Advertisement

Integrating Concept Maps into a Medical Student Oncology Curriculum

  • Sam BrondfieldEmail author
  • Allen Seol
  • Katherine Hyland
  • Arianne Teherani
  • Gerald Hsu
Article

Abstract

Expanding frontiers of knowledge have prompted medical schools to reconsider how best to promote learning in the face of information overload. Concept mapping (CM) promotes knowledge retention and integration. Students have perceived CM positively in prior studies, but the feasibility and utility of integrating CM into a medical student oncology curriculum as a learning and assessment tool have not been described. At the University of California, San Francisco, 152 medical students in a second-year hematology/oncology course produced concept maps about a single cancer type over 4 weeks. We collected student evaluations about CM. Two of three graders independently scored each map using a standard rubric. We compared CM scores with USMLE Step 1 scores and clerkship grades using regression. All students produced a concept map. Student perception was mixed, and students provided feedback to improve CM utility as a learning tool. Grading was feasible, and inter-rater reliability was high. CM scores did not predict USMLE Step 1 scores or clerkship grades. CM was feasible as a learning tool, and we present strategies based on student feedback and literature review to improve utility. CM was feasible and reliable as an assessment tool; additional validity evidence may improve utility. Future studies should explore whether CM integrated into medical student oncology curricula early, serially, and collaboratively, with iterative practice and feedback, may predict meaningful learning and performance outcomes.

Keywords

Concept map Concept mapping Oncology Medical student Curriculum Meaningful learning Cognitive integration 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The UCSF Institutional Review Board approved this study as exempt from review.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Supplementary material

13187_2019_1601_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (87 kb)
Supplemental Figure 1 A. Scatterplot of concept map scores displaying inter-rater reliability between authors G.H. and S.B., with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.90 (n = 71 concept maps). B. Scatterplot of concept map scores displaying inter-rater reliability between authors G.H. and A.S., with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.91 (n = 68 concept maps). (PPTX 87 kb)
13187_2019_1601_MOESM2_ESM.pptx (88 kb)
(PPTX 87 kb)
13187_2019_1601_MOESM3_ESM.pptx (65 kb)
Supplemental Figure 2 Box plot displaying scores from all graded student concept maps (n = 141). (PPTX 65 kb)
13187_2019_1601_MOESM4_ESM.pptx (122 kb)
Supplemental Figure 3 A. Scatterplot of USMLE Step 1 scores over concept map scores (n = 141 students) with best-fit regression line (r = − 0.02). B. Scatterplot of mean clerkship grades over concept map scores (n = 125 students) with best-fit regression line (r = 0.04). (PPTX 122 kb)
13187_2019_1601_MOESM5_ESM.pptx (126 kb)
(PPTX 125 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Irby DM, Cooke M, O'Brien BC (2010) Calls for reform of medical education by the carnegie foundation for the advancement of teaching: 1910 and 2010. Acad Med 85(2):220–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brauer DG, Ferguson KJ (2015) The integrated curriculum in medical education: AMEE guide no. 96. Med Teach 37(4):312–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yarbrough DB, Hopson RK, Shulha LM, Caruthers FA (2010) The program evaluation standards: a guide for evaluators and evaluation users. Sage PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Daley BJ, Torre DM (2010) Concept maps in medical education: an analytical literature review. Med Educ 44(5):440–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Novak JD, Gowin DB (1984) Learning how to learn. Cambridge Univ. Pr, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    West DC, Pomeroy JR, Park JK, Gerstenberger EA, Sandoval J (2000) Critical thinking in graduate medical education: a role for concept mapping assessment? JAMA. 284(9):1105–1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Torre DM, Durning SJ, Daley BJ (2013) Twelve tips for teaching with concept maps in medical education. Med Teach 35(3):201–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ausubel DP (1968) Educational psychology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Woods NN, Neville AJ, Levinson AJ, Howey EHA, Oczkowski WJ, Norman GR (2006) The value of basic science in clinical diagnosis. Acad Med 81(10 Suppl):S124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Trevisani M, Cohrs C, de Lara Soares M et al (2016) Evaluation of learning in oncology of undergraduate nursing with the use of concept mapping. J Cancer Educ 31(3):533–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ho V, Kumar RK, Velan G (2014) Online testable concept maps: benefits for learning about the pathogenesis of disease. Med Educ 48(7):687–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Braga M, Paccagnella M, Pellizzari M (2014) Evaluating students’ evaluations of professors. Econ Educ Rev 41:71–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wayne SJ, Fortner SA, Kitzes JA, Timm C, Kalishman S (2013) Cause or effect? The relationship between student perception of the medical school learning environment and academic performance on USMLE step 1. Med Teach 35(5):376–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ho VW, Harris PG, Kumar RK, Velan GM (2018) Knowledge maps: a tool for online assessment with automated feedback. Med Educ Online 23(1):1457394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McClure JR, Sonak B, Suen HK (1999) Concept map assessment of classroom learning: reliability, validity, and logistical practicality. J Res Sci Teach 36(4):475–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Srinivasan M, McElvany M, Shay JM, Shavelson RJ, West DC (2008) Measuring knowledge structure: reliability of concept mapping assessment in medical education. Acad Med 83(12):1196–1203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Elo S, Kyngäs H (2008) The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs 62(1):107–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Markham KM, Mintzes JJ, Jones MG (1994) The concept map as a research and evaluation tool: further evidence of validity. J Res Sci Teach 31(1):91–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ericsson KA (2004) Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in medicine and related domains. Acad Med 79(10 Suppl):S70–S81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Torre D, Daley BJ, Picho K, Durning SJ (2017) Group concept mapping: an approach to explore group knowledge organization and collaborative learning in senior medical students. Med Teach 39(10):1051–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chow JC, Ekholm E (2018) Do published studies yield larger effect sizes than unpublished studies in education and special education? A meta-review. Educ Psychol Rev 30(3):727–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peñuela-Epalza M, De la Hoz K (2019) Incorporation and evaluation of serial concept maps for vertical integration and clinical reasoning in case-based learning tutorials: perspectives of students beginning clinical medicine. Med Teach 41:433–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cook DA, Beckman TJ (2006) Current concepts in validity and reliability for psychometric instruments: theory and application. Am J Med 119(2):166.16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gonzalez HL, Palencia AP, Umana LA, Galindo L, Villafrade MLA (2008) Mediated learning experience and concept maps: a pedagogical tool for achieving meaningful learning in medical physiology students. Adv Physiol Educ 32(4):312–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    West DC, Park JK, Pomeroy JR, Sandoval J (2002) Concept mapping assessment in medical education: a comparison of two scoring systems. Med Educ 36(9):820–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association for Cancer Education 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MedicineUniversity of California, San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.UCSF Hematology OncologySan FranciscoUSA
  3. 3.Department of MedicineUniversity of California, IrvineOrangeUSA
  4. 4.Department of Biochemistry and BiophysicsUniversity of California, San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  5. 5.Department of MedicineUniversity of California, San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations