Husam Aljamal, Rama Alawneh, Afnan Derbas, Mohammad Edaibes, Aya Ahmed, Lama Amer, Hiba Alzoubi, Hashem Abu Serhan
{"title":"思维导图和概念图对临床前阶段医学本科学生学习成绩提高效果的系统评价。","authors":"Husam Aljamal, Rama Alawneh, Afnan Derbas, Mohammad Edaibes, Aya Ahmed, Lama Amer, Hiba Alzoubi, Hashem Abu Serhan","doi":"10.1007/s10459-025-10437-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This systematic review aims to evaluate the impact of mind maps and Concept Maps on academic performance among undergraduate medical students in the preclinical stage.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Our protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024529458). We followed PRISMA guidelines in conducting our systematic review. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library from inception to June 2024. We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that involved undergraduate medical students in the preclinical stage, evaluated mind mapping and Concept Maps as the intervention, and compared it to traditional methods or no intervention, with academic performance as the primary outcome. A qualitative synthesis of the results was conducted, and where possible, effect sizes (e.g., Cohen's d) were calculated to quantify the impact of mind maps and concept maps on academic performance. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of six RCTs were included. Four studies reported significantly higher assessment scores with the use of mind maps or concept maps. Teli et al. (Indian Journal of Clinical Anatomy and Physiology 7(2):243-246, 2020) observed a significant improvement in knowledge retention in the intervention group (mean score: 82.4% vs. 69.8%, p < 0.0001). Concept maps demonstrated moderate-to-large effect sizes, with Ho et al. (Medical Education 48(7):687-697, 2014) reporting Cohen's d = 0.7-0.8 for improved test scores. Two studies found no significant differences in performance (p > 0.05), but students consistently expressed a preference for these methods due to their utility in understanding and summarizing information. Overall, mind maps and concept maps prove to be effective tools for enhancing academic performance, especially in terms of knowledge retention and comprehension.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This systematic review shows that mind maps and Concept Maps are effective methods in helping undergraduate preclinical medical students achieve better performance, especially in terms of knowledge retention and comprehension. While not all studies showed significant differences, the overall preference for these methods indicates their potential as valuable learning tools. We recommend integrating these tools into preclinical curricula and providing training sessions to enhance their effectiveness.</p>","PeriodicalId":50959,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of mind maps and concept maps in enhancing academic performance among undergraduate medical students in the preclinical stage: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Husam Aljamal, Rama Alawneh, Afnan Derbas, Mohammad Edaibes, Aya Ahmed, Lama Amer, Hiba Alzoubi, Hashem Abu Serhan\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10459-025-10437-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This systematic review aims to evaluate the impact of mind maps and Concept Maps on academic performance among undergraduate medical students in the preclinical stage.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Our protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024529458). We followed PRISMA guidelines in conducting our systematic review. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library from inception to June 2024. We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that involved undergraduate medical students in the preclinical stage, evaluated mind mapping and Concept Maps as the intervention, and compared it to traditional methods or no intervention, with academic performance as the primary outcome. A qualitative synthesis of the results was conducted, and where possible, effect sizes (e.g., Cohen's d) were calculated to quantify the impact of mind maps and concept maps on academic performance. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of six RCTs were included. Four studies reported significantly higher assessment scores with the use of mind maps or concept maps. Teli et al. (Indian Journal of Clinical Anatomy and Physiology 7(2):243-246, 2020) observed a significant improvement in knowledge retention in the intervention group (mean score: 82.4% vs. 69.8%, p < 0.0001). Concept maps demonstrated moderate-to-large effect sizes, with Ho et al. (Medical Education 48(7):687-697, 2014) reporting Cohen's d = 0.7-0.8 for improved test scores. Two studies found no significant differences in performance (p > 0.05), but students consistently expressed a preference for these methods due to their utility in understanding and summarizing information. Overall, mind maps and concept maps prove to be effective tools for enhancing academic performance, especially in terms of knowledge retention and comprehension.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This systematic review shows that mind maps and Concept Maps are effective methods in helping undergraduate preclinical medical students achieve better performance, especially in terms of knowledge retention and comprehension. While not all studies showed significant differences, the overall preference for these methods indicates their potential as valuable learning tools. We recommend integrating these tools into preclinical curricula and providing training sessions to enhance their effectiveness.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50959,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Health Sciences Education\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Health Sciences Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-025-10437-4\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-025-10437-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:本系统综述旨在评价思维导图和概念图对临床前阶段医学本科生学业成绩的影响。方法:我们的方案在PROSPERO上注册(CRD42024529458)。我们遵循PRISMA的指导方针进行系统审查。我们检索了PubMed, Scopus, b谷歌Scholar和Cochrane Library从成立到2024年6月。我们只纳入了随机对照试验(RCTs),涉及临床前阶段的本科医学生,评估思维导图和概念图作为干预措施,并将其与传统方法或不干预进行比较,以学习成绩为主要结局。对结果进行定性综合,并在可能的情况下,计算效应大小(例如,Cohen's d),以量化思维导图和概念图对学习成绩的影响。使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估偏倚风险。使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估偏倚风险。结果:共纳入6项rct。四项研究报告说,使用思维导图或概念图的人的评估分数明显更高。Teli等人(Indian Journal of Clinical Anatomy and Physiology 7(2):243-246, 2020)观察到干预组在知识保留方面有显著改善(平均得分:82.4% vs. 69.8%, p 0.05),但由于这些方法在理解和总结信息方面的实用性,学生始终表现出对这些方法的偏好。总的来说,思维导图和概念图被证明是提高学习成绩的有效工具,特别是在知识保留和理解方面。结论:本系统综述表明,思维导图和概念图是提高基础医学本科学生知识记忆和理解能力的有效方法。虽然不是所有的研究都显示出显著的差异,但对这些方法的总体偏好表明它们作为有价值的学习工具的潜力。我们建议将这些工具整合到临床前课程中,并提供培训课程以提高其有效性。
Efficacy of mind maps and concept maps in enhancing academic performance among undergraduate medical students in the preclinical stage: a systematic review.
Purpose: This systematic review aims to evaluate the impact of mind maps and Concept Maps on academic performance among undergraduate medical students in the preclinical stage.
Methods: Our protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024529458). We followed PRISMA guidelines in conducting our systematic review. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library from inception to June 2024. We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that involved undergraduate medical students in the preclinical stage, evaluated mind mapping and Concept Maps as the intervention, and compared it to traditional methods or no intervention, with academic performance as the primary outcome. A qualitative synthesis of the results was conducted, and where possible, effect sizes (e.g., Cohen's d) were calculated to quantify the impact of mind maps and concept maps on academic performance. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.
Results: A total of six RCTs were included. Four studies reported significantly higher assessment scores with the use of mind maps or concept maps. Teli et al. (Indian Journal of Clinical Anatomy and Physiology 7(2):243-246, 2020) observed a significant improvement in knowledge retention in the intervention group (mean score: 82.4% vs. 69.8%, p < 0.0001). Concept maps demonstrated moderate-to-large effect sizes, with Ho et al. (Medical Education 48(7):687-697, 2014) reporting Cohen's d = 0.7-0.8 for improved test scores. Two studies found no significant differences in performance (p > 0.05), but students consistently expressed a preference for these methods due to their utility in understanding and summarizing information. Overall, mind maps and concept maps prove to be effective tools for enhancing academic performance, especially in terms of knowledge retention and comprehension.
Conclusion: This systematic review shows that mind maps and Concept Maps are effective methods in helping undergraduate preclinical medical students achieve better performance, especially in terms of knowledge retention and comprehension. While not all studies showed significant differences, the overall preference for these methods indicates their potential as valuable learning tools. We recommend integrating these tools into preclinical curricula and providing training sessions to enhance their effectiveness.
期刊介绍:
Advances in Health Sciences Education is a forum for scholarly and state-of-the art research into all aspects of health sciences education. It will publish empirical studies as well as discussions of theoretical issues and practical implications. The primary focus of the Journal is linking theory to practice, thus priority will be given to papers that have a sound theoretical basis and strong methodology.