Publication:
Refuting misconceptions in medical physiology

Simple item page
cris.virtual.author-orcid#PLACEHOLDER_PARENT_METADATA_VALUE#
cris.virtual.author-orcid#PLACEHOLDER_PARENT_METADATA_VALUE#
cris.virtual.author-orcid#PLACEHOLDER_PARENT_METADATA_VALUE#
cris.virtual.author-orcid#PLACEHOLDER_PARENT_METADATA_VALUE#
cris.virtualsource.author-orcid#PLACEHOLDER_PARENT_METADATA_VALUE#
cris.virtualsource.author-orcid5577f27f-6e75-47f2-a80f-07cb593880e2
cris.virtualsource.author-orcid#PLACEHOLDER_PARENT_METADATA_VALUE#
cris.virtualsource.author-orcid#PLACEHOLDER_PARENT_METADATA_VALUE#
dc.contributor.authorVersteeg, M.
dc.contributor.authorvan Loon, Mariëtte Henrica
dc.contributor.authorWijnen-Meijer, M.
dc.contributor.authorSteendijk, P.
dc.date.accessioned2024-10-05T12:04:58Z
dc.date.available2024-10-05T12:04:58Z
dc.date.issued2020-08-05
dc.description.abstractBackground In medical physiology, educators and students face a serious challenge termed misconceptions. Misconceptions are incorrect ideas that do not match current scientific views. Accordingly, they have shown to hamper teaching and learning of physiological concepts. Conceptual Change Theory forms the basis of new teaching and learning practices that may alleviate misconceptions and facilitate critical thinking skills that are essential in becoming knowledgeable, self-regulated health professionals. In this study, we examined if such an intervention named refutation texts, could enhance medical students’ cognition and metacognition. Methods First-year medical students (N = 161) performed a pre-test and post-test on cardiovascular physiology concepts, including a self-perceived confidence rating. In between, students read either a standard text with an explanation of the correct answer, or a refutation text which additionally refuted related misconceptions. Results In both groups, average performance scores (refutation: + 22.5%, standard: + 22.8%) and overall confidence ratings (refutation: Δ0.42 out of 5, standard: Δ0.35 out of 5) increased significantly (all p < .001), but a significant effect of the specific refutation element was not found. Initially incorrect answers were corrected less frequently in cases of high confidence (35.8%) than low confidence (61.4%). Conclusions Our results showed that refutation texts significantly increased students’ knowledge, however, the refutation element did not have a significant additional effect. Furthermore, high confidence in incorrect answers negatively affected the likelihood of correction. These findings provide implications for teaching practices on concept learning, by showing that educators should take into account the key role of metacognition, and the nature of misconceptions.
dc.description.sponsorshipInstitut für Psychologie, Entwicklungspsychologie
dc.identifier.doi10.48350/152056
dc.identifier.publisherDOI10.1186/s12909-020-02166-6
dc.identifier.urihttps://boris-portal.unibe.ch/handle/20.500.12422/56143
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherBioMed Central
dc.relation.ispartofBMC medical education
dc.relation.issn1472-6920
dc.relation.organizationDCD5A442C021E17DE0405C82790C4DE2
dc.relation.organizationDCD5A442BD4DE17DE0405C82790C4DE2
dc.relation.school0AE3CC36429E07C4E053960C5C82BC89
dc.subject.ddc100 - Philosophy::150 - Psychology
dc.subject.ddc300 - Social sciences, sociology & anthropology::370 - Education
dc.titleRefuting misconceptions in medical physiology
dc.typearticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
dspace.file.typetext
oaire.citation.issue1
oaire.citation.volume20
oairecerif.author.affiliation#PLACEHOLDER_PARENT_METADATA_VALUE#
oairecerif.author.affiliationInstitut für Psychologie, Entwicklungspsychologie
oairecerif.author.affiliation#PLACEHOLDER_PARENT_METADATA_VALUE#
oairecerif.author.affiliation#PLACEHOLDER_PARENT_METADATA_VALUE#
oairecerif.author.affiliation2#PLACEHOLDER_PARENT_METADATA_VALUE#
oairecerif.author.affiliation2#PLACEHOLDER_PARENT_METADATA_VALUE#
oairecerif.author.affiliation2#PLACEHOLDER_PARENT_METADATA_VALUE#
oairecerif.author.affiliation2#PLACEHOLDER_PARENT_METADATA_VALUE#
oairecerif.author.affiliation3#PLACEHOLDER_PARENT_METADATA_VALUE#
oairecerif.author.affiliation3#PLACEHOLDER_PARENT_METADATA_VALUE#
oairecerif.author.affiliation3#PLACEHOLDER_PARENT_METADATA_VALUE#
oairecerif.author.affiliation3#PLACEHOLDER_PARENT_METADATA_VALUE#
oairecerif.author.affiliation4#PLACEHOLDER_PARENT_METADATA_VALUE#
oairecerif.author.affiliation4#PLACEHOLDER_PARENT_METADATA_VALUE#
oairecerif.author.affiliation4#PLACEHOLDER_PARENT_METADATA_VALUE#
oairecerif.author.affiliation4#PLACEHOLDER_PARENT_METADATA_VALUE#
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.date.licenseChanged2021-02-09 14:05:44
unibe.description.ispublishedpub
unibe.eprints.legacyId152056
unibe.journal.abbrevTitleBMC MED EDUC
unibe.refereedTRUE
unibe.subtype.articlejournal

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Name:
Versteeg_et_al_2020.pdf
Size:
872.84 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
File Type:
text
License:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Content:
published
Download

Collections

Publications