Assessing the Effectiveness of Using Mechanistic Concept Maps in Case-Based Collaborative Learning

Abstract

Problem Despite the advantages of using mechanistic concept maps (MCMs)-diagrams created individually or collaboratively by a team to foster inductive analysis of a clinical problem-in individual learning, very little is known about their benefits in collaborative learning. Approach First-year medical and dental students (n = 170) were assigned to one of four learning groups in the Homeostasis I course, Harvard Medical School, February-March 2016. One group (n = 43) was randomly assigned to the MCM intervention; students in the remaining groups (n = 127) served as controls. Outcomes included pre-and postcourse surveys on, among other things, reasoning skills, attitudes toward teamwork, and tolerance of ambiguity; final exam scores; and qualitative responses to three open-ended questions on students' perceptions of the effects of MCMs on their learning. Outcomes Response rates for pre-and postcourse surveys were 87/170 (51%) and 91/170 (54%). Compared with students in the control groups, students in the MCM group reported better reasoning skills (P =.01) and attitudes toward teamwork (P =.02). There were no significant differences in final exam scores between the groups. Students in the intervention group found MCMs more helpful in conceptual learning than their own notes and flashcards (P =.0001) or the readiness assessment quizzes (P =.0009). Qualitative analysis indicated MCM students routinely overcame team-learning obstacles through strategies aimed at prioritizing collaborative inductive reasoning. Next Steps Ongoing studies are evaluating the contextual elements and best practices for optimal employment of MCMs in promoting collaborative inductive reasoning.