Students' self‐explanations while solving unfamiliar cases: the role of biomedical knowledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: General guidelines for teaching clinical reasoning have received much attention, despite a paucity of instructional approaches with demonstrated effectiveness. As suggested in a recent experimental study, self-explanation while solving clinical cases may be an effective strategy to foster reasoning in clinical clerks dealing with less familiar cases. However, the mechanisms that mediate this benefit have not been specifically investigated. The aim of this study was to explore the types of knowledge used by students when solving familiar and less familiar clinical cases with self-explanation. METHODS: In a previous study, 36 third-year medical students diagnosed familiar and less familiar clinical cases either by engaging in self-explanation or not. Based on an analysis of previously collected data, the present study compared the content of self-explanation protocols generated by seven randomly selected students while solving four familiar and four less familiar cases. In total, 56 verbal protocols (28 familiar and 28 less familiar) were segmented and coded using the following categories: paraphrases, biomedical inferences, clinical inferences, monitoring statements and errors. RESULTS: Students provided more self-explanation segments from less familiar cases (M = 275.29) than from familiar cases (M = 248.71, p = 0.046). They provided significantly more paraphrases (p = 0.001) and made more errors (p = 0.008). A significant interaction was found between familiarity and the type of inferences (biomedical versus clinical, p = 0.016). When self-explaining less familiar cases, students provided significantly more biomedical inferences than familiar cases. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of familiarity with a case seems to stimulate medical students to engage in more extensive thinking during self-explanation. Less familiar cases seem to activate students' biomedical knowledge, which in turn helps them to create new links between biomedical and clinical knowledge, and eventually construct a more coherent mental representation of diseases. This may clarify the previously found positive effect that self-explanation has on the diagnosis of unfamiliar cases.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".