Approaches to learning and academic performance in pharmacology among second-year undergraduate medical students

IF 0.3 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
A. Kamath, Rashmi Rao, Preethi J Shenoy, S. Ullal
{"title":"Approaches to learning and academic performance in pharmacology among second-year undergraduate medical students","authors":"A. Kamath, Rashmi Rao, Preethi J Shenoy, S. Ullal","doi":"10.15448/1980-6108.2018.4.32395","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AIMS: To determine the learning approach of second-year undergraduate medical students and whether a surface or deep approach to learning had any correlation with the pharmacology sessional and university examination marks obtained.METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among second-year medical students in their fifth semester. To determine the students’ learning approach, whether superficial or deep, we used the Revised Two Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F), which contains 20 items in the form of a five-point Likert scale and is suitable for use in higher education settings. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated using the scores obtained from a sample of 20 students to determine the internal consistency. To determine the relationship between the learning approach and examination scores, the average of the individual sessional examination marks and the university examination scores obtained by the students were calculated.RESULTS: Of the 170 students who participated in the study, 87 (51.2%) were females. The Cronbach’s alpha value was considered acceptable for both surface and deep approach. While the academic performance was significantly better in females (U = 2571.5; p = 0.001), no difference was seen in the learning approach based on gender. Fifty (29.4%) students had a higher score for the surface approach. This group had lower examination scores compared with those with equal scores for surface and deep approach or higher scores for the deep approach. A weak negative correlation was seen between the examination marks and surface approach (τb = −0.167; p = 0.002). When analyzed based on gender, the correlation was statistically significant only in females (τb = −0.173; p = 0.02).CONCLUSIONS: A weak negative correlation was seen between the examination marks and surface approach to learning. Although statistically significant, the actual difference between the groups was of a small magnitude. Hence, whether promoting deep learning approach improves academic performance in terms of marks obtained in the examination needs to be confirmed by further studies.","PeriodicalId":44024,"journal":{"name":"Scientia Medica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.15448/1980-6108.2018.4.32395","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientia Medica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15448/1980-6108.2018.4.32395","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

AIMS: To determine the learning approach of second-year undergraduate medical students and whether a surface or deep approach to learning had any correlation with the pharmacology sessional and university examination marks obtained.METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among second-year medical students in their fifth semester. To determine the students’ learning approach, whether superficial or deep, we used the Revised Two Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F), which contains 20 items in the form of a five-point Likert scale and is suitable for use in higher education settings. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated using the scores obtained from a sample of 20 students to determine the internal consistency. To determine the relationship between the learning approach and examination scores, the average of the individual sessional examination marks and the university examination scores obtained by the students were calculated.RESULTS: Of the 170 students who participated in the study, 87 (51.2%) were females. The Cronbach’s alpha value was considered acceptable for both surface and deep approach. While the academic performance was significantly better in females (U = 2571.5; p = 0.001), no difference was seen in the learning approach based on gender. Fifty (29.4%) students had a higher score for the surface approach. This group had lower examination scores compared with those with equal scores for surface and deep approach or higher scores for the deep approach. A weak negative correlation was seen between the examination marks and surface approach (τb = −0.167; p = 0.002). When analyzed based on gender, the correlation was statistically significant only in females (τb = −0.173; p = 0.02).CONCLUSIONS: A weak negative correlation was seen between the examination marks and surface approach to learning. Although statistically significant, the actual difference between the groups was of a small magnitude. Hence, whether promoting deep learning approach improves academic performance in terms of marks obtained in the examination needs to be confirmed by further studies.
二年级医学生药理学学习方法及学业表现
目的:了解医二年级学生的学习方法,以及表面或深层的学习方法与药理学会考和大学考试成绩之间的关系。方法:对医学二年级五学期学生进行横断面调查。为了确定学生的学习方法,无论是肤浅的还是深入的,我们使用了修订的双因素研究过程问卷(R-SPQ-2F),它包含20个项目,以五点李克特量表的形式,适合在高等教育环境中使用。Cronbach 's alpha是用20名学生的样本得分来计算的,以确定内部一致性。为了确定学习方法与考试成绩之间的关系,我们计算了学生的个人学期考试成绩与大学考试成绩的平均值。结果:参与研究的170名学生中,女性87名(51.2%)。Cronbach’s alpha值被认为对表层和深层入路都是可接受的。而女生的学业成绩显著优于男生(U = 2571.5;P = 0.001),基于性别的学习方法没有差异。50名学生(29.4%)对表面方法得分较高。与表层入路和深层入路得分相等或深层入路得分较高的患者相比,这组患者的考试成绩较低。考试成绩与表面接近呈弱负相关(τb = - 0.167;P = 0.002)。当基于性别进行分析时,相关性仅在女性中具有统计学意义(τb = - 0.173;P = 0.02)。结论:考试成绩与表面学习方式呈弱负相关。虽然有统计学意义,但两组之间的实际差异很小。因此,推广深度学习方法是否能从考试成绩上提高学习成绩,还需要进一步的研究来证实。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Scientia Medica
Scientia Medica MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
20.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信