Self-Directed Learning (SDL) and Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) are often used without a clear distinction, leading to confusion in understanding and the use of inappropriate measurement tools. SDL is a general approach to learning and can be identified using 'aptitude' questionnaires but SRL is a dynamic and context specific learning process and requires 'event' measures, such as microanalysis. These differences have implications for research and remediation.
Background: Despite the advantages of dual peer mentoring, there are a few reports of implementing and evaluating such programs for medical students. This study aimed at exploring the perceptions of mentors and mentees about the dual peer mentoring program for the first year undergraduate medical students of Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Methods: This qualitative study was conducted at the end of the first year of implementing the mentoring program. All mentees and mentors were invited to participate in focus group discussions. Data were analyzed using a qualitative content analysis. Results: All mentors (n= 12) and a group of mentees (n= 21) participated in focus group discussion sessions. We provided a variety of supports for the mentees including academic and psychosocial support and positive relationship; as a result, some developments occurred to the mentors We also explored participants’ views on some unique aspects of the program such as student-authorized, dual mentoring, and role model sessions. Conclusion: Our participants found the mentoring program beneficial in various academic achievements and psychosocial supports for both the mentors and the mentees. Dual peer mentoring program can be an alternative to school administered programs.
Background: Although there have been many research studies of the effectiveness of faculty development in health profession education, the contribution of these programs to organizational development through capacity development has not been studied. Further understanding of capacity development requires appropriate indicators and no previous indicators for faculty development of health profession educators were identified. The aim of the study was to identify indicators of capacity development in the context of faculty development programs at Tehran University of medical sciences (TUMS). Methods: A nominal group technique session was conducted with key informants from faculty development program providers to generate and prioritize a list of capacity development indicators. Results: A list of 26 indicators was generated and five categories were identified: Development and innovation in teaching and learning process, Development and innovation in communication and collaboration at different levels, Development and sustaining faculty development programs, Development of educational leadership and management, Development in scholarship. Conclusions: Capacity development for faculty development interventions of health profession educators is a process of engagement within a wider system, including individual and collective action, and involves the socialization of the teachers into suitable roles through professional identity development and participation within the wider system.
Self-efficacy, metacognitive monitoring and causal attributions measures were associated positively with previous performance. Causal attributions and adaptive inferences measures were associated positively with learning task performance. These findings may inform remediation interventions in the early years of medical school training.
ContextUnderstanding self‐regulated learning (SRL) is complicated due to the different measures used to identify the key SRL processes. There is a growing trend in applying event measures of SRL (microanalysis and trace) but aptitude measures (questionnaires) continue to be widely used in medical education. A major concern is whether aptitude measures are a valid approach to capture the dimensions of SRL processes. This study examined correlations between SRL microanalysis, SRL trace and the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) and how these measures were associated with biomedical science performance.MethodsAn SRL microanalysis assessment interview was administered to 76 first‐year medical students individually when performing a biomedical science learning task. All written materials by students were collected for further trace analysis. Students completed an MSLQ 2 weeks before completing their biomedical science course. Correlation analyses were used to determine the correlations between the three SRL assessment measures. Bivariate and multiple analyses were conducted to compare students on different course or task performance using the three SRL assessment measures.ResultsMicroanalytic metacognitive monitoring (κ = 0.30, P < .001) and causal attributions (κ = 0.17, P = .009) had statistically significant correlations with use of the SRL trace strategy. MSLQ self‐efficacy correlated with microanalytic self‐efficacy (r = .39, P = .001). Bivariate tests showed that microanalytic metacognitive monitoring, causal attributions and adaptive inferences, and SRL trace strategy use had significant associations with task performance (P < .05). Microanalytic self‐efficacy, metacognitive monitoring and causal attributions, SRL trace strategy use and MSLQ self‐efficacy had significant associations with course performance (P < .05). Measures of use of the SRL trace strategy and MSLQ subscales did not show significant associations with task and course outcomes in multiple analyses (P > .05).ConclusionsEvent measures, specifically SRL microanalysis, had greater associations with both task and course outcomes compared with the MSLQ measure. The SRL microanalysis is recommended for the assessment of SRL in biomedical science learning. However, to fully understand medical students’ SRL a multidimensional assessment approach that combines event and aptitude measures should be used.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.