Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

A follow-up study of medical students’ biomedical understanding and clinical reasoning concerning the cardiovascular system

  • Published:
Advances in Health Sciences Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Novice medical students usually hold initial conceptions concerning medical domains, such as the cardiovascular system, which may contradict scientific explanations and thus hinder learning. The purpose of this study was to investigate which kinds of biomedical representations medical students constructed of the central cardiovascular system in their first and second years of study, and how the quality of these representations was related to the students’ success in clinical reasoning. Data for 119 medical students were collected in three phases: in the first year of study before and after a cardiovascular course and a follow-up in the second year of study. Biomedical and clinical assignments were utilised. The study revealed that students had a substantial number of different misconceptions, and they decreased only slightly over the period of instruction. Those students who had misconceptions concerning biomedical knowledge also performed poorly in clinical reasoning. Furthermore, those students whose clinical reasoning was excellent had improved their biomedical knowledge between the first and second year remarkably more than students with poorer clinical reasoning. Hence, biomedical understanding seems to act as a mediator in clinical reasoning among novice students. We suggest that domain-specific pedagogical training, which would help medical educators become aware of students’ typical misconceptions concerning biomedical knowledge and the role of this knowledge in clinical reasoning, should be carried out to improve medical education.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Biomedical knowledge is the basic science concerning the functioning of the human body, such as human anatomy and physiology.

  2. Clinical knowledge is the knowledge concerning different illnesses and dysfunctions of the human body and their treatment.

  3. For instance, in Finland only approximately 15% of applicants are accepted into medical school.

  4. All of the analyses were performed by the first author, who is a biologist. Medical experts and medical literature were consulted when necessary.

References

  • Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Schmidt, H. G. (1992). On the role of biomedical knowledge in clinical reasoning by experts, intermediates and novices. Cognitive Science, 16, 153–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boshuizen, H. P. A., Schmidt, H. G., Custers, E. J. F. M., & Van De Wiel, M. W. (1995). Knowledge development and restructuring in the domain of medicine: The role of theory and practice. Learning and Instruction, 5, 269–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shift. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook on conceptual change research (pp. 61–82). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., & Roscoe, R. D. (2002). The process and challenges of conceptual change. In M. Limón & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change. Issues in theory and practice (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • De Bruin, A. B. H., Schmidt, H. G., & Rikers, R. M. J. P. (2005). The role of basic science knowledge and clinical knowledge in diagnostic reasoning: A structural equation modelling approach. Academic Medicine, 80(8), 765–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duit, R. (1999). Conceptual change approaches in science education. In W. Schnotz, S. Vosniadou, & M. Carretero (Eds.), New perspectives on conceptual change (pp. 263–282). Amsterdam: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feltovich, P. J., Johnson, P. E., Moller, J. H., & Swanson, D. B. (1984). LCS: The role and development of medical knowledge in diagnostic expertise. In W. J. Clancey & E. H. Shortliffe (Eds.), Readings in medical artificial intelligence: The first decade (pp. 275–318). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fyrenius, A., Silén, C., & Wirell, S. (2007). Students’ conceptions of underlying principles in medical physiology: An interview study of medical students’ understanding in a PBL curriculum. Advances in Physiology Education, 31, 364–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, D. R., Keselman, A., & Patel, V. L. (2008). Changing conceptions in medicine and health. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 295–327). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuipers, B., & Kassirer, J. P. (1984). Causal reasoning in medicine: Analysis of a protocol. Cognitive Science, 8, 363–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Limón, M., & Mason, L. (2002). Reconsidering conceptual change. Issues in theory and practice. Dordrecht, Germany: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Michael, J. A. (2007). What makes physiology hard for students to learn? Results of a faculty survey. Advances in Physiology Education, 31, 34–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michael, J. A., Richardson, D., Rovick, A., Modell, H., Bruce, D., Horwitz, B., et al. (1999). Undergraduate students’ misconceptions about respiratory physiology. Advances in Physiology Education, 22, 127–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michael, J. A., Wenderoth, M. P., Modell, H. I., Cliff, W., Horwitz, B., McHale, P., et al. (2002). Undergraduates’ understanding of cardiovascular phenomena. Advances in Physiology Education, 26, 72–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Modell, H. I. (2000). How to help students understand physiology? Emphasize general models. Advances in Physiology Education, 23, 101–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Modell, H. I., Michael, J. A., Adamson, T., Goldberg, J., Horvitz, B. A., Bruce, D. S., et al. (2000). Helping undergraduates repair faulty mental models in the student laboratory. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 32, 142–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikkilä-Erdmann, M., Ahopelto, I., Virtanen, H., Kääpä, P., & Olkinuora, E. (submitted). First-year medical students’ conceptual understanding and resistance to conceptual change concerning the central cardiovascular system.

  • Patel, V. L., Evans, D. A., & Groen, G. J. (1989). Biomedical knowledge and clinical reasoning. In D. A. Evans & V. L. Patel (Eds.), Cognitive science in medicine: Biomedical modelling (pp. 53–112). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel, V. L., Evans, D. A., & Kaufman, D. R. (1990). Reasoning strategies and the use of biomedical knowledge by medical students. Medical Education, 24, 129–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Towards a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, H. G., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (1992). Encapsulation of biomedical knowledge. In A. E. Evans & V. L. Patel (Eds.), Advanced models of cognition for medical training and practice (pp. 265–282). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinatra, G., & Mason, L. (2008). Beyond knowledge: Learner characteristics influencing conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook on conceptual change research (pp. 560–582). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, D. B., & Case, S. M. (1997). Assessment in basic science instruction: Directions for practice and research. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 2, 71–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van de Wiel, M. W. J., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Schmidt, H. G. (2000). Knowledge restructuring in expertise development: Evidence from pathophysiological representations of clinical cases by students and physicians. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 323–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, 45–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilhelmsson, N. (2010). From basic science knowledge to clinical understanding. Stockholm, Karolinska Institutet: Larserics Digital Print AB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods, N. N. (2007). Science is fundamental: The role of biomedical knowledge in clinical reasoning. Medical Education, 41, 1173–1177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woods, N. N., Brooks, L. R., & Norman, G. R. (2007). It all makes sense: Biomedical knowledge, causal connections and memory in the novice diagnostician. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 12, 405–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The first author wishes to thank the Finnish Cultural Foundation for its financial support, which enabled this research. All of the authors also wish to thank the Academy of Finland for its financial support for the LeMed project (Learning of Medical Expertise), 128892. Lastly, we thank the Faculty of Medicine in the University of Turku for excellent co-operation during the data-gathering process.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ilona Ahopelto.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Fig. 3.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Analysis tool of the biomedical scores in the first year (max. 12 points)

Appendix 2

See Fig. 4.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Analysis tool of the biomedical scores in the second year (max. 16 points)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ahopelto, I., Mikkilä-Erdmann, M., Olkinuora, E. et al. A follow-up study of medical students’ biomedical understanding and clinical reasoning concerning the cardiovascular system. Adv in Health Sci Educ 16, 655–668 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-011-9286-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-011-9286-3

Keywords

Navigation