Limits...
Examining shifts in medical students' microanalytic motivation beliefs and regulatory processes during a diagnostic reasoning task.

Cleary TJ, Dong T, Artino AR - Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract (2014)

Bottom Line: Using a contextualized assessment methodology called self-regulated learning microanalysis, the authors found that the 71 medical student participants showed statistically significant and relatively robust declines in their self-efficacy beliefs and strategic regulatory processes following negative feedback about their performance on the diagnostic reasoning task.Descriptive statistics revealed that changes in strategic thinking following negative corrective feedback were most characterized by shifts away from task-specific processes (e.g., integration, differentiating diagnoses) to non-task related factors.Implications and areas for future research are presented and discussed.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA, timothy.cleary@rutgers.edu.

ABSTRACT
This study examined within-group shifts in the motivation beliefs and regulatory processes of second-year medical students as they engaged in a diagnostic reasoning activity. Using a contextualized assessment methodology called self-regulated learning microanalysis, the authors found that the 71 medical student participants showed statistically significant and relatively robust declines in their self-efficacy beliefs and strategic regulatory processes following negative feedback about their performance on the diagnostic reasoning task. Descriptive statistics revealed that changes in strategic thinking following negative corrective feedback were most characterized by shifts away from task-specific processes (e.g., integration, differentiating diagnoses) to non-task related factors. Implications and areas for future research are presented and discussed.

No MeSH data available.


Shifts in mean strategic planning scores across multiple iterations of the diagnostic reasoning task. Bars sharing the same letter did not differ significantly from each other. Statistically significant mean differences were at p < .001
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4495285&req=5

Fig4: Shifts in mean strategic planning scores across multiple iterations of the diagnostic reasoning task. Bars sharing the same letter did not differ significantly from each other. Statistically significant mean differences were at p < .001

Mentions: Similar to the self-efficacy analyses, we conducted a repeated measures analysis across three time points for the strategic planning measure and then tested two specific pairwise comparisons. Although a statistically significant linear trend was observed, F(1, 70) = 5.32, p = .024, symbol ηp = .07, a quadratic trend was also found and showed a stronger effect, F(1, 70) = 8.54, p = .005, ηp = .11. Given that the quadratic trend was relatively robust, it appears that unlike the pattern observed with self-efficacy, there was not a continuous drop in forethought strategic thinking over time during the clinical reasoning task (see Fig. 4). Pair-wise comparisons showed that the change in participants’ strategic plans from Time 1 to Time 2 was not statistically significant, t(70) = 1.11, p = .269, d = .17. However, there was a statistically significant drop in the quality of their strategic thinking from Time 2 to Time 3, t(70) = 3.50, p = .001, d = 0.58. This latter effect was of medium size (Cohen 1988). Altogether, these results suggest that after receiving negative corrective feedback following their first unsuccessful attempt to generate the correct diagnosis, the quality of participants’ strategic thinking did not change. However, after they received similar feedback about their second failed attempt, the participants exhibited a robust decline in their strategic thinking.Fig. 4


Examining shifts in medical students' microanalytic motivation beliefs and regulatory processes during a diagnostic reasoning task.

Cleary TJ, Dong T, Artino AR - Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract (2014)

Shifts in mean strategic planning scores across multiple iterations of the diagnostic reasoning task. Bars sharing the same letter did not differ significantly from each other. Statistically significant mean differences were at p < .001
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4495285&req=5

Fig4: Shifts in mean strategic planning scores across multiple iterations of the diagnostic reasoning task. Bars sharing the same letter did not differ significantly from each other. Statistically significant mean differences were at p < .001
Mentions: Similar to the self-efficacy analyses, we conducted a repeated measures analysis across three time points for the strategic planning measure and then tested two specific pairwise comparisons. Although a statistically significant linear trend was observed, F(1, 70) = 5.32, p = .024, symbol ηp = .07, a quadratic trend was also found and showed a stronger effect, F(1, 70) = 8.54, p = .005, ηp = .11. Given that the quadratic trend was relatively robust, it appears that unlike the pattern observed with self-efficacy, there was not a continuous drop in forethought strategic thinking over time during the clinical reasoning task (see Fig. 4). Pair-wise comparisons showed that the change in participants’ strategic plans from Time 1 to Time 2 was not statistically significant, t(70) = 1.11, p = .269, d = .17. However, there was a statistically significant drop in the quality of their strategic thinking from Time 2 to Time 3, t(70) = 3.50, p = .001, d = 0.58. This latter effect was of medium size (Cohen 1988). Altogether, these results suggest that after receiving negative corrective feedback following their first unsuccessful attempt to generate the correct diagnosis, the quality of participants’ strategic thinking did not change. However, after they received similar feedback about their second failed attempt, the participants exhibited a robust decline in their strategic thinking.Fig. 4

Bottom Line: Using a contextualized assessment methodology called self-regulated learning microanalysis, the authors found that the 71 medical student participants showed statistically significant and relatively robust declines in their self-efficacy beliefs and strategic regulatory processes following negative feedback about their performance on the diagnostic reasoning task.Descriptive statistics revealed that changes in strategic thinking following negative corrective feedback were most characterized by shifts away from task-specific processes (e.g., integration, differentiating diagnoses) to non-task related factors.Implications and areas for future research are presented and discussed.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA, timothy.cleary@rutgers.edu.

ABSTRACT
This study examined within-group shifts in the motivation beliefs and regulatory processes of second-year medical students as they engaged in a diagnostic reasoning activity. Using a contextualized assessment methodology called self-regulated learning microanalysis, the authors found that the 71 medical student participants showed statistically significant and relatively robust declines in their self-efficacy beliefs and strategic regulatory processes following negative feedback about their performance on the diagnostic reasoning task. Descriptive statistics revealed that changes in strategic thinking following negative corrective feedback were most characterized by shifts away from task-specific processes (e.g., integration, differentiating diagnoses) to non-task related factors. Implications and areas for future research are presented and discussed.

No MeSH data available.