Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 12176700

Using "concept sorting" to study learning processes and outcomes.

Abstract

PURPOSE: First, to evaluate "concept sorting" as a tool for assessing knowledge organization in the memories of first-year medical students, and second, to study the relationship between knowledge organization and examination performance. METHOD: During 2001, first-year medical students taking the Renal Course at the University of Calgary Faculty of Medicine were given a questionnaire on scheme use and were given a concept-sorting task in the domain of metabolic alkalosis. The sophistication of their concept sorting was graded using the number of physiology-based groups they formed. Review of the course's examination scores allowed correlation with concept-sorting scores. Statistical analyses used Fisher's exact test and the two-sample t-test. Pearson's correlation coefficient and the kappa statistic were used for correlation between raters. RESULTS: A total of 81 of 99 students completed the study. The concept-sorting score (mean +/- SEM) for students who used the scheme was higher than was the score for students who did not (2.5 +/- 0.14 versus 1.91 +/- 0.12, p =.016). Students who scored higher in the concept-sorting task, referred to as "deep learners," scored higher than did "surface learners" on exam questions on metabolic alkalosis (2.81 versus 2.29, p =.02). There was no difference in the overall examination performances between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Concept sorting may be a useful tool for studying the learning process. Scheme use by students produces a positive outcome on examination performance.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Kevin McLaughlin, Henry Mandin. 2002. Using "concept sorting" to study learning processes and outcomes.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200208000-00017

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Conditional reliability of admissions interview ratings: extreme ratings are the most informative.

CONTEXT: Admissions interviews are unreliable and have poor predictive validity, yet are the sole measures of non-cognitive skills used by most medical school admissions departments. The low reliability may be due in part to variation in conditional reliability across the rating scale. OBJECTIVES: To describe an empirically derived estimate of conditional reliability and use it to improve the predictive validity of interview ratings. METHODS: A set of medical school interview ratings was compared to a Monte Carlo simulated set to estimate conditional reliability controlling for range restriction, response scale bias and other artefacts. This estimate was used as a weighting function to improve the predictive validity of a second set of interview ratings for predicting non-cognitive measures (USMLE Step II residuals from Step I scores). RESULTS: Compared with the simulated set, both observed sets showed more reliability at low and high rating levels than at moderate levels. Raw interview scores did not predict USMLE Step II scores after controlling for Step I performance (additional r2 = 0.001, not significant). Weighting interview ratings by estimated conditional reliability improved predictive validity (additional r2 = 0.121, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Conditional reliability is important for understanding the psychometric properties of subjective rating scales. Weighting these measures during the admissions process would improve admissions decisions.

Education, Medical, Undergraduate↗