Attitudes to e-learning, learning style and achievement in learning neuroanatomy by medical students

Background: Two main learning approaches adopted by students have been identified by research: deep (seeking for meaning motivated by interest in the subject matter) and surface (rote-learning motivated by fear of failure). There is evidence that learning approach is influenced by learning environment (e.g. Trigwell et al. ). Online courses pose the challenge of designing software that will encourage the more desirable approach to learning. Aims: The aims were to evaluate how successful an online course is at encouraging deep approach to learning, which factors might influence the approach adopted towards it, and whether the approach adopted is related to academic performance. Method: Using 205 second-year pre-clinical medical students, we compared their approach to learning, as measured by Biggs et al. () 2F-SPQ-R, for a computer-aided learning (CAL) course in Neuroanatomy with that for their studies in general. We then examined student attitudes towards the CAL course and the ratings of the course Web pages in terms of the learning approach they encourage (done by 18 independent raters). Results: The students reported using significantly less deep approach to learning for the CAL course. However, their approach for the course was not related to results on a neuroanatomy assessment based on it. Enjoyment of the course, assessment of the amount of information in it as appropriate, and ease of understanding the course were all associated with a deeper approach. The only agreement between the raters of the CAL course was for some pages that included patient case studies, which were unanimously given a very high deep rating. Assessment marks for questions referring to these pages were higher than for the rest of the assessment. Conclusions: The study suggests that maximizing the use of clinical relevance should increase the interest and enjoyableness of the course and thereby aid deep learning and retention of information.

[1]  Christopher Williams,et al.  A randomized, controlled, single‐blind trial of teaching provided by a computer‐based multimedia package versus lecture , 2001, Medical education.

[2]  David Watkins,et al.  A longitudinal study of the approaches to learning of Australian tertiary students. , 1985 .

[3]  G. Bower,et al.  Hierarchical retrieval schemes in recall of categorized word lists , 1969 .

[4]  J. Biggs,et al.  The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. , 2001, The British journal of educational psychology.

[5]  Chien Chou,et al.  Interactivity and interactive functions in web-based learning systems: a technical framework for designers , 2003, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[6]  D. Chapman,et al.  Validation of learning style measures: implications for medical education practice , 2006, Medical education.

[7]  K. Trigwell,et al.  Relations between teachers' approaches to teaching and students' approaches to learning , 1999 .

[8]  D. Forman,et al.  E-learning and educational diversity. , 2002, Nurse education today.

[9]  J. Biggs.  THE ROLE OF METALEARNING IN STUDY PROCESSES , 1985 .

[10]  F. Marton,et al.  ON QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES IN LEARNING—II OUTCOME AS A FUNCTION OF THE LEARNER'S CONCEPTION OF THE TASK , 1976 .

[11]  I. McManus,et al.  Intercalated degrees, learning styles, and career preferences: prospective longitudinal study of UK medical students , 1999, BMJ.

[12]  I C McManus,et al.  The shortened Study Process Questionnaire: an investigation of its structure and longitudinal stability using confirmatory factor analysis. , 2001, The British journal of educational psychology.

[13]  John T. E. Richardson,et al.  Improving student learning using the personalised system of instruction , 1998 .

[14]  B. Kozéki,et al.  RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SCHOOL MOTIVATION, APPROACHES TO STUDYING, AND ATTAINMENT, AMONG BRITISH AND HUNGARIAN ADOLESCENTS , 1985 .

[15]  L. Svensson.  On Qualitative Differences in Learning: III--Study Skill and Learning. , 1977 .

[16]  F. Marton,et al.  ON QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES IN LEARNING: I—OUTCOME AND PROCESS* , 1976 .

[17]  D. Gelb.  Is newer necessarily better? , 2001, Neurology.

[18]  David Watkins,et al.  THE LEARNING PROCESSES OF AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS: INVESTIGATIONS OF CONTEXTUAL AND PERSONOLOGICAL FACTORS , 1981 .

[19]  P. Frey,et al.  Attitude towards computer‐based learning: determinants as revealed by a controlled interventional study , 2005, Medical education.

[20]  N. Entwistle,et al.  Understanding Student Learning , 1983 .

[21]  J. Biggs,et al.  The Chinese Learner: Cultural, Psychological, and Contextual Influences. , 1996 .

[22]  G. Murphy,et al.  Category learning with minimal prior knowledge. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[23]  F. Marton,et al.  On qualitative differences in learning , 2013 .

[24]  J. Biggs.  What do inventories of students' learning processes really measure? A theoretical review and clarification. , 1993, The British journal of educational psychology.

[25]  N. Entwistle,et al.  EFFECTS OF ACADEMIC DEPARTMENTS ON STUDENTS' APPROACHES TO STUDYING , 1981 .

[26]  A Fransson,et al.  On qualitative differences in learning: IV -- effects of intrinsic motivation and extrinsic test anxiety on process and outcome. , 1977, The British journal of educational psychology.

[27]  D. Wood,et al.  Love it or hate it? Medical students' attitudes to computer‐assisted learning , 2002, Medical education.

[28]  I. McManus,et al.  Clinical experience, performance in final examinations, and learning style in medical students: prospective study , 1998, BMJ.

[29]  Lennart Svensson,et al.  Study skill and learning , 1976 .

[30]  Peter Op 't Eynde,et al.  Focusing on the Complexity of Emotion Issues in Academic Learning: A Dynamical Component Systems Approach , 2006 .

[31]  K. Lonka,et al.  Aspects and Prospects of Measuring Studying and Learning in Higher Education , 2004 .

[32]  Mary Ainley,et al.  Connecting with Learning: Motivation, Affect and Cognition in Interest Processes , 2006 .

[33]  D. Newble,et al.  The approaches to learning of students in a traditional and in an innovative problem‐based medical school , 1986, Medical education.

[34]  Angus Duff,et al.  Quality of Learning on an MBA Programme: The impact of approaches to learning on academic performance , 2003 .

[35]  I. McManus,et al.  Anxiety and study methods in preclinical students: causal relation to examination performance , 1989, Medical education.

[36]  Elizabeth A. Linnenbrink.  Emotion Research in Education: Theoretical and Methodological Perspectives on the Integration of Affect, Motivation, and Cognition , 2006 .

[37]  L. Svensson,et al.  SYMPOSIUM: LEARNING PROCESSES AND STRATEGIES—III , 1977 .