Background: Self-directed learning (SDL) is an appropriate and preferred learning process to prepare students for lifelong learning in their professions and make them stay up-to-date. The purpose of this study was to explore preclinical students following a hybrid curriculum in Ethiopia experiences to SDL and the support of several learning activities from the curriculum on their SDL. A mixed-method research design was employed. Methods: Quantitative data were collected by using a self-administered questionnaire of 80 items measuring students' perceptions on their SDL capability as well as to explore students' views about the influence of components of the curriculum on their SDL. Additional two focus group discussions, each containing eight participants from year-1 and year − 2 students, were conducted. The quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS. The focus group discussions were reviewed, coded, and then thematically analyzed. Results: Our study showed a significant increase in SDL score on comparing students at year-1 with students at year-2 (p = 0.002). Both year-1 and 2 students rated PBL tutorial discussion and tutors had high influence on their individual learning; whereas, other curricular components such as lectures and testes had low influence on their SDL ability. PBL tutorial discussion and module objectives showed strong correlation with students' SDL scores, r = 0.718 & r = 0.648 (p < 0.01), respectively. Besides, PBL tutorial discussion was found strongly correlated with tutors (r = 0.599 (p < 0.01)) and module objectives (r = 0.574 (p < 0.01)). Assessment was highly correlated with lectures (r = 0.595 (p < 0.01)). Findings from qualitative data showed that certain curricular components played role in promoting students' SDL. Tutorials analyzing problems played a major role on students' self-directed learning abilities. Conclusions: Although the study implied that components of the hybrid curriculum, mainly PBL, could encourage preclinical students' self-directed learning, the curriculum is still not free from teacher-centred culture as the majority of teachers still have high power in deciding the learning process. A further longitudinal study is needed to verify the actual level and ability of medical students' SDL.

Context: In problem-based learning (PBL), students are actively engaged with psychological learning principles as activation of prior knowledge, elaboration and organization of knowledge. In their tutorial groups, however, students do not always apply these principles when working with a procedure like the ''Seven-Jump'' method. To stimulate students to use these principles more often, they were offered another format within a PBL context: PBL with study teams. During the period of self-study, students work on a regular basis in so-called study teams, small groups of 3-4 persons. In these groups they explain to each other their learning outcomes, clarify for each other their problems while studying texts and organize their knowledge to present this to the members of other study teams in their tutorial group. Previous research showed that students spent more time on self-study in a PBL with study team condition than in a traditional PBL context. In this study the achievement as well as appreciation of students participating in a PBL with study teams' environment, is compared with students working in a traditional PBL environment. Objectives: To determine whether PBL with study teams differs from the traditional PBL environment in students' appreciation and study time. Methods: We conducted an experiment in two blocks over two years. Questionnaires were administered to collect data on appreciation and time for self-study. Results: Students' appreciation of the two formats did not differ much. The large standard deviations indicate considerable differences in appreciation between individual students. Appreciation was slightly higher in the second experiment when instructions about how to collaborate were less strict. Students devoted twice as many hours studying in the study group format compared with the traditional PBL format.Conclusions: The students indicated that they enjoyed the format but that the increased workload disturbed their customary study rhythm. Assessment scores and tutors' impressions suggest that study teams foster deeper learning for understanding. Whether this can be attributed to more intensive individual and collaborative elaboration activities should be the subject of further studies.

Written feedback plays a key role in the acquisition of academic writing skills. Ideally, this feedback should include feed up, feed back and feed forward. However, written feedback alone is not enough to improve writing skills; students often struggle to interpret the feedback received and enhance their writing skills accordingly. Several studies have suggested that dialogue about written feedback is essential to promote the development of these skills. Yet, evidence of the effectiveness of face-to-face dialogue remains inconclusive. To bring this evidence into focus, we conducted a literature review of face-to-face dialogue intervention studies. The emphasis was on key elements of the interventions and outcomes in terms of student perceptions and other indicators, and the methodological characteristics of the studies. Subsequently, we analysed each selected intervention for the presence of feed-up, feed-back and feed-forward information. Most interventions used all three feedback elements -notably assessment criteria, student feedback, and revision, respectively -and combined lecturer-student as well as student-student dialogue. Students generally perceived the interventions as beneficial; they appreciated criteria and exemplars because they clarified what was expected of them and how they would be assessed. With regard to student outcomes, most interventions positively affected performance. The literature review suggests that feedback dialogue shows promise as an intervention to improve academic writing skills, but also call for future research into why and under which specific conditions face-to-face dialogue is effective.

No abstract

Academic writing is a complex competence in higher education. To develop this competence, teachers' written feedback is vital, especially if it contains feed-up, feedback and feedforward information. However, academic writing does not always improve after provision of written feedback. The purpose of this study was to explore if peer-to-peer dialogue between students about teachers' written feedback does enhance students' understanding of written feedback. Sixtythree second-year university students participated in a pretest-post-test design with mixed methods. Questionnaire data showed that peer-to-peer dialogue increased students' understanding of feed-up, feedback and feed-forward information. Focus group data demonstrated that the dialogue helped students to understand the assessment criteria better (feed up) and offered suggestions for improvement (feed forward). High quality teachers' written feedback was perceived as an important condition. Peer-to-peer dialogue among students about teachers' written feedback seems promising in enhancing students' understanding on how to improve their academic writing assignments.

Feedback plays a vital role in the process of mastering writing in many academic disciplines. Although peer feedback has been proven helpful to develop students' academic writing competency, the role of additional face-to-face peer dialogue in this context remains indistinct. Face-to-face peer dialogue on written peer feedback is expected to improve students' understanding; however, it is unclear under which conditions it might do so. The purpose of this exploratory study is to explore students' beliefs about peer feedback and to investigate both the instructiveness of face-to-face peer dialogue and the conditions for achieving improved understanding. Second-year university students (N = 84) participated in a mixed-method study that included questionnaires and focus groups. The intervention comprised face-to-face dialogue in small groups about the participants' written peer feedback on a draft report. Quantitative data showed students perceived peer feedback as meaningful, useful and a very important skill to possess. They felt confident about feedback quality, both provided and received. Overall, students perceived written feedback and faceto-face dialogue to be instructive, although no significant difference between the two forms was established. Qualitative findings revealed that face-to-face dialogue stimulates peers to elaborate on their written feedback, helps them deliver constructive comments and feel responsible for the feedback process. Important conditions appeared to be the quality of the written feedback, the non-anonymous character of the dialogue, and the opportunity to revise the report. It can be concluded that face-to-face peer dialogue is a useful variation within peer feedback, which enhances further elaboration and students' engagement with feedback. This study provides insight in important conditions to design and implement face-to-face dialogue peer interventions in higher education in the context of academic writing.

Despite several years of successfully applying problem-based learning at Maastricht University, the Faculty of Medicine observed a slow erosion of problem-based practices and “PBL fatigue” among themselves and students. In response to this fatigue and new research into the development of the young adult brain, Active Self-Directed Learning was introduced through the new bachelor of European Public Health programme in an effort to re-energise the classical PBL model and reduce or eliminate erosion. ASDL is split into a four part learning cycle: 1) sensitisation, 2) exploration, 3) integration, and 4) application. The cycle supports problem-based learning and the developing minds of students through the integration of information, critical thinking and self-evaluation, while also teaching self-responsibility and team management skills. When applied as part of a problem-based learning curriculum, ASDL at Maastricht University helped reduce PBL fatigue and re-energised students’ interest in PBL within the first EPH cohort (2006-2009) according to survey feedback obtained after the 5th semester. The positive student response was tempered by recommendations on how to continue improving the ASDL model.

Background: PBL problems are used as a starting point to students in attaining learning objectives. Students are expected to discuss the problems according the principles of collaborative learning, constructive learning, contextual learning, and self-directed learning. A continuous monitoring, evaluating, and improving the PBL problems should be done systematically. Nevertheless, the problems are lacking monitoring and evaluation. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of PBL problem by providing an evaluation tool. The evaluation involved students and tutors.Method: A survey by using questionnaire based on six factors of an effective PBL problem was conducted to obtain students and tutors perception towards the effectiveness of 6 PBL problems used in tutorial session. The questionnaire for each scenario distributed to four randomly selected group tutorials (total samples per scenario is 40 students and four tutors). The perceptions were then analysed by using descriptive statistic. Four open ended questions included in the questionnaire were used to get better understanding and explanation of quantitative result.Results: A total of 198 (82.5% response rate) students and 23 (95% response rate) tutors filled the questionnaire. Students and tutors gave their score for the overall quality of each PBL problems. Some differences among students and tutors in rating the overall quality on each problem were found. The strength and the weakness of each problem were also obtained from students’ and tutors’ rate for the six factors in the questionnaire. Each group of participants had their own concern regarding the most important factor for an effective PBL problem.Conclusion: The result of this evaluation could reflect the effectiveness of PBL problems in achieving students’ learning objectives from different viewpoints: students and tutors. This valuable information can be used by problem designers and their institutions to monitor and improve the quality of PBL problems continuously.