Mary A Andrews, Catherine A Okuliar, Sean A Whelton, Allison O Windels, Stacy R Kruse, Manesh G Nachnani, Deborah A Topol, Elexis C McBee, Michael T Stein, Raj C Singaraju, Sam W Gao, David S Oliver, Jed P Mangal, Jeffrey S LaRochelle, William F Kelly, Kent J DeZee, H Carrie Chen, Anthony R Artino, Paul A Hemmer, Ting Dong, Timothy J Cleary, Steven J Durning
{"title":"Using Self-Regulated Learning Microanalysis to Examine Regulatory Processes in Clerkship Students Engaged in Practice Questions.","authors":"Mary A Andrews, Catherine A Okuliar, Sean A Whelton, Allison O Windels, Stacy R Kruse, Manesh G Nachnani, Deborah A Topol, Elexis C McBee, Michael T Stein, Raj C Singaraju, Sam W Gao, David S Oliver, Jed P Mangal, Jeffrey S LaRochelle, William F Kelly, Kent J DeZee, H Carrie Chen, Anthony R Artino, Paul A Hemmer, Ting Dong, Timothy J Cleary, Steven J Durning","doi":"10.5334/pme.833","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Self-regulated learning is a cyclical process of forethought, performance, and self-reflection that has been used as an assessment tool in medical education. No prior studies have evaluated SRL processes for answering multiple-choice questions (MCQs) and most evaluated one or two iterations of a non-MCQ task. SRL assessment during MCQs may elucidate reasons why learners are successful or not on these questions that are encountered repeatedly during medical education.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Internal medicine clerkship students at three institutions participated in a SRL microanalytic protocol that targeted strategic planning, metacognitive monitoring, causal attributions, and adaptive inferences across seven MCQs. Responses were transcribed and coded according to previously published methods for microanalytic protocols.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-four students participated. In the forethought phase, students commonly endorsed prioritizing relevant features as their diagnostic strategy (n = 20, 45%) but few mentioned higher-order diagnostic reasoning processes such as integrating clinical information (n = 5, 11%) or comparing/contrasting diagnoses (n = 0, 0%). However, in the performance phase, students' metacognitive processes included high frequencies of integration (n = 38, 86%) and comparing/contrasting (n = 24, 55%). In the self-reflection phase, 93% (n = 41) of students faulted their management reasoning and 84% (n = 37) made negative references to their abilities. Less than 10% (n = 4) of students indicated that they would adapt their diagnostic reasoning process for these questions.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This study describes in detail student self-regulatory processes during MCQs. We found that students engaged in higher-order diagnostic reasoning processes but were not explicit about it and seldom reflected critically on these processes after selecting an incorrect answer. Self-reflections focused almost exclusively on management reasoning and negative references to abilities which may decrease self-efficacy. Encouraging students to identify and evaluate diagnostic reasoning processes and make attributions to controllable factors may improve performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":48532,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Medical Education","volume":"12 1","pages":"385-398"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10573650/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/pme.833","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Self-regulated learning is a cyclical process of forethought, performance, and self-reflection that has been used as an assessment tool in medical education. No prior studies have evaluated SRL processes for answering multiple-choice questions (MCQs) and most evaluated one or two iterations of a non-MCQ task. SRL assessment during MCQs may elucidate reasons why learners are successful or not on these questions that are encountered repeatedly during medical education.
Methods: Internal medicine clerkship students at three institutions participated in a SRL microanalytic protocol that targeted strategic planning, metacognitive monitoring, causal attributions, and adaptive inferences across seven MCQs. Responses were transcribed and coded according to previously published methods for microanalytic protocols.
Results: Forty-four students participated. In the forethought phase, students commonly endorsed prioritizing relevant features as their diagnostic strategy (n = 20, 45%) but few mentioned higher-order diagnostic reasoning processes such as integrating clinical information (n = 5, 11%) or comparing/contrasting diagnoses (n = 0, 0%). However, in the performance phase, students' metacognitive processes included high frequencies of integration (n = 38, 86%) and comparing/contrasting (n = 24, 55%). In the self-reflection phase, 93% (n = 41) of students faulted their management reasoning and 84% (n = 37) made negative references to their abilities. Less than 10% (n = 4) of students indicated that they would adapt their diagnostic reasoning process for these questions.
Discussion: This study describes in detail student self-regulatory processes during MCQs. We found that students engaged in higher-order diagnostic reasoning processes but were not explicit about it and seldom reflected critically on these processes after selecting an incorrect answer. Self-reflections focused almost exclusively on management reasoning and negative references to abilities which may decrease self-efficacy. Encouraging students to identify and evaluate diagnostic reasoning processes and make attributions to controllable factors may improve performance.
期刊介绍：
Perspectives on Medical Education mission is support and enrich collaborative scholarship between education researchers and clinical educators, and to advance new knowledge regarding clinical education practices.
Official journal of the The Netherlands Association of Medical Education (NVMO).
Perspectives on Medical Education is a non-profit Open Access journal with no charges for authors to submit or publish an article, and the full text of all articles is freely available immediately upon publication, thanks to the sponsorship of The Netherlands Association for Medical Education.
Perspectives on Medical Education is highly visible thanks to its unrestricted online access policy.
Perspectives on Medical Education positions itself at the dynamic intersection of educational research and clinical education. While other journals in the health professional education domain orient predominantly to education researchers or to clinical educators, Perspectives positions itself at the collaborative interface between these perspectives. This unique positioning reflects the journal’s mission to support and enrich collaborative scholarship between education researchers and clinical educators, and to advance new knowledge regarding clinical education practices. Reflecting this mission, the journal both welcomes original research papers arising from scholarly collaborations among clinicians, teachers and researchers and papers providing resources to develop the community’s ability to conduct such collaborative research. The journal’s audience includes researchers and practitioners: researchers who wish to explore challenging questions of health professions education and clinical teachers who wish to both advance their practice and envision for themselves a collaborative role in scholarly educational innovation. This audience of researchers, clinicians and educators is both international and interdisciplinary.
The journal has a long history. In 1982, the journal was founded by the Dutch Association for Medical Education, as a Dutch language journal (Netherlands Journal of Medical Education). As a Dutch journal it fuelled educational research and innovation in the Netherlands. It is one of the factors for the Dutch success in medical education. In 2012, it widened its scope, transforming into an international English language journal. The journal swiftly became international in all aspects: the readers, authors, reviewers and editorial board members.
The editorial board members represent the different parental disciplines in the field of medical education, e.g. clinicians, social scientists, biomedical scientists, statisticians and linguists. Several of them are leading scholars. Three of the editors are in the top ten of most cited authors in the medical education field. Two editors were awarded the Karolinska Institute Prize for Research. Presently, Erik Driessen leads the journal as Editor in Chief.
Perspectives on Medical Education is highly visible thanks to its unrestricted online access policy. It is sponsored by theThe Netherlands Association of Medical Education and offers free manuscript submission.
Perspectives on Medical Education positions itself at the dynamic intersection of educational research and clinical education. While other journals in the health professional education domain orient predominantly to education researchers or to clinical educators, Perspectives positions itself at the collaborative interface between these perspectives. This unique positioning reflects the journal’s mission to support and enrich collaborative scholarship between education researchers and clinical educators, and to advance new knowledge regarding clinical education practices. Reflecting this mission, the journal both welcomes original research papers arising from scholarly collaborations among clinicians, teachers and researchers and papers providing resources to develop the community’s ability to conduct such collaborative research. The journal’s audience includes researchers and practitioners: researchers who wish to explore challenging questions of health professions education and clinical teachers who wish to both advance their practice and envision for themselves a collaborative role in scholarly educational innovation. This audience of researchers, clinicians and educators is both international and interdisciplinary.
The journal has a long history. In 1982, the journal was founded by the Dutch Association for Medical Education, as a Dutch language journal (Netherlands Journal of Medical Education). As a Dutch journal it fuelled educational research and innovation in the Netherlands. It is one of the factors for the Dutch success in medical education. In 2012, it widened its scope, transforming into an international English language journal. The journal swiftly became international in all aspects: the readers, authors, reviewers and editorial board members.
The editorial board members represent the different parental disciplines in the field of medical education, e.g. clinicians, social scientists, biomedical scientists, statisticians and linguists. Several of them are leading scholars. Three of the editors are in the top ten of most cited authors in the medical education field. Two editors were awarded the Karolinska Institute Prize for Research. Presently, Erik Driessen leads the journal as Editor in Chief.
Perspectives on Medical Education is highly visible thanks to its unrestricted online access policy. It is sponsored by theThe Netherlands Association of Medical Education and offers free manuscript submission.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
