Seventy students participated in an experiment to measure the effects of either providing explanations or listening during small group discussions on recall of related subject-matter studied after the discussion. They watched a video of a small group discussing a problem. In the first experimental condition, the video was stopped at various points in time, enabling the participants to verbally respond to the discussion. In the second condition, they listened to the same discussion, without contributing. In the control condition, they listened to a discussion that was not related to the subject-matter subsequently studied. After the discussion, all participants studied a text and answered questions that tested their recall of information from this text. No immediate differences in recall were found. One month later, participants who had actively engaged in explaining remembered more from the text. The conclusion appears justified that actively providing explanations during a discussion positively affects long-term memory.

ObjectivesThe medical field is facing a physician–scientist shortage. Medical schools could contribute to developing physician–scientists by stimulating student involvement in research. Studies have examined motivation for research as a key parameter of success. However, previous studies did not investigate if students act on their self-reported motivation. The aim of this study is to examine if motivation for research of medical students is related to actual research involvement. Furthermore, this study distinguishes intrinsic (IM) and extrinsic motivation (EM) for research and aims to investigate if a type of motivation matters in the relation between research motivation and involvement.Design and settingProspective cohort study in which students were surveyed at the start of medical school and reported IM and EM for research, self-efficacy, perceptions of research and curiosity on a 7-point Likert scale. One year later, students involved in research were identified. Logistic regression was used to examine influences of IM and EM on research involvement.ParticipantsAll undergraduate medical students starting at one medical school in the Netherlands in 2016. In total, 315 out of 316 students participated (99.7%), of whom 55 became involved in research (17.5%).Main outcome measureResearch involvement, which was operationalised as the enrolment of students in the research-based honours programme or the involvement of students in voluntary research activities outside of the regular curriculum.ResultsStudents with higher levels of IM were more often involved in research (OR 3.4; 95% CI 2.08 to 5.61), also after adjusting for gender, age, extracurricular high school activities, self-efficacy, perceptions and curiosity (OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.35 to 4.78). Higher levels of EM increased the odds of research involvement (OR 1.4; 95% CI 0.96 to 2.11). However, the effect of EM disappeared after adjusting for the above-mentioned factors (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.67 to 1.63). Furthermore, the effect of IM remained after adjusting for EM, whereas the effect of EM disappeared after adjusting for IM.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that the type of motivation matters and IM influences research involvement. Therefore, IM could be targeted to stimulate research involvement and could be seen as the first step towards success in fostering the physician–scientist workforce.

Background: Research is of great value to make advancements within the medical field and, ultimately, offer the best possible patient care. Physician-scientists are key in contributing to the development of medicine, as they can bridge the gap between research and practice. However, medicine currently faces a physician-scientist shortage. A possible solution to cultivate physician-scientists is to engage medical students in research in early phases of medical school. Evidence-based strategies to stimulate positive perceptions of and motivation for research among students could help to enhance research engagement. Consequently, understanding of students' perceptions of and motivation for research is needed. Therefore, this study aimed to identify conditions under which students develop positive perceptions of and motivation for research by answering the following sub-questions: 1) how do first-year medical students perceive research? and 2) which factors contribute to motivation or demotivation for conducting research? Methods: We conducted a qualitative study with individual interviews using a grounded theory approach, involving 13 purposively sampled first-year medical students at Leiden University Medical Center. Results: Our results suggest that first-year students are already able to identify many aspects of research. Students elaborated on the relevance of research for professional practice and personal development. Furthermore, our results suggest a relationship between perceptions of and motivation for research. Some perceptions were identical to motivating or demotivating factors to conduct research, like the relevance of research for practice and performing statistics respectively. Other motivating factors were, among others, acknowledgment, autonomy, and inspiring role models. Demotivating factors were, among others, lack of autonomy and relevance, and inadequate collaboration.

IntroductionThe medical field is currently facing a physician-scientist shortage. One possible solution is to direct medical students towards a research oriented career. To do so, knowledge is needed on how to motivate medical students to do research. Therefore, this study examines motivation for research and identifies factors influencing intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for research among first-year medical students.MethodsFirst-year medical students were surveyed at the beginning of their bachelor’s program in 2016. On a 7-point Likert scale, students reported their motivation for research, self-efficacy, perceptions of research, curiosity, and need for challenge. Regression analyses were used to examine the influence of these factors on students’ motivation for research.ResultsOut of 316 approached students, 315 participated (99.7%). On average, students scored 5.49 on intrinsic, and 5.66 on extrinsic motivation for research. All factors measured influenced intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for research significantly and positively, also after adjusting for gender and age. Cumulative regression showed that these factors explained 39.6% of the variance in intrinsic, and 14% in extrinsic motivation for research.DiscussionAll factors play an important role in intrinsic and, to a lesser extent, extrinsic motivation for research. First-year medical students’ motivation for research could be enhanced by stimulating positive self-efficacy beliefs, positive perceptions of research, and curiosity. Also, it is important to fulfil students’ needs for challenge by stimulating them to actively conduct research. Thus, to catch students young and cultivate physician-scientists, students should be stimulated to engage in research from the beginning of medical training.

van den Berg a and Paul W. van den Broek b a leiden university Graduate School of teaching (iclon), leiden, the netherlands; b institute of Pedagogical Sciences, leiden university, leiden, the netherlands ABSTRACT Research skills are important for university graduates, but little is known about undergraduates' motivation for research. In this study, self-efficacy beliefs and intrinsic motivation for several research activities were measured three times during an undergraduate research project (N = 147 students). In order to promote self-efficacy for writing and collaboration, a collaboration script was developed and tested on half of the students. Twelve students were interviewed three times to gather in-depth information about motivational and selfefficacy beliefs. All measures except intrinsic motivation for research increased significantly during the project. Interview results suggest that enactive mastery and positive social interdependence promoted self-efficacy. Feelings of relatedness seemed to promote intrinsic motivation for writing. Lack of autonomy and low perceived relevance may explain why motivation for research remained stable. The script had no impact on self-efficacy beliefs. Relatedness, autonomy and positive social interdependence may boost motivation for research, but more evidence is needed.