Abstract

To determine the content of integrated curricula, clinical concepts and the underlying basic science concepts need to be made explicit. Preconstructed concept maps are recommended for this purpose. They are mainly constructed by experts. However, concept maps constructed by residents are hypothesized to be less complex, to reveal more tacit basic science concepts and these basic science concepts are expected to be used for the organization of the maps. These hypotheses are derived from studies about knowledge development of individuals. However, integrated curricula require a high degree of cooperation between clinicians and basic scientists. This study examined whether there are consistent variations regarding the articulation of integration when groups of experienced clinicians and basic scientists and groups of residents and basic scientists-in-training construct concept maps. Seven groups of three clinicians and basic scientists on experienced level and seven such groups on resident level constructed concept maps illuminating clinical problems. They were guided by instructions that focused them on articulation of integration. The concept maps were analysed by features that described integration. Descriptive statistics showed consistent variations between the two expertise levels. The concept maps of the resident groups exceeded those of the experienced groups in articulated integration. First, they used significantly more links between clinical and basic science concepts. Second, these links connected basic science concepts with a greater variety of clinical concepts than the experienced groups. Third, although residents did not use significantly more basic science concepts, they used them significantly more frequent to organize the clinical concepts. The conclusion was drawn that not all hypotheses could be confirmed and that the resident concept maps were more elaborate than expected. This article discusses the implications for the role that residents and basic scientists-in-training might play in the construction of preconstructed concept maps and the development of integrated curricula.

Highlights

  • During their training medical students need to learn to connect their clinical and basic science knowledge in order to become proficient doctors (Boshuizen and Schmidt 2000)

  • This study demonstrates that groups of experienced clinicians and basic scientists, on one hand, and residents and basic scientists-in-training, on the other hand, differ in both the extent and how they articulate integration

  • It provides support for further investigation of the role that preconstructed resident concept maps could play for the development of integrated curricula and as a scaffold for student learning

Read more

Summary

Introduction

During their training medical students need to learn to connect their clinical and basic science knowledge in order to become proficient doctors (Boshuizen and Schmidt 2000). Concept maps articulate concepts and their interrelations in a hierarchical way (Novak 2002) and might visualize the relations between clinical and basic science concepts that should be understood in order to understand a medical subject (Kinchin et al 2008; Weiss and Levison 2000). It is for this reason that they are put forward as promising instruments for the articulation of integration (Daley and Torre 2010; Kinchin et al 2008; Weiss & Levison 2000). Studies about the use of other preconstructed schematizations point to learning benefits for students (Blissett et al 2012)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call