Behavioral assessment of soft skill development in a highly structured pre-health biology course for undergraduates

Abstract

In this study, we assessed a highly structured, yearlong, case-based course designed for undergraduate pre-health students. We incorporated both content learning assessments and developed a novel method called Multiple Mini Exams for assessing course impact on the development of skills that professional schools often seek in pre-health students, focusing on students' abilities to collaborate with others, display bedside manners, synthesize patient case details, appropriately use scientific and medical language, and effectively attain patients' medical histories. This novel method utilized a rubric based on desired medical student skills to score videotaped behaviors and interactions of students role playing as doctors in a hypothetical patient case study scenario. Overall, our findings demonstrate that a highly structured course, incorporating weekly student performance and presentation of patient cases encompassing history taking, diagnosis, and treatment, can result in content learning, as well as improve desired skills specific for success in medical fields.

Keywords: Multiple Mini Exams (MME); active learning; behavioral analysis; biology education; case-based education; collaborative learning; critical thinking analysis; design-based research; group work; patient simulations; pre-health skill development; pre-health undergraduate education; scientific literacy; soft-skill assessment; videotaped simulations.

Fig 1

Graphical representation of N120 series course structure. The keystone series consisted of weekly lectures, where the main topics of each were reinforced with a group activity, student presentation, and comprehensive writing assignment.

Fig 2

Student sentiments regarding the Human Biology content. For this question on the Likert survey, students were asked to rate on a scale of 1–6 how much they agreed with the following statement: I think learning Human Biology is interesting. Of the respondents, 21.3% “agreed” to this sentiment, and 73% “strongly agreed,” while 5.6% felt neutral.

Fig 3

Student sentiments regarding applicability of N120’s Human Biology content. For this question in the Likert survey, students were asked to rate on a scale of 1–6 how much they agree with the following statement: I enjoy learning Human Biology because it is applicable to my life. Of the respondents, 4.5% were neutral toward the statement, while 23.6% of the respondents “agreed,” and 71.9% “strongly agreed.”

Fig 4

Student sentiments regarding correlation between individual performance and attaining a career. For this question on the Likert survey, students were asked to rate on a scale of 1–6 how much they agree with the following statement: Doing well in this class will help me get a good job or career. Of the respondents, 1.1% “strongly disagreed” with the statement, while 19.1% were neutral, 39.3% “agreed,” and 40.4% “strongly agreed.”

Fig 5

Student sentiments regarding applicability of problem-solving skills developed during the N120 series. For this question on the Likert survey, students were asked to rate on a scale of 1–6 how much they agreed with the following statement: I can apply problem-solving skills that I’ve learned in this course to my life. Of the respondents, 11.2% were neutral toward the statement, while 39.3% of the respondents “agreed” with the statement, and 49.4% “strongly agreed.”

Fig 6

More students felt that their learning experiences were enhanced by group work following completion of the course series. The “Pre-Survey” bar displays the proportion of respondents from the Fall pre-survey who selected each given category, and the “Post-Survey Average” bar represents the average proportion of respondents from all post-surveys who selected each category. Significantly less students on average were “neutral” toward this statement after participating in the N120 series (P < 0.0001), while significantly more students on average “agreed” or “strongly agreed” (P < 0.0001). No significant changes were observed in the proportion of students who “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed” (P = 0.207). ***P < 0.001

Fig 7

Student sentiment about the impact of group work on individual performance was more positive following completion of the course series. The “Pre-Survey” bar displays the proportion of respondents from the Fall pre-survey who selected each given category, and the “Post-Survey Average” bar represents the average proportion of respondents from all post-surveys who selected each category. Significantly less students on average disagreed, strongly disagreed, or were “neutral” toward this statement after participating in the N120 series (P < 0.0001), while significantly more students on average “agreed” or “strongly agreed” (P < 0.0001). ***P < 0.001

Fig 8

Changes in student sentiments toward assuming the role of a follower in groups. The “Pre-Survey” bar displays the proportion of respondents from the Fall pre-survey who selected each given category, and the “Post-Survey Average” bar represents the average proportion of respondents from all post-surveys who selected each category. Significantly less students on average were “neutral” toward this statement after participating in the N120 series (P < 0.0001), while significantly more students on average “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed” (P < 0.0001). No significant changes were observed in the proportion of students who “agreed” or “strongly agreed” (P = 0.313). ***P < 0.001

Fig 9

Changes in student sentiments toward assuming the role of a leader in groups. The “Pre-Survey” bar displays the proportion of respondents from the Fall pre-survey who selected each given category, and the “Post-Survey Average” bar represents the average proportion of respondents from all post-surveys who selected each category. Significantly less students on average were “neutral” toward this statement after participating in the N120 series (P < 0.0001), while significantly more students on average “agreed” or “strongly agreed” (P < 0.0001). No significant changes were observed in the proportion of students who “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed” (P = 0.359). ***P < .001