Superficial and deep learning approaches among medical students in an interdisciplinary integrated curriculum.

INTRODUCTION: Students' learning approaches have a significant impact on the success of the educational experience, and a mismatch between instructional methods and the learning approach is very likely to create an obstacle to learning. Educational institutes' understanding of students' learning approaches allows those institutes to introduce changes in their curriculum content, instructional format, and assessment methods that will allow students to adopt deep learning techniques and critical thinking. The objective of this study was to determine and compare learning approaches among medical students following an interdisciplinary integrated curriculum. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study in which an electronic questionnaire using the Biggs two-factor Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ) with 20 questions was administered. RESULTS: Of a total of 402 students at the medical school, 214 (53.2%) completed the questionnaire. There was a significant difference in the mean score of superficial approach, motive and strategy between students in the six medical school years. However, no significant difference was observed in the mean score of deep approach, motive and strategy. The mean score for years 1 and 2 showed a significantly higher surface approach, surface motive and surface strategy when compared with students in years 4-6 in medical school. DISCUSSION: The superficial approach to learning was mostly preferred among first and second year medical students, and the least preferred among students in the final clinical years. These results may be useful in creating future teaching, learning and assessment strategies aiming to enhance a deep learning approach among medical students. Future studies are needed to investigate the reason for the preferred superficial approach among medical students in their early years of study.

Midterm peer feedback in problem-based learning groups: the effect on individual contributions and achievement.

Even though peer process feedback is an often used tool to enhance the effectiveness of collaborative learning environments like PBL, the conditions under which it is best facilitated still need to be investigated. Therefore, this study investigated the effects of individual versus shared reflection and goal setting on students' individual contributions to the group and their academic achievement. In addition, the influence of prior knowledge on the effectiveness of peer feedback was studied. In this pretest-intervention-posttest study 242 first year students were divided into three conditions: condition 1 (individual reflection and goal setting), condition 2 (individual and shared reflection and goal setting), and condition 3 (control group). Results indicated that the quality of individual contributions to the tutorial group did not improve after receiving the peer feedback, nor did it differ between the three conditions. With regard to academic achievement, only males in conditions 1 and 2 showed better academic achievement compared with condition 3. However, there was no difference between both ways of reflection and goal setting with regard to achievement, indicating that both ways are equally effective. Nevertheless, it is still too early to conclude that peer feedback combined with reflection and goal setting is not effective in enhancing students' individual contributions. Students only had a limited number of opportunities to improve their contributions. Therefore, future research should investigate whether an increase in number of tutorial group meetings can enhance the effectiveness of peer feedback. In addition, the effect of quality of reflection and goal setting could be taken into consideration in future research.

The effect of midterm peer feedback on student functioning in problem-based tutorials.

Within Problem-Based Learning successful learning depends on the quality of cognitive, social and motivational contributions students make to the tutorial group. But at the same time, not all students in PBL automatically contribute in a high quality manner, which might impede successful group functioning. This study investigated whether peer process feedback combined with goal setting can be used to improve the quality of students' individual contributions. A mixed-methods explanatory design, in which 74 second-year Health Sciences students participated, combined a pre- and posttest with a focus group. The results indicated that the quality of the contributions only increased for students with a below average score on the pre-test. The qualitative data confirmed that the impact of the feedback could be increased by combining individual reflection by means of goal setting with face-to-face discussion. Another suggestion is to investigate whether midterm peer process feedback is more effective for first year students, because they are still developing their tutorial behavior, as opposed to second year students.

Can students adequately evaluate the activities of their peers in PBL?

BACKGROUND: In problem-based learning (PBL), high-quality discussions are crucial for student learning. The quality of the discussion is affected by the quality of the contributions students make during PBL tutorials. AIM: This study investigated whether students are able to evaluate the activities of their peers in PBL groups in a reliable and valid way. METHOD: For this purpose, the Maastricht-Peer Activity Rating Scale (M-PARS) was developed. The M-PARS was well-founded on the literature about effective tutorial performance. With this scale, students (N = 196) were evaluated by their peers on three main aspects: their constructive, collaborative, and motivational contributions to the group. RESULTS: A confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that the data fitted the three-factor model reasonably well. The generalizability studies demonstrated good internal consistency when students were evaluated by, at least, four of their peers. Furthermore, Hancock's coefficients indicated good construct reliability. CONCLUSIONS: The results prove that peers are able to provide reliable and valid information about a student's active participation in the tutorial group, if at least four peer ratings are attainable, out of a group of eight students. In conclusion, the M-PARS is a valid and reliable instrument.

The influence of tutoring competencies on problems, group functioning and student achievement in problem-based learning.

CONTEXT: Prominent factors in problem-based learning (PBL) are the problems to be solved, tutorial group functioning and tutors' competencies. These factors mutually affect one another and largely determine whether a powerful learning environment will be created. It is a tutor's task to stimulate active, self-directed, contextual and collaborative learning and display interpersonal behaviour that is conducive to students' learning. We investigated the effects of tutors' competencies on students' learning and on other variables, such as group functioning and student achievement. OBJECTIVES: We investigated whether tutors who stimulate active, self-directed, contextual and collaborative learning make better use of problems and meaningful contexts in PBL and also enhance group functioning. We also investigated whether the quality of problems has a positive impact on group functioning and whether group functioning advanced student achievements. METHODS: Questionnaires were used to collect data from students at the end of 11 modules in Years 1 and 2 of a PBL undergraduate medical curriculum. We used structural equation modelling to test the fit of a theoretical model representing the factors of interest and their relationships. RESULTS: Stimulation of active and constructive learning, self-directed learning and collaborative learning by tutors enhanced the quality of the problems and group functioning. The quality of the problems promoted group functioning, which was found to have a positive effect on student achievement. CONCLUSIONS: Tutors' competencies had a positive effect on the learning of students. This suggests that it would be worthwhile including these competencies in staff development.