, it can be optimised by two complementary strategies: (i) focusing learners on conceptual knowledge of basic science or (ii) exposing learners to multiple contexts in which the basic science concepts may apply. The relative efficacy of each strategy as well as the mechanisms that facilitate transfer are unknown. In two sequential experiments, we compared both strategies and explored mechanistic changes in how learners address new transfer problems. METHODS: Experiment 1 was a 2 × 3 design in which participants were randomised to learn three physiology concepts with or without emphasis on the conceptual structure of basic science via illustrative analogies and by means of one, two or three contexts during practice (operationalised as organ systems). Transfer of these concepts to explain pathologies in familiar organ systems (near transfer) and unfamiliar organ systems (far transfer) was evaluated during immediate and delayed testing. Experiment 2 examined whether exposure to conceptual analogies and multiple contexts changed how learners classified new problems. RESULTS: Experiment 1 showed that increasing context variation significantly improved far transfer performance but there was no difference between two and three contexts during practice. Similarly, the increased conceptual analogies led to higher performance for far transfer. Both interventions had independent but additive effects on overall performance. Experiment 2 showed that such analogies and context variation caused learners to shift to using structural characteristics to classify new problems even when there was superficial similarity to previous examples. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding problems based on conceptual structural characteristics is necessary for successful transfer. Transfer of basic science can be optimised by using multiple strategies that collectively emphasise conceptual structure. This means teaching must focus on conserved basic science knowledge and de-emphasise superficial features.

Practical trials in medical education: linking theory, practice and decision making.

CONTEXT: Concerns have been raised over the gap between education theory and practice and how research can contribute to inform decision makers on their choices and priorities. Little is known about how educational theories and research outcomes produced under optimal conditions in highly controlled settings generalise to the real-life education context. One way of bridging this gap is applying the concept of practical trials in medical education. In this paper we elaborate on characteristics of practical trials and based on examples from medical education we discuss the challenges, limitations and future directions for this kind of research. CURRENT STATE: Practical trials have the overall aim of informing decision makers. They are carried out in real-life settings and are characterised by (i) comparison of viable alternative education strategies, (ii) broad inclusion criteria regarding participants across several settings and (iii) multiple outcome measures with long-term follow-up to evaluate both benefits and risks. Questions posed by practical trials may be proactive in applying theory in the development of educational innovations or reactive to educational reforms and innovations. Non-inferiority or equivalence designs are recommended when comparing viable alternatives and the use of crossover designs, cluster randomisation or stepped wedge trial designs are feasible when studying implementations across several settings. Outcome measures may include variables related to learners, teachers, educational administration, quality of care, patient outcomes and cost. CONCLUSIONS: Practical trials in medical education may contribute to bridge the gap between education theory and practice and aid decision makers in making evidence-based choices and priorities. Conducting practical trials is not without challenges and rigorous design and methods must be applied. Of concern is that the practical focus may lead to failure to include a sound theoretical basis in the research questions and the interventions studied, and that authors fail to obtain informed consent from their participants.

Collaborative learning of clinical skills in health professions education: the why, how, when and for whom.

OBJECTIVES: This study is designed to provide an overview of why, how, when and for whom collaborative learning of clinical skills may work in health professions education. WHY: Collaborative learning of clinical skills may influence learning positively according to the non-medical literature. Training efficiency may therefore be improved if the outcomes of collaborative learning of clinical skills are superior or equivalent to those attained through individual learning. HOW: According to a social interaction perspective, collaborative learning of clinical skills mediates its effects through social interaction, motivation, accountability and positive interdependence between learners. Motor skills learning theory suggests that positive effects rely on observational learning and action imitation, and negative effects may include decreased hands-on experience. Finally, a cognitive perspective suggests that learning is dependent on cognitive co-construction, shared knowledge and reduced cognitive load. WHEN AND FOR WHOM: The literature on the collaborative learning of clinical skills in health science education is reviewed to support or contradict the hypotheses provided by the theories outlined above. Collaborative learning of clinical skills leads to improvements in self-efficacy, confidence and performance when task processing is observable or communicable. However, the effects of collaborative learning of clinical skills may decrease over time as benefits in terms of shared cognition, scaffolding and cognitive co-construction are outweighed by reductions in hands-on experience and time on task. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative learning of clinical skills has demonstrated promising results in the simulated setting. However, further research into how collaborative learning of clinical skills may work in clinical settings, as well as into the role of social dynamics between learners, is required.

Competency-Based Medical Education: Can Both Junior Residents and Senior Residents Achieve Competence After a Sports Medicine Training Module?

BACKGROUND: Competency-based medical education as a resident-training format will move postgraduate training away from time-based training, to a model based on observable outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine whether junior residents and senior residents could demonstrate clinical skills to a similar level, after a sports medicine rotation. METHODS: All residents undertaking a three-month sports medicine rotation had to pass an Objective Structured Clinical Examination. The stations tested the fundamentals of history-taking, examination, image interpretation, differential diagnosis, informed consent, and clinical decision-making. Performance at each station was assessed with a binary station-specific checklist and an overall global rating scale, in which 1 indicated novice, 2 indicated advanced beginner, 3 indicated competent, 4 indicated proficient, and 5 indicated expert. A global rating scale was also given for each domain of knowledge. RESULTS: Over eighteen months, thirty-nine residents (twenty-one junior residents and eighteen senior residents) and six fellows (for a total of forty-five participants) completed the examination. With regard to junior residents and senior residents, analysis using a two-tailed t test demonstrated a significant difference (p < 0.01) in both total checklist score and overall global rating scale; the mean total checklist score (and standard deviation) was 56.15% ± 10.99% for junior residents and 71.87% ± 8.94% for senior residents, and the mean global rating scale was 2.44 ± 0.55 for junior residents and 3.79 ± 0.49 for senior residents. There was a significant difference between junior residents and senior residents for each knowledge domain, with a significance of p < 0.05 for history-taking and p < 0.01 for the remainder of the domains. CONCLUSIONS: Despite intensive teaching within a competency-based medical education model, junior residents were not able to demonstrate knowledge as well as senior residents, suggesting that overall clinical experience is critically important for achieving competency as measured by the Objective Structured Clinical Examination.

The roles of deliberate practice and innate ability in developing expertise: evidence and implications.

CONTEXT: Medical education research focuses extensively on experience and deliberate practice (DP) as key factors in the development of expert performance. The research on DP minimises the role of individual ability in expert performance. This claim ignores a large body of research supporting the importance of innate individual cognitive differences. We review the relationship between DP and an innate individual ability, working memory (WM) capacity, to illustrate how both DP and individual ability predict expert performance. METHODS: This narrative review examines the relationship between DP and WM in accounting for expert performance. Studies examining DP, WM and individual differences were identified through a targeted search. RESULTS: Although all studies support extensive DP as a factor in explaining expertise, much research suggests individual cognitive differences, such as WM capacity, predict expert performance after controlling for DP. The extent to which this occurs may be influenced by the nature of the task under study and the cognitive processes used by experts. The importance of WM capacity is greater for tasks that are non-routine or functionally complex. Clinical reasoning displays evidence of this task-dependent importance of individual ability. CONCLUSIONS: No single factor is both necessary and sufficient in explaining expertise, and individual abilities such as WM can be important. These individual abilities are likely to contribute to expert performance in clinical settings. Medical education research and practice should identify the individual differences in novices and experts that are important to clinical performance.