Advertisement

Advances in Health Sciences Education

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 337–353 | Cite as

Are deep strategic learners better suited to PBL? A preliminary study

  • Tracey Papinczak
Original Paper

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine if medical students categorised as having deep and strategic approaches to their learning find problem-based learning (PBL) enjoyable and supportive of their learning, and achieve well in the first-year course. Quantitative and qualitative data were gathered from first-year medical students (N = 213). All students completed the Medical Course Learning Questionnaire at the commencement and completion of their first year of medical studies. The instrument measured a number of different aspects of learning, including approaches to learning, preferences for different learning environments, self-efficacy, and perceptions of learning within PBL tutorials. Qualitative data were collected from written responses to open questions. Results of students’ performance on two forms of examinations were obtained for those giving permission (N = 68). Two-step cluster analysis of the cohort’s responses to questions about their learning approaches identified five clusters, three of which represented coherent combinations of learning approaches (deep, deep and strategic, and surface apathetic) and two clusters which had unusual or dissonant combinations. Deep, strategic learners represented 25.8% of the cohort. They were more efficacious, preferred learning environments which support development of understanding and achieved significantly higher scores on the written examination. Strongly positive comments about learning in PBL tutorials were principally described by members of this cluster. This preliminary study employed a technique to categorise a student cohort into subgroups on the basis of their approaches to learning. One, the deep and strategic learners, appeared to be less vulnerable to the stresses of PBS in a medical course. While variation between individual learners will always be considerable, this analysis has enabled classification of a student group that may be less likely to find PBL problematic. Implications for practice and suggestions for future research are proposed.

Keywords

PBL Unique challenges of PBL Approaches to learning Self-efficacy 

References

  1. Albanese, M. A., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of the literature on its outcome and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68(1), 52–80. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199301000-00012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. August-Brady, M. M. (2005). The effect of a metacognitive intervention on approach to and self-regulation of learning in baccalaureate nursing students. Journal of Nursing Education, 44(7), 297–304.Google Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  4. Bartholomew, D. J., Steele, F., Moustaki, I., & Galbraith, J. I. (2002). The analysis and interpretation of multivariate data for social scientists. Boca Raton, Florida: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Blumberg, P. (2000). Evaluating the evidence that problem-based learners are self-directed learners: A review of the literature. In D. H. Evenson & C. E. Hmelo (Eds.), Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers, and students. Learning and Instruction, 7(2), 161–186. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(96)00015-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281.Google Scholar
  8. Cramer, D. (2003). Advanced quantitative data analysis. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cuthbert, K. (1998). An action research evaluation of a first-year ‘learning to learn’ unit: The role of reflection and metacognition. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning: Improving students as learners (pp. 144–153). Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.Google Scholar
  10. De Grave, W. S., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Schmidt, H. G. (1996). Problem-based learning: Cognitive and metacognitive processes during problem analysis. Instructional Science, 24(5), 321–334. doi: 10.1007/BF00118111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effect of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 533–568. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00025-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Entwistle, N. (1987). Motivation to learn: Conceptualisations and practicalities. British Journal of Educational Studies, 35(2), 129–148. doi: 10.2307/3121441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Entwistle, D. (1998). Supporting students’ frameworks for conceptual understanding: Knowledge objects and their implications. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning: Improving students as learners (pp. 206–214). Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.Google Scholar
  14. Entwistle, N. (2000). Promoting deep learning through teaching and assessment: Conceptual frameworks and educational contexts. Paper presented at the TLRP Conference, Leicester.Google Scholar
  15. Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  16. Entwistle, N., McCune, V., & Hounsell, J. (2002). Approaches to studying and perceptions of university teaching-learning environments: Concepts, measures and preliminary findings. Edinburgh: School of Education, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  17. Entwistle, N., Tait, H., & McCune, V. (2000). Patterns of response to an approaches to studying inventory across contrasting groups and contexts. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15(1), 33–48.Google Scholar
  18. Gallagher, S. A., Stepien, W. J., & Rosenthal, H. (1992). The effects of problem-based learning on problem-solving. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(4), 195–200. doi: 10.1177/001698629203600405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gijbels, D., van de Watering, G., Dochy, F., & Van den Bossche, P. (2005). The relationship between students’ approaches to learning and the assessment of learning outcomes. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10(4), 327–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Glaser, G. B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  21. Groves, M. (2005). Problem-based learning and learning approach: Is there a relationship? Advances in Health Sciences Education, 10(4), 315–326. doi: 10.1007/s10459-005-8556-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hammel, J., Royeen, C. B., Bagatell, N., Chandler, B., Jensen, G., Loveland, J., et al. (1999). Student perspectives on problem-based learning in an occupational therapy curriculum: A multi-year qualitative evaluation. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 53(2), 199–206.Google Scholar
  23. Heikkelä, A., & Lonka, K. (2006). Studying in higher education: Students’ approaches to learning, self-regulation, and cognitive strategies. Studies in Higher Education, 31(1), 99–117. doi: 10.1080/03075070500392433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hmelo, C. E., & Evenson, D. H. (2000). Problem-based learning: Gaining insights on learning interactions through multiple methods of inquiry. In D. H. Evenson & C. E. Hmelo (Eds.), Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. Lee, J., & Graham, A. V. (2001). Students’ perception of medical school stress and their evaluation of a wellness elective. Medical Education, 35(7), 652–659. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2001.00956.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2003). Broadening an understanding of the phenomenon of dissonance. Studies in Higher Education, 28(1), 63–77. doi: 10.1080/03075070309306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Long, W. F. (2003). Dissonance detected by cluster analysis of responses to the Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for students. Studies in Higher Education, 28(1), 21–35. doi: 10.1080/03075070309303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning I—outcomes and processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4–11.Google Scholar
  29. Mattick, K., Dennis, I., & Bligh, J. (2004). Approaches to learning and studying in medical students: Validation of a revised inventory and its relation to student characteristics and performance. Medical Education, 38(5), 535–543. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01836.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McCune, V., & Entwistle, N. (2000). The deep approach to learning: Analytic abstraction and idiosyncratic development. Paper presented at the Innovations in Higher Education Conference, Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
  31. Meyer, J. H. F. (2000). The modelling of ‘dissonant’ study orchestration in higher education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15(1), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Miflin, B. M., Campbell, C. B., & Price, D. A. (2000). A conceptual framework to guide the development of self-directed, lifelong learning in problem-based medical curricula. Medical Education, 34(4), 299–306. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00564.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moffat, K. J., McConnachie, A., Ross, S., & Morrison, J. M. (2004). First year medical student stress and coping in a problem-based learning medical curriculum. Medical Education, 38(5), 482–491. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2929.2004.01814.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Norman, G., & Schmidt, H. G. (1992). The psychological basis of problem-based learning: A review of the evidence. Academic Medicine, 67(9), 557–565. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199209000-00002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2002). Why can’t we all get along? Towards a framework for unifying research paradigms. Education, 122(3), 518–530.Google Scholar
  36. Papinczak, T., Young, L., Groves, M., & Haynes, M. Effects of a meta-cognitive intervention on students’ approaches to learning and self-efficacy in a first-year medical course. Advances in Health Sciences Education (in press)Google Scholar
  37. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  38. Reid, W., Duvall, E., & Evans, P. (2005). Can we influence medical students’ approaches to learning? Medical Teacher, 27(5), 401–407. doi: 10.1080/01421590500136410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. Windsor, UK: Nfer-Nelson.Google Scholar
  40. Sobral, D. T. (1997). Improving learning skills: A self-help group approach. Higher Education, 33(1), 39–50. doi: 10.1023/A:1002997022123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Solomon, P., & Finch, E. (1998). A qualitative study identifying stressors associated with adapting to problem-based learning. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 10(2), 58–64. doi: 10.1207/S15328015TLM1002_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stewart, S. M., Betson, C., Lam, T. H., Marshall, I. B., Lee, P. W., & Wong, C. M. (1997). Predicting stress in first year medical students: A longitudinal study. Medical Education, 31(3), 163–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tait, H., Entwistle, N. J., & McCune, V. (1998). ASSIST: A reconceptualisation of the Approaches to Studying Inventory. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning: Improving students as learners (pp. 262–271). Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.Google Scholar
  44. Vermetten, Y. J., Vermunt, J. D., & Lodewijks, H. G. (2002). Powerful learning environments? How university students differ in their response to instructional measures. Learning and Instruction, 12(2), 263–284. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00013-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vermunt, J. D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between teaching and learning. Learning and Instruction, 9(3), 257–280. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00028-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wyller, V. B., & Wyller, T. B. (2002). Relations between background, process and outcome in the first semester of a new, problem-based medical curriculum. Medical Teacher, 24(5), 502–506. doi: 10.1080/0142159021000012930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 663–676.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of MedicineUniversity of QueenslandHerstonAustralia

Personalised recommendations