↓ Skip to main content

Integration of clinical and basic sciences in concept maps: a mixed-method study on teacher learning

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Integration of clinical and basic sciences in concept maps: a mixed-method study on teacher learning
Published in
BMC Medical Education, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12909-015-0299-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sylvia C Vink, Jan Van Tartwijk, Jan Bolk, Nico Verloop

Abstract

The explication of relations between clinical and basic sciences can help vertical integration in medical curricula. Concept mapping might be a useful technique for this explication. Little is known about teachers' ability regarding the articulation of integration. We examined therefore which factors affect the learning of groups of clinicians and basic scientists on different expertise levels who learn to articulate the integration of clinical and basic sciences in concept maps. After a pilot for fine-tuning group size and instructions, seven groups of expert clinicians and basic scientists and seven groups of residents with a similar disciplinary composition constructed concept maps about a clinical problem that fit their specializations. Draft and final concepts maps were compared on elaborateness and articulated integration by means of t-tests. Participants completed a questionnaire on motivation and their evaluation of the instructions. ANOVA's were run to compare experts' and residents' views. Data from video tapes and notes were qualitatively analyzed. Finally, the three data sources were interpreted in coherence by using Pearson's correlations and qualitative interpretation. Residents outshone experts as regards learning to articulate integration as comparison of the draft and final versions showed. Experts were more motivated and positive about the concept mapping procedure and instructions, but this did not correlate with the extent of integration fond in the concept maps. The groups differed as to communication: residents interacted from the start (asking each other for clarification), whereas overall experts only started interaction when they had to make joint decisions. Our results suggest that articulation of integration can be learned, but this learning is not related to participants' motivation or their views on the instructions. Decision making and interaction, however, do relate to the articulation of integration and this suggests that teacher learning programs for designing integrated educational programmes should incorporate co-construction tasks. Expertise level turned out to be decisive for both the level of articulation of integration, the ability to improve the articulated integration and the cooperation pattern.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 1%
Unknown 89 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Student > Master 9 10%
Professor 7 8%
Lecturer 5 6%
Other 25 28%
Unknown 19 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 31%
Social Sciences 13 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Psychology 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 23 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 April 2016.
All research outputs
#13,195,543
of 22,792,160 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,621
of 3,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,062
of 255,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#34
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,792,160 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 255,035 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.