Search

This study explored the practice and spacing-of-practice effects in people living with dementia during an artistic painting activity. The video recordings of 23 participants were systematically observed during their first and fourth session of the activity. Improvements in independence, engagement, and well/ill-being expressions were analyzed from the first to the fourth session. Moreover, it was analyzed whether a group who had practiced three times a week (n = 12) improved more than a group who had practiced once a week (n = 13). Participants became more independent as they practiced, but the spacing of the sessions did not show any significant effect. Participants with severe dementia showed greater independence improvements than participants with mild to moderate dementia, although they required significantly more assistance throughout the entire study. The positive rates in active engagement and well/ill-being expressions suggest that artistic painting activities promote the motivation and well-being of participants, including those in the severe stage of dementia.

Abstract This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: The purpose of this review is to synthesize the evidence about the efficacy of problem solving before instruction (PS‐I) to promote learning and motivation in students. Specifically, this review is designed to answer the following questions: To what degree does PS‐I affect learning and motivation, relative to alternative learning approaches? To what extent is the efficacy of PS‐I associated with the use of different design features within it, including the use of group work, contrasting cases, and metacognitive guidance in the initial problem‐solving activity, and the use of explanations that build upon students' solutions in the explicit instruction phase? To what extent is the relative efficacy of PS‐I associated with the contextual factors of activities used as control, age of students, duration of the interventions, and learning domain? What is the quality of the existent evidence to evaluate these questions in terms of number of studies included and potential biases derived from publication and methodological restrictions?