Collaborative Concept Mapping and Critical Thinking in Fourth-Year Medical Students

Abstract

Objective. To test the hypothesis that small group concept mapping of 4 core neonatal topics as part of a fourth-year allopathic medical student elective would improve critical thinking (CT) as measured by the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST). To describe any correlations between scores on the CCTST and the step 1 and step 2 Clinical Knowledge parts of the United States Medical Licensing Exam. Methods. Twenty-seven students participated in this pilot study during a 1-month elective. A pretest CCTST, California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI), and multiple choice knowledge test (MCKT) were completed immediately before the elective began. Four weekly group sessions were held with assigned reading on each of the 4 neonatal topics. Concept mapping was performed in small groups of 4 to 6 students with a group concept map collected at the end of the exercise. A posttest CCTST and MCKT was completed after the 4 group sessions. Results. Pre-CCTST overall score was 83.9 ± 6, and post-CCTST overall score was 85.6 ± 6.9 (P = .57). Pearson correlation of USMLE step 1 and pre-CCTST showed r(25) = .276, P = .164. Pearson correlation of USMLE step 2 CK and pre-CCTST revealed r(25) = .214, P = .482. The precourse MCKT average was 35%, and the postcourse average 50% (P ≤ .001). Conclusions. A recent meta-analysis confirms this is the first report of a comparison between the increasingly common CCTST and the USMLE. We confirmed that concept mapping is a valid mechanism to teach content knowledge. Although the difference in the CCTST scores was not significant, this study could serve as an important start toward development of a curriculum devoted to teaching content and improving CT. The small number of students may have prevented us from defining a significant impact.