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

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.

Student characteristics associated with dominant approaches to studying: Comparing a national and an international sample

“…This pattern is consistent with findings from heterogeneous student samples in Turkey and Taiwan (males higher on deep learning) [41], and among math students in Vietnam (females higher on strategic learning) [18]. However, we were not able to demonstrate significant associations between gender and students' approach to study, in line with previously reported studies involving psychology students [45,46], medical students [17,47] and science students [48]. In general, it is complicated to explain phenomena that are formed and developed on the basis of interactions between and combinations of inherent and acquired factors.…”

“…Similarly, higher academic achievements have been associated with a strategic study approach [12,15]. Conversely, a surface approach to studying has been linked to several detrimental outcomes, such as lower academic achievement [12,[15][16][17][18][19], increased risk of dropping out of academic study programs [20], Dominant approaches to studying 4 lower academic expectations [7], increased test anxiety [21], and higher levels of stress [22].…”

“…Likewise, studies have reported conflicting results regarding the association between gender and productive approaches to study [18,41,43,44]. Interestingly, several other studies have documented no significant differences between genders [17,34,[45][46][47][48]. Across countries and study disciplines, research has generally found that higher student age is associated with an Dominant approaches to studying 5 inclination to adopt a deep or strategic study approach [37,39,45,46,48].…”

The Influence of Architecture Students’ Learning Approaches on their Academic Performance in Two Nigeria Universities

“…The results have further shown that learning approaches of the students did not differ by gender. This is similar to the findings of Hussin et al (2017) who used a sample of engineering students and also to Kamath et al (2018) using a sample of medical students. This is, however, contrary to the report of Arsaythamby et al (2015) in a study carried out on a sample of English undergraduate students.…”

“…The findings revealed that engineering students predominantly use deep learning approach. Kamath et al (2018) also investigated the learning approaches of second year medical students and the findings also revealed that the students adopted a deep learning approach. Arsaythamby et al (2015), on the contrary, reported a predominant use of surface learning approaches by English undergraduate students among University Utara, Malaysia.…”