Cargando…

Refuting misconceptions in medical physiology

BACKGROUND: In medical physiology, educators and students face a serious challenge termed misconceptions. Misconceptions are incorrect ideas that do not match current scientific views. Accordingly, they have shown to hamper teaching and learning of physiological concepts. Conceptual Change Theory fo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Versteeg, M., van Loon, M. H., Wijnen-Meijer, M., Steendijk, P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7409498/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32758215
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02166-6
_version_ 1783568075319148544
author Versteeg, M.
van Loon, M. H.
Wijnen-Meijer, M.
Steendijk, P.
author_facet Versteeg, M.
van Loon, M. H.
Wijnen-Meijer, M.
Steendijk, P.
author_sort Versteeg, M.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In medical physiology, educators and students face a serious challenge termed misconceptions. Misconceptions are incorrect ideas that do not match current scientific views. Accordingly, they have shown to hamper teaching and learning of physiological concepts. Conceptual Change Theory forms the basis of new teaching and learning practices that may alleviate misconceptions and facilitate critical thinking skills that are essential in becoming knowledgeable, self-regulated health professionals. In this study, we examined if such an intervention named refutation texts, could enhance medical students’ cognition and metacognition. METHODS: First-year medical students (N = 161) performed a pre-test and post-test on cardiovascular physiology concepts, including a self-perceived confidence rating. In between, students read either a standard text with an explanation of the correct answer, or a refutation text which additionally refuted related misconceptions. RESULTS: In both groups, average performance scores (refutation: + 22.5%, standard: + 22.8%) and overall confidence ratings (refutation: Δ0.42 out of 5, standard: Δ0.35 out of 5) increased significantly (all p < .001), but a significant effect of the specific refutation element was not found. Initially incorrect answers were corrected less frequently in cases of high confidence (35.8%) than low confidence (61.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that refutation texts significantly increased students’ knowledge, however, the refutation element did not have a significant additional effect. Furthermore, high confidence in incorrect answers negatively affected the likelihood of correction. These findings provide implications for teaching practices on concept learning, by showing that educators should take into account the key role of metacognition, and the nature of misconceptions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7409498
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74094982020-08-07 Refuting misconceptions in medical physiology Versteeg, M. van Loon, M. H. Wijnen-Meijer, M. Steendijk, P. BMC Med Educ Research Article BACKGROUND: In medical physiology, educators and students face a serious challenge termed misconceptions. Misconceptions are incorrect ideas that do not match current scientific views. Accordingly, they have shown to hamper teaching and learning of physiological concepts. Conceptual Change Theory forms the basis of new teaching and learning practices that may alleviate misconceptions and facilitate critical thinking skills that are essential in becoming knowledgeable, self-regulated health professionals. In this study, we examined if such an intervention named refutation texts, could enhance medical students’ cognition and metacognition. METHODS: First-year medical students (N = 161) performed a pre-test and post-test on cardiovascular physiology concepts, including a self-perceived confidence rating. In between, students read either a standard text with an explanation of the correct answer, or a refutation text which additionally refuted related misconceptions. RESULTS: In both groups, average performance scores (refutation: + 22.5%, standard: + 22.8%) and overall confidence ratings (refutation: Δ0.42 out of 5, standard: Δ0.35 out of 5) increased significantly (all p < .001), but a significant effect of the specific refutation element was not found. Initially incorrect answers were corrected less frequently in cases of high confidence (35.8%) than low confidence (61.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that refutation texts significantly increased students’ knowledge, however, the refutation element did not have a significant additional effect. Furthermore, high confidence in incorrect answers negatively affected the likelihood of correction. These findings provide implications for teaching practices on concept learning, by showing that educators should take into account the key role of metacognition, and the nature of misconceptions. BioMed Central 2020-08-05 /pmc/articles/PMC7409498/ /pubmed/32758215 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02166-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Versteeg, M.
van Loon, M. H.
Wijnen-Meijer, M.
Steendijk, P.
Refuting misconceptions in medical physiology
title Refuting misconceptions in medical physiology
title_full Refuting misconceptions in medical physiology
title_fullStr Refuting misconceptions in medical physiology
title_full_unstemmed Refuting misconceptions in medical physiology
title_short Refuting misconceptions in medical physiology
title_sort refuting misconceptions in medical physiology
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7409498/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32758215
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02166-6
work_keys_str_mv AT versteegm refutingmisconceptionsinmedicalphysiology
AT vanloonmh refutingmisconceptionsinmedicalphysiology
AT wijnenmeijerm refutingmisconceptionsinmedicalphysiology
AT steendijkp refutingmisconceptionsinmedicalphysiology