Clinical Relevance Concept mapping (CM), as an educational tool that facilitates meaningful learning, can help eye care professionals develop clinical reasoning and effectively integrate cognitive skills into clinical practice.Background Concept mapping (CM) is an active learning tool that fosters critical thinking and clinical reasoning. Despite its potential benefits in learning, the use of CM remains underutilised in optometry education. This study aims to compare the learning experiences of undergraduate optometry students at LV Prasad Eye Institute (LVPEI), India, and the University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, on CM.Methods This prospective study had three phases. In the pre-class phase, students received pre-reading materials. In the second phase, they participated in collaborative CM-building activities in small groups, followed by individual CM construction. In the final phase, students completed an online survey assessing their familiarity with CM, perceived benefits, challenges, and overall learning experience.Results A total of 29 LVPEI and 36 UNSW students completed the survey. A higher percentage of UNSW students reported prior familiarity with CM compared to LVPEI students (39% vs. 14% at LVPEI, p = 0.025). The majority of students from both LVPEI (61%) and UNSW (81%, p = 0.25) related new information to previous knowledge and agreed that CM encouraged critical thinking (LVPEI 83% vs. UNSW 81%, p = 0.82). Identifying concepts was certainly or somewhat a challenge for LVPEI compared to UNSW students (93% vs. 42%, p < 0.001), while linking concepts was somewhat a challenge for both groups (LVPEI 58%, UNSW 57%, p = 0.05). A positive overall experience was reported by 83% at LVPEI and 97% at UNSW.Conclusion Integrating CM into optometry education had a positive impact on student learning experiences. Despite challenges, students from both institutions acknowledged its benefits, highlighting its potential as an effective learning strategy in optometry education.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mani et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: