A Qualitative Exploration of Student Cognition When Answering Text-Only or Image-Based Histology Multiple-Choice Questions

Author:

Holland JaneORCID,McGarvey AliceORCID,Flood MichelleORCID,Joyce PaulineORCID,Pawlikowska TeresaORCID

Abstract

AbstractInterpretation of images and spatial relationships is essential in medicine, but the evidence base on how to assess these skills is sparse. Thirty medical students were randomized into two groups (A and B), and invited to “think aloud” while completing 14 histology MCQs. All students answered six identical MCQs, three with only text and three requiring image interpretation. Students then answered eight “matched” questions, where a text-only MCQ on version A was “matched” with an image-based MCQ on paper B, or vice versa. Students’ verbalizations were coded with a realist, inductive approach and emerging codes were identified and integrated within overarching themes. High-performing students were more likely to self-generate an answer as compared to middle and lower performing students, who verbalized more option elimination. Images had no consistent influence on item statistics, and students’ self-identified visual-verbal preference (“learning style”) had no consistent influence on their results for text or image-based questions. Students’ verbalizations regarding images depended on whether interpretation of the adjacent image was necessary to answer the question or not. Specific comments about the image were present in 95% of student-item verbalizations (142 of 150) if interpreting the image was essential to answering the question, whereas few students referred to images if they were an unnecessary addition to the vignette. In conclusion, while assessing image interpretation is necessary for authenticity and constructive alignment, MCQs should be constructed to only include information and images relevant to answering the question, and avoid adding unnecessary information or images that may increase extraneous cognitive load.

Funder

Irish Network of Healthcare Educators

Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3