Johanna Klutmann, Constanze Dietzsch, Ute Schlasius-Ratter, Alexander Oksche, Sara Volz-Willems, Sandra Jordan, Johannes Jäger, Fabian Dupont
{"title":"Visualizing cognitive processes in medical education: Forward and backward reasoning in a digital family medicine assessment.","authors":"Johanna Klutmann, Constanze Dietzsch, Ute Schlasius-Ratter, Alexander Oksche, Sara Volz-Willems, Sandra Jordan, Johannes Jäger, Fabian Dupont","doi":"10.3205/zma001859","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>When evaluating medical students, wouldn't it be helpful to visualize and understand your students' clinical reasoning (CR)? There are different types of CR for students to use in their multiple-choice questions (MCQs). While forward reasoning uses data to generate a hypothesis, backward reasoning looks at possible prompts (answers) to generate a hypothesis. This study implements a new approach to visualizing CR during digital MCQ assessment. Furthermore, it examines the effect of feedback given during the learning process, also known as formative feedback, on the thought process.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Quantitative and qualitative data were collected at the end of two consecutive year 5 end-of-semester Family Medicine exams in 2023. Both exams consisted of 60 MCQs and an additional research component also comprising MCQs. During the research component students digitally recorded their reasoning process while answering MCQs. Qualitative data were coded via three rounds of coding, including two marking/coding parties.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This study was able to digitally visualize CR in a large cohort (n=210). On average, the exam questions were answered with 87% of CR. Forward reasoning was used significantly more often than backward reasoning (WS 22/23 p=0.006, SS 23 p<0.001). High performers were significantly more likely to use forward reasoning and backward reasoning than low performers (p<0.01). Formative Feedback had no significant influence on the choice of CR type (p=0.281). Follow-up questions might stimulate a change in CR behaviour; however further research is needed (p<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study illustrates an alternative method to visualize students' cognitive processes on a large scale. This approach sheds light on the required cognitive processes. It may help educators to better understand what to focus on during curricular learning activities aimed at preparing for state exams. This method may be beneficial as a quality criterion for MCQ questions, as it does not only rely on expert opinion or question metrics but illustrates students' cognitive processes when answering MCQ.</p>","PeriodicalId":45850,"journal":{"name":"GMS Journal for Medical Education","volume":"43 5","pages":"Doc65"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13316782/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GMS Journal for Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3205/zma001859","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: When evaluating medical students, wouldn't it be helpful to visualize and understand your students' clinical reasoning (CR)? There are different types of CR for students to use in their multiple-choice questions (MCQs). While forward reasoning uses data to generate a hypothesis, backward reasoning looks at possible prompts (answers) to generate a hypothesis. This study implements a new approach to visualizing CR during digital MCQ assessment. Furthermore, it examines the effect of feedback given during the learning process, also known as formative feedback, on the thought process.
Methods: Quantitative and qualitative data were collected at the end of two consecutive year 5 end-of-semester Family Medicine exams in 2023. Both exams consisted of 60 MCQs and an additional research component also comprising MCQs. During the research component students digitally recorded their reasoning process while answering MCQs. Qualitative data were coded via three rounds of coding, including two marking/coding parties.
Results: This study was able to digitally visualize CR in a large cohort (n=210). On average, the exam questions were answered with 87% of CR. Forward reasoning was used significantly more often than backward reasoning (WS 22/23 p=0.006, SS 23 p<0.001). High performers were significantly more likely to use forward reasoning and backward reasoning than low performers (p<0.01). Formative Feedback had no significant influence on the choice of CR type (p=0.281). Follow-up questions might stimulate a change in CR behaviour; however further research is needed (p<0.001).
Conclusion: This study illustrates an alternative method to visualize students' cognitive processes on a large scale. This approach sheds light on the required cognitive processes. It may help educators to better understand what to focus on during curricular learning activities aimed at preparing for state exams. This method may be beneficial as a quality criterion for MCQ questions, as it does not only rely on expert opinion or question metrics but illustrates students' cognitive processes when answering MCQ.
期刊介绍:
GMS Journal for Medical Education (GMS J Med Educ) – formerly GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung – publishes scientific articles on all aspects of undergraduate and graduate education in medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine, pharmacy and other health professions. Research and review articles, project reports, short communications as well as discussion papers and comments may be submitted. There is a special focus on empirical studies which are methodologically sound and lead to results that are relevant beyond the respective institution, profession or country. Please feel free to submit qualitative as well as quantitative studies. We especially welcome submissions by students. It is the mission of GMS Journal for Medical Education to contribute to furthering scientific knowledge in the German-speaking countries as well as internationally and thus to foster the improvement of teaching and learning and to build an evidence base for undergraduate and graduate education. To this end, the journal has set up an editorial board with international experts. All manuscripts submitted are subjected to a clearly structured peer review process. All articles are published bilingually in English and German and are available with unrestricted open access. Thus, GMS Journal for Medical Education is available to a broad international readership. GMS Journal for Medical Education is published as an unrestricted open access journal with at least four issues per year. In addition, special issues on current topics in medical education research are also published. Until 2015 the journal was published under its German name GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung. By changing its name to GMS Journal for Medical Education, we wish to underline our international mission.