Approach to learning of medical students in a Caribbean medical school
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Students' perception of the learning environment, the curriculum and assessment may influence their approach to learning. Student approach to learning has not been previously studied at Xavier University School of Medicine, Aruba. Hence the present study was carried out. Objective: Obtain information about respondents' conceptions of learning, approaches to studying and preferences for different types of courses and teaching Method: The Approaches and study skills inventory (ASSIST) was administered to first to fourth semester undergraduate medical (MD) students during the last week of September 2013. Different personal characteristics were noted. The median scores for conceptions of learning, approaches to studying and types of teaching among different subgroups of respondents were compared using appropriate non-parametric tests (p<0.05). Result: Seventy-one of the 86 students (82.5%) participated. Respondents predominantly used deep and strategic approaches to studying and there was a slight preference for a transmitting information type of teaching. Students aged between 20 to 25 years used more deep approach to learning and preferred a supporting understanding teaching approach. First and third semester students used more surface apathetic learning approaches and showed greater syllabus boundedness. Canadian students showed greater deep approach to learning. Conclusion: Deep and strategic learning approaches were mainly used. The influence of the integrated curriculum on learning approaches can be investigated through longitudinal studies. Studies among clinical students and in other medical schools are required.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".