ERG SES D 02, Interactive Poster Session
A major goal of higher education in a variety of domains such as teacher education, social work, psychology but also physics or biology, incorporates fostering the ability to reason and argue based on scientific knowledge and/or methods of scientific inquiry [1, 2]. This ability is, for instance, crucial to assess evidence in the daily and practical medical work, but it is also a precondition for the selfdirected acquisition of new knowledge. Scientific reasoning and argumentation (SRA) has been described as a compound concept of scientific discovery, scientific argumentation and the understanding of the nature of science [3, 4].
Clinical reasoning can be seen as a specific kind of the SRA process, because the reasoning of physicians incorporates the ability to reason scientifically . These reasoning skills have been investigated for more than 35 years . This study is based on a novel framework of SRA to investigate the reasoning behaviour of medical students in the context of Clinical Case Discussions (CCDs) . This domain-general framework described by Fischer and colleagues is comprised of eight so-called epistemic activities (EAs) and conceptualizes the reasoning process as a potentially nonlinear process.
The present study applies these eight epistemic activites, namely Problem Identificaton (PI), Questioning (Q), Evidence Generation (EG), Evidence Evaluation (EE), Hypothesis Generation (HG), Construction and Redesign of Artefacts (CA), Drawing Conclusions (DC), as well as Communicating and Scrutinizing (CS) to empirically capture single reasoning steps in the complex process of SRA, respectively clinical reasoning.
For the clinical domain, Kind and colleagues described the subset of hypothesizing, experimenting and evidence evaluation as indispensable epistemic activities .
It is unclear to what extent these skills are generalizable across domains and how they might be assessed the best. We thus utilized a SRA framework for this study which claims to be domain-general and applied it to a medical education format. This elaborate model with eight detailed epistemic steps proved applicability in the field of teacher education and social work and hereby showed promise for analyses in medical education [8, 9].
The supervised peer teaching format CCD requires students to collaboratively unfold authentic clinical cases and to apply their factual knowledge as well as their reasoning skills to diagnose a patient described in a complex case scenario. The CCD course format is designed to foster epistemic activities, which are crucial for clinical reasoning such as EE or HG
Against this background, we aimed to adapt and apply a coding scheme based on the framework by Fischer and colleagues to analyse the epistemic activities of medical students during CCDs.
1. Bao, L., et al., Learning and scientific reasoning. Science, 2009. 323(5914): p. 586-587. 2. Barz, D.L. and A. Achimas-Cadariu, The development of scientific reasoning in medical education: a psychological perspective. Clujul Med, 2016. 89(1): p. 32-7. 3. Engelmann, K., B.J. Neuhaus, and F. Fischer, Fostering scientific reasoning in education–meta-analytic evidence from intervention studies. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2016: p. 1-17. 4. Ouellette, D.L., Zottmann, J., Bolzer, M., Fischer, F., & Fischer, M. R., Investigating the Interplay of Epistemological Beliefs and Scientific Reasoning and Argumentation., in Forschendes Lernen: Wissenschaftsforschung Jahrbuch, H.P. H. A. Mieg, Editor. 2016, H. Laitko: Berlin. p. 71-86. 5. Elstein, A.S., Thinking about diagnostic thinking: a 30-year perspective. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 2009. 14(1): p. 7-18. 6. Fischer, F., et al., Scientific Reasoning and Argumentation: Advancing an Interdisciplinary Research Agenda in Education. Frontline Learning Research, 2014. 2(3): p. 28-45. 7. Kind, P.M., Establishing Assessment Scales Using a Novel Disciplinary Rationale for Scientific Reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2013. 50(5): p. 530-560. 8. Ghanem, C., Kollar, I., Fischer, F., Lawson, T.R., Pankofer, S.. How do Social Work Novices and Experts Solve Professional Problems? A Micro-Analysis of Epistemic Activities and the Use of Evidence. European Journal of Social Work, 2016. 9. Csanadi, A., I. Kollar, and F. Fischer, Scientific Reasoning and Problem Solving in a Practical Domain: Are Two Heads Better Than One? 10. Kotton, D.N., V.V. Muse, and M. Nishino, Case 2-2012. New England Journal of Medicine, 2012. 366(3): p. 259-269. 11. Marks, P.W. and L.R. Zukerberg, Case 30-2004. New England Journal of Medicine, 2004. 351(13): p. 1333-1341. 12. Uyeki, T.M., A. Sharma, and J.A. Branda, Case 40-2009. New England Journal of Medicine, 2009. 361(26): p. 2558-2569. 13. Harris, N.L., Case Records of the Massachusetts General Hospital — Continuing to Learn from the Patient. New England Journal of Medicine, 2003. 348(22): p. 2252-2254.
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.