剖析医学生的学习策略:以人为本的方法。

IF 4.9 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Medical Education Pub Date : 2024-03-28 DOI:10.1111/medu.15388
Nils Otto, Anja Böckers, Thomas Shiozawa, Irene Brunk, Sven Schumann, Daniela Kugelmann, Markus Missler, Dogus Darici
{"title":"剖析医学生的学习策略:以人为本的方法。","authors":"Nils Otto, Anja Böckers, Thomas Shiozawa, Irene Brunk, Sven Schumann, Daniela Kugelmann, Markus Missler, Dogus Darici","doi":"10.1111/medu.15388","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Students within a cohort might employ unique subsets of learning strategies (LS) to study. However, little research has aimed to elucidate subgroup-specific LS usage among medical students. Recent methodological developments, particularly person-centred approaches such as latent profile analysis (LPA), offer ways to identify relevant subgroups with dissimilar patterns of LS use. In this paper, we apply LPA to explore subgroups of medical students during preclinical training in anatomy and examine how these patterns are linked with learning outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analysed the LS used by 689 undergraduate, 1st and 2nd-year medical students across 6 German universities who completed the short version of the Learning Strategies of University Students (LIST-K) questionnaire, and answered questions towards external criteria such as learning resources and performance. We used the thirteen different LS facets of the LIST-K (four cognitive, three metacognitive, three management of internal and three management of external resources) as LPA indicators.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Based on LPA, students can be grouped into four distinct learning profiles: Active learners (45% of the cohort), collaborative learners (17%), structured learners (29%) and passive learners (9%). Students in each of those latent profiles combine the 13 LS facets in a unique way to study anatomy. The profiles differ in both, the overall level of LS usage, and unique combinations of LS used for learning. Importantly, we find that the facets of LS show heterogeneous and subgroup-specific correlations with relevant outcome criteria, which partly overlap but mostly diverge from effects observed on the population level.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The effects observed by LPA expand results from variable-centered efforts and challenge the notion that LS operate on a linear continuum. These results highlight the heterogeneity between subgroups of learners and help generate a more nuanced interpretation of learning behaviour. Lastly, our analysis offers practical implications for educators seeking to tailor learning experiences to meet individual student needs.</p>","PeriodicalId":18370,"journal":{"name":"Medical Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Profiling learning strategies of medical students: A person-centered approach.\",\"authors\":\"Nils Otto, Anja Böckers, Thomas Shiozawa, Irene Brunk, Sven Schumann, Daniela Kugelmann, Markus Missler, Dogus Darici\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/medu.15388\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Students within a cohort might employ unique subsets of learning strategies (LS) to study. However, little research has aimed to elucidate subgroup-specific LS usage among medical students. Recent methodological developments, particularly person-centred approaches such as latent profile analysis (LPA), offer ways to identify relevant subgroups with dissimilar patterns of LS use. In this paper, we apply LPA to explore subgroups of medical students during preclinical training in anatomy and examine how these patterns are linked with learning outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analysed the LS used by 689 undergraduate, 1st and 2nd-year medical students across 6 German universities who completed the short version of the Learning Strategies of University Students (LIST-K) questionnaire, and answered questions towards external criteria such as learning resources and performance. We used the thirteen different LS facets of the LIST-K (four cognitive, three metacognitive, three management of internal and three management of external resources) as LPA indicators.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Based on LPA, students can be grouped into four distinct learning profiles: Active learners (45% of the cohort), collaborative learners (17%), structured learners (29%) and passive learners (9%). Students in each of those latent profiles combine the 13 LS facets in a unique way to study anatomy. The profiles differ in both, the overall level of LS usage, and unique combinations of LS used for learning. Importantly, we find that the facets of LS show heterogeneous and subgroup-specific correlations with relevant outcome criteria, which partly overlap but mostly diverge from effects observed on the population level.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The effects observed by LPA expand results from variable-centered efforts and challenge the notion that LS operate on a linear continuum. These results highlight the heterogeneity between subgroups of learners and help generate a more nuanced interpretation of learning behaviour. Lastly, our analysis offers practical implications for educators seeking to tailor learning experiences to meet individual student needs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18370,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.15388\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.15388","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:一个群体中的学生可能会采用独特的学习策略(LS)进行学习。然而,很少有研究旨在阐明医学生中特定亚群的学习策略使用情况。最近的方法论发展,特别是以人为中心的方法,如潜在特征分析(LPA),提供了识别具有不同学习策略使用模式的相关亚组的方法。在本文中,我们应用 LPA 来探索医学生在解剖学临床前培训期间的亚群,并研究这些模式如何与学习成果相关联:我们分析了德国 6 所大学的 689 名本科生、一年级和二年级医学生使用的 LS,他们填写了简短版的大学生学习策略(LIST-K)问卷,并回答了有关学习资源和成绩等外部标准的问题。我们将LIST-K的13个不同LS方面(4个认知方面、3个元认知方面、3个内部资源管理方面和3个外部资源管理方面)作为LPA指标:根据 LPA,学生可分为四种不同的学习类型:主动学习者(占学生总数的 45%)、协作学习者(17%)、结构化学习者(29%)和被动学习者(9%)。每种潜在特征中的学生都以独特的方式将通识教育的 13 个方面结合起来学习解剖学。这些特征在通识教育的总体使用水平和通识教育的独特学习组合方面都有所不同。重要的是,我们发现LS的各个侧面与相关结果标准呈现出异质性和亚组特定的相关性,这些相关性与在群体水平上观察到的效果部分重叠,但大部分不同:结论:LPA 观察到的效果扩展了以变量为中心的研究结果,并对 LS 在线性连续体上运行的观点提出了质疑。这些结果凸显了学习者亚群之间的异质性,有助于对学习行为做出更细致的解释。最后,我们的分析为教育者寻求定制学习体验以满足学生个人需求提供了实际意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Profiling learning strategies of medical students: A person-centered approach.

Background: Students within a cohort might employ unique subsets of learning strategies (LS) to study. However, little research has aimed to elucidate subgroup-specific LS usage among medical students. Recent methodological developments, particularly person-centred approaches such as latent profile analysis (LPA), offer ways to identify relevant subgroups with dissimilar patterns of LS use. In this paper, we apply LPA to explore subgroups of medical students during preclinical training in anatomy and examine how these patterns are linked with learning outcomes.

Methods: We analysed the LS used by 689 undergraduate, 1st and 2nd-year medical students across 6 German universities who completed the short version of the Learning Strategies of University Students (LIST-K) questionnaire, and answered questions towards external criteria such as learning resources and performance. We used the thirteen different LS facets of the LIST-K (four cognitive, three metacognitive, three management of internal and three management of external resources) as LPA indicators.

Results: Based on LPA, students can be grouped into four distinct learning profiles: Active learners (45% of the cohort), collaborative learners (17%), structured learners (29%) and passive learners (9%). Students in each of those latent profiles combine the 13 LS facets in a unique way to study anatomy. The profiles differ in both, the overall level of LS usage, and unique combinations of LS used for learning. Importantly, we find that the facets of LS show heterogeneous and subgroup-specific correlations with relevant outcome criteria, which partly overlap but mostly diverge from effects observed on the population level.

Conclusions: The effects observed by LPA expand results from variable-centered efforts and challenge the notion that LS operate on a linear continuum. These results highlight the heterogeneity between subgroups of learners and help generate a more nuanced interpretation of learning behaviour. Lastly, our analysis offers practical implications for educators seeking to tailor learning experiences to meet individual student needs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Education
Medical Education 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
279
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Education seeks to be the pre-eminent journal in the field of education for health care professionals, and publishes material of the highest quality, reflecting world wide or provocative issues and perspectives. The journal welcomes high quality papers on all aspects of health professional education including; -undergraduate education -postgraduate training -continuing professional development -interprofessional education
期刊最新文献
A realist evaluation of prospective entrustment decisions in paediatric residency clinical competency committees. Putting 'leader' back into leadership training. Supporting resident inbox management with screen-casted videos. Enhancing telehealth Objective Structured Clinical Examination fidelity with integrated Electronic Health Record simulation. Equity, diversity, and inclusion in entrustable professional activities based assessment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1