Search

Background: Misconceptions are ideas that are inconsistent with current scientific views. They are difficult to detect and refractory to change. Misconceptions can negatively influence how new concepts in science are learned, but are rarely measured in biomedical courses. Early identification of misconceptions is of critical relevance for effective teaching, but presents a difficult task for teachers as they tend to either over- or underestimate students' prior knowledge. A systematic appreciation of the existing misconceptions is desirable. This explorative study was performed to determine whether written questions generated by students can be used to uncover their misconceptions., Methods: During a small-group work (SGW) session on Tumour Pathology in a (bio)medical bachelor course on General Pathology, students were asked to write down a question about the topic. This concerned a deepening question on disease mechanisms and not mere factual knowledge. Three independent expert pathologists determined whether the content of the questions was compatible with a misconception. Consensus was reached in all cases. Study outcomes were to determine whether misconceptions can be identified in students' written questions, and if so, to measure the frequency of misconceptions that can be encountered, and finally, to determine if the presence of such misconceptions is negatively associated with the students' course formal examination score. A subgroup analysis was performed according to gender and discipline., Results: A total of 242 students participated in the SGW sessions, of whom 221 (91 %) formulated a question. Thirty-six questions did not meet the inclusion criteria. Of the 185 questions rated, 11 % (n = 20) was compatible with a misconception. Misconceptions were only found in medical students' questions, not in biomedical science students' questions. Formal examination score on Tumour Pathology was 5.0 (SD 2.0) in the group with misconceptions and 6.7 (SD 2.4) in the group without misconceptions (p = 0.003)., Conclusions: This study demonstrates that misconceptions can be uncovered in students' written questions. The occurrence of these misconceptions was negatively associated with the formal examination score. Identification of misconceptions creates an opportunity to repair them during the remaining course sessions, in advance of the formal examination.

Background: It is generally assumed that learning in context increases performance. This study investigates the relationship between the characteristics of a paper-patient context (relevance and familiarity), the mechanisms through which the cognitive dimension of context could improve learning (activation of prior knowledge, elaboration and increasing retrieval cues), and test performance., Methods: A total of 145 medical students completed a pretest of 40 questions, of which half were with a patient vignette. One week later, they studied musculoskeletal anatomy in the dissection room without a paper-patient context (control group) or with (ir)relevant-(un)familiar context (experimental groups), and completed a cognitive load scale. Following a short delay, the students completed a posttest., Results: Surprisingly, our results show that students who studied in context did not perform better than students who studied without context. This finding may be explained by an interaction of the participants' expertise level, the nature of anatomical knowledge and students' approaches to learning. A relevant-familiar context only reduced the negative effect of learning the content in context. Our results suggest discouraging the introduction of an uncommon disease to illustrate a basic science concept. Higher self-perceived learning scores predict higher performance. Interestingly, students performed significantly better on the questions with context in both tests, possibly due to a 'framing effect'., Conclusions: Since studies focusing on the physical and affective dimensions of context have also failed to find a positive influence of learning in a clinically relevant context, further research seems necessary to refine our theories around the role of context in learning.

Spatial ability is an important factor in learning anatomy. Students with high scores on a mental rotation test (MRT) systematically score higher on anatomy examinations. This study aims to investigate if learning anatomy also oppositely improves the MRT-score. Five hundred first year students of medicine (n = 242, intervention) and educational sciences (n = 258, control) participated in a pretest and posttest MRT, 1 month apart. During this month, the intervention group studied anatomy and the control group studied research methods for the social sciences. In the pretest, the intervention group scored 14.40 (SD: ± 3.37) and the control group 13.17 (SD: ± 3.36) on a scale of 20, which is a significant difference (t-test, t = 4.07, df = 498, P < 0.001). Both groups show an improvement on the posttest compared to the pretest (paired samples t-test, t = 12.21/14.71, df = 257/241, P < 0.001). The improvement in the intervention group is significantly higher (ANCOVA, F = 16.59, df = 1;497, P < 0.001). It is concluded that (1) medical students studying anatomy show greater improvement between two consecutive MRTs than educational science students; (2) medical students have a higher spatial ability than educational sciences students; and (3) if a MRT is repeated there seems to be a test effect. It is concluded that spatial ability may be trained by studying anatomy. The overarching message for anatomy teachers is that a good spatial ability is beneficial for learning anatomy and learning anatomy may be beneficial for students' spatial ability. This reciprocal advantage implies that challenging students on spatial aspects of anatomical knowledge could have a twofold effect on their learning., (© 2013 American Association of Anatomists.)

Anatomy students studying dissected anatomical specimens were subjected to either a loosely-guided, self-directed learning environment or a strictly-guided, preformatted gross anatomy laboratory session. The current study's guiding questions were: (1) do strictly-guided gross anatomy laboratory sessions lead to higher learning gains than loosely-guided experiences? and (2) are there differences in the recall of anatomical knowledge between students who undergo the two types of laboratory sessions after weeks and months? The design was a randomized controlled trial. The participants were 360 second-year medical students attending a gross anatomy laboratory course on the anatomy of the hand. Half of the students, the experimental group, were subjected without prior warning to station-based laboratory sessions; the other half, the control group, to loosely-guided laboratory sessions, which was the course's prevailing educational method at the time. The recall of anatomical knowledge was measured by written reproduction of 12 anatomical names at four points in time: immediately after the laboratory experience, then one week, five weeks, and eight months later. The strictly-guided group scored higher than the loosely-guided group at all time-points. Repeated ANOVA showed no interaction between the results of the two types of laboratory sessions (P = 0.121) and a significant between-subject effect (P ≤ 0.001). Therefore, levels of anatomical knowledge retrieved were significantly higher for the strictly-guided group than for the loosely-guided group at all times. It was concluded that gross anatomy laboratory sessions with strict instructions resulted in the recall of a larger amount of anatomical knowledge, even after eight months., (Copyright © 2012 American Association of Anatomists.)

Background: Collaborative group sessions in Nijmegen include 15 students who work all together on a group assignment. Sometimes, the group is split-up in three and every subgroup elaborates a part of the assignment. At the end, they peer-teach each other. It is believed that the split-up enhances participation and therefore learning gain., Aims: To establish the effect of group size and structure of the assignment on the perceived participation, the satisfaction and learning gain of collaborative group sessions., Methods: In this study, 27 groups of 15 students were equally divided into: A-group: all 15 students working on the complete assignment. B-group: subgroups of 5 students working on the complete assignment. C-group: subgroups of 5 students working on a smaller part, and peer-teaching each other at the end of the group session. All students took a pre-test, a post-test and a follow-up test and completed a questionnaire. Questionnaires were analyzed with a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc by multiple comparisons. Learning gain was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA., Results: A group size effect is observed in favor of working in subgroups. Perceived participation of the students differs between A and B (p ≤ 0.001) and between A and C (p ≤ 0.001), but not between B and C. Also, an assignment effect is found in favor of the smaller assignment combined with peer-teaching. The students' satisfaction differs between A and C (p ≤ 0.003) and between B and C (p ≤ 0.001), but not between A and B. The C-group also shows higher test results (p ≤ 0.043)., Conclusions: The students prefer smaller groups as well as smaller assignments including peer-teaching. A possible larger learning gain of this format needs to be re-investigated.