MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120656821 · doi:10.1111/medu.12623

Self‐explanation in learning clinical reasoning: the added value of examples and prompts

2015· article· en· W2120656821 on OpenAlexaff
Martine Chamberland, Sílvia Mamede, Christina St‐Onge, Jean Setrakian, Linda Bergeron, Henk G. Schmidt

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Education · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValue (mathematics)PsychologyCognitive psychologyMedical educationMedicineComputer scienceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Recent studies suggest that self-explanation (SE) while diagnosing cases fosters the development of clinical reasoning in medical students; however, the conditions that optimise the impact of SE remain unknown. The example-based learning framework justifies an exploration of students' use of their own SEs combined with the study of examples. This study aimed to assess the impact on medical students' diagnostic performance of: (i) combining students' SEs with their listening to examples of residents' SEs, and (ii) the addition of prompts (specific questions) while working with examples. METHODS: This study consisted of a training phase and an assessment phase conducted 1 week later. In the training phase, 54 Year 3 medical students were randomly assigned to one of three groups. In all groups, students first solved four clinical cases using SE. Subsequently, Group 1 listened to examples of residents' SEs with prompts; Group 2 listened to examples of residents' SEs without prompts, and the control group solved word puzzles. Then, all students again solved the same four cases. One week later, all students solved four similar and four different cases. Students' diagnostic performance and diagnostic accuracy scores were assessed for each case at each time-point. RESULTS: Although all groups' diagnostic accuracy scores on similar cases improved significantly between the training and the assessment phase, Group 1 showed a significantly higher diagnostic performance score after 1 week than the control group (p = 0.037). On different cases, Group 1 obtained significantly higher diagnostic accuracy (p = 0.011) and diagnostic performance (p < 0.001) scores than the control group and a significantly higher diagnostic performance score than Group 2 (p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: Self-explanation seems to be an effective technique to help medical students learn clinical reasoning. Its impact is increased significantly by combining it with examples of residents' SEs and prompts. Although students' exposure to examples of clinical reasoning is important, their 'active processing' of these examples appears to be critical to their learning from them.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.255
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.252
Threshold uncertainty score0.751

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.255
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.368 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations66
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical EducationSame topicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsFrench-language works237,207