How do medical students learn conceptual knowledge? High-, moderate- and low-utility learning techniques and perceived learning difficulties

5Citations
Citations of this article
48Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Acquiring medical knowledge is a key competency for medical students and a lifelong requirement for physicians. Learning techniques can improve academic success and help students cope with stressors. To support students’ learning process medical faculties should know about learning techniques. The purpose of this study is to analyse the preferred learning techniques of female and male as well as junior and senior medical students and how these learning techniques are related to perceived learning difficulties. Methods: In 2019, we conducted an online survey with students of the undergraduate, competency-based curriculum of medicine at Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin. We chose ten learning techniques of high, moderate and low utility according to Dunlosky et al. (2013) and we asked medical students to rate their preferred usage of those techniques using a 5-point Likert scale. We applied t-tests to show differences in usage between female and male as well as junior and senior learners. Additionally, we conducted a multiple regression analysis to explore the predictive power of learning techniques regarding perceived difficulties. Results: A total of 730 medical students (488 women, 242 men, Mage = 24.85, SD = 4.49) use three techniques the most: ‘highlighting’ (low utility), ‘self-explanation’ (moderate utility) and ‘practice testing’ (high utility). Female students showed a significantly higher usage of low-utility learning techniques (t(404.24) = -7.13, p

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Franz, A., Oberst, S., Peters, H., Berger, R., & Behrend, R. (2022). How do medical students learn conceptual knowledge? High-, moderate- and low-utility learning techniques and perceived learning difficulties. BMC Medical Education, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03283-0

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free