Visualizing cognitive processes in medical education: Forward and backward reasoning in a digital family medicine assessment.

IF 2.3 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
GMS Journal for Medical Education Pub Date : 2026-06-15 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.3205/zma001859
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.

可视化医学教育中的认知过程:数字家庭医学评估中的向前和向后推理。
背景:在评价医学生时,可视化和理解学生的临床推理(CR)不是很有帮助吗?在学生的多项选择题(mcq)中,有不同类型的CR。前向推理使用数据来生成假设,后向推理则查看可能的提示(答案)来生成假设。本研究实现了一种在数字化MCQ评估中可视化CR的新方法。此外,它还考察了在学习过程中给予的反馈(也称为形成性反馈)对思维过程的影响。方法:在2023年连续两届五年级家庭医学期末考试结束时收集定量和定性资料。这两项考试都包括60个mcq和一个额外的研究部分,也包括mcq。在研究部分,学生们以数字方式记录了他们在回答mcq时的推理过程。定性数据通过三轮编码进行编码,包括两个标记/编码方。结果:该研究能够在一个大队列(n=210)中数字化可视化CR。平均而言,考试问题的答题率为87%。前向推理的使用频率明显高于后向推理(WS 22/23 p=0.006, SS 23 p)。结论:本研究为大规模可视化学生认知过程提供了另一种方法。这种方法阐明了所需的认知过程。它可以帮助教育工作者更好地了解在准备国家考试的课程学习活动中应该关注什么。这种方法作为MCQ问题的质量标准可能是有益的,因为它不仅依赖于专家意见或问题指标,而且说明了学生在回答MCQ时的认知过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
GMS Journal for Medical Education
GMS Journal for Medical Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
12.50%
发文量
30
审稿时长
25 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书