Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 5 Differences between experts and residents concerning their view on concept mapping procedure and instructions

From: Integration of clinical and basic sciences in concept maps: a mixed-method study on teacher learning

  Residents Experts F
N = 19 N = 21
  Mean SD Mean SD  
Before this session. my motivation to participate was 3.4 0.5 3.8 0.8 3.219
After this session. my motivation to participate was 3.5 0.8 4.2 0.6 13.139**
Procedure: making a concept map
Is feasible 3.4 0.8 3.8 0.8 2.172
Is inspiring 3.9 0.7 4.2 0.5 3.853
Is a good way to assemble concepts of various disciplines 3.9 0.6 4.4 0.6 5.127*
Enhanced my understanding of what knowledge should be incorporated in the educational programme 3.6 0.8 3.7 0.8 0.303
Facilitates multidisciplinary cooperation 3.6 0.7 4.0 0.7 2.828
I enjoyed the multidisciplinary way of working 4.0 0.7 4.6 0.7 7.241*
3.3 0.8 3.6 0.9 1.086
Consists of logical steps
Time investment and result are balanced 3.2 1.0 3.5 1.0 3.296
3.6 0.4 4.0 0.4 7.302**
Total
Instructions
The introduction was understandable 3.9 0.8 4.2 O.7 1.984
4.0 0.7 4.3 0.7 2.396
Collecting concepts & first categorization was useful
Collecting concepts & first categorization was understandable 3.8 0.9 4.1 0.8 0.629
Ordering was useful 3.7 0.7 4.5 0.6 15.366**
Ordering was understandable 3.7 0.9 4.3 0.7 5.372*
Linking concepts was useful 3.4 1.1 4.0 0.7 3.008
Linking concepts was understandable 3.8 0.7 4.0 0.8 0.445
Using patient cases was useful 3.8 0.6 4.4 0.8 5.338*
Using patient cases was understandable 3.9 0.8 4.3 0.7 2.069
Total 3.8 0.6 4.2 0.4 7.443**
Overall
I am satisfied with this concept map 3.9 0.8 4.4 0.7 5.065*
Ordering:
Along basic science concepts is useful 3.3 1.0    
Along basic science concepts is understandable 3.6 1.1    
Along clinical science concepts is useful 4.1 0.6    
Along clinical science concepts is understandable 4.0 0.8    
3.7 0.7
Total
  1. *p < 0.05.
  2. **p < 0.01.