Learner-generated versus author-provided computer-based flow diagrams in medical education

• Autorzy: Kononowicz A. A. , Kenig J.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Graphic organizers are popular tools which support meaningful learning. The aim of this study was to compare the learning outcomes of two educational scenarios involving the use of learner-generated or author-provided flow diagrams. Thirty-six third to fifth year medical students worked in pairs in the ‘Bit Pathways’ computer-aided learning environment. The group using author-provided graphic organizers performed significantly better on a knowledge retention test 1 month after the learning activity, requiring less preparatory time than the group generating their own graphic organizers (Cohen’s d effect size=0.84, p=0.03). Students liked both learning activities; however, the preference for learning-by-viewing was clear. Students’ quality of flow diagrams were correlated positively with the outcomes of the knowledge post-test (Spearman’s R=0.75, p=0.03). The generally poor quality of learner-generated diagrams indicated that better guided instructional designs for the learning-by-doing scenario are needed. This paper outlines further development directions of both tested scenarios.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

computer-aided learning; flow diagram; graphic organizer

• Wydawca: Uniwersytet Jagielloński - Collegium Medicum ; Index Copernicus Sp. z o.o.
• Czasopismo: Bio-Algorithms and Med-Systems
• Rocznik: 2013
• Tom: Vol. 9, no. 1
• Strony: 37--44
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 19 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Kononowicz A. A.

• Department of Bioinformatics and Telemedicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Łazarza 16, 31-034, Kraków, Poland

autor

Kenig J.

• Third Department of General Surgery, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland

Bibliografia

• 1. Nesbit JC, Adesope OO. Learning with concept and knowledge maps: a meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res 2006;76:413 – 48 .
• 2. Stull AT, Mayer RE. Learning-by-doing versus learning-byviewing: three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organizers. J Educ Psychol 2007;99:808 – 20 .
• 3. Daley BJ, Torre DM. Concept maps in medical education: an analytical literature review. Med Educ 2010;44:440 – 8 .
• 4. Moore DW, Readence JE. A quantitative and qualitative review of graphic organizer research. J Educ Res 1984;78:11 – 7 .
• 5. Winn W. Learning from maps and diagrams. Educ Psychol Rev 1991;3:211 – 47 .
• 6. Farrand P, Hussain F, Hennessy E. The efficacy of the ‘ mind map ’ study technique. Med Educ 2002;36:426 – 31 .
• 7. Cutrer WB, Castro D, Roy KM, Turner TL. Use of an expert concept map as an advance organizer to improve understanding of respiratory failure. Med Teach 2011;33: 1018 – 26 .
• 8. Schneider M, Stern E. The developmental relations between conceptual and procedural knowledge: a multimethod approach. Dev Psychol 2010;46:178– 92 .
• 9. Davidowitz B, Rollnick M. Effectiveness of flow diagrams as a strategy for learning in laboratories. Austral J Educ Chem 2001;57:18 – 24 .
• 10. DeMeo S. Constructing a graphic organizer in the classroom: introductory students ’ perception of achievement using a decision map to solve aqueous acid-base equilibria problems. J Chem Educ 2007;84:540 – 6 .
• 11. Craik FI, Lockhart RS. Levels of processing: a framework for memory research. J Verb Learn Verb Behav 1972;11:671 – 84 .
• 12. Mayer RE. Multimedia learning, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009 .
• 13. de Schipper JP, ter Gunne AF, Oostvogel HJ, van Laarhoven CJ. Spontaneous rupture of the oesophagus: Boerhaave ’ s syndrome in 2008. Literature review and treatment algorithm. Dig Surg 2009;26:1– 6 .
• 14. Kononowicz AA, Holler T. The development of a tool for teaching and learning clinical pathways. Bio Algorithm Med Syst 2008;4:33 – 40 .
• 15. D ’ Antoni AV, Zipp GP, Olson VG. Interrater reliability of the mind map assessment rubric in a cohort of medical students. BMC Med Educ 2009;9:19 .
• 16. Davidowitz B, Rollnick M. Development and application of a rubric for analysis of novice students ’ laboratory flow diagrams. Int J Sci Educ 2005;27:43 – 59 .
• 17. Hmelo-Silver CE, Duncan RG, Chinn CA. Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educ Pschychol 2007;42:99 – 107 .
• 18. Kirschner PA, Sweller J, Clark RE. Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experimental, and inquiry-based teaching. Educ Psychol 2006;41:75 – 86 .
• 19. Stark R, Kopp V, Fischer MR. Case-based learning with worked examples in complex domains: two experimental studies in undergraduate medical education. Learn Instruct 2011;21:22 – 33 .