Learning Approaches Used by Undergraduate Interns in the Development of a Medical Specialty

Gustavo Cumplido-Hernández; Ma. Faustina Campos-Arciniega; Arturo Chávez-López; Vicente García-Pérez

2006, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc 2006; 44 (4)

Learning Approaches Used by Undergraduate Interns in the Development of a Medical Specialty

Cumplido-Hernández G, Campos-Arciniega MF, Chávez-López A, García-Pérez V

Full text

How to cite this article

Language: Spanish
References: 28
Page: 321-328
PDF size: 107.72 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Two learning approaches are examined: a superficial and a profound one. The purpose of the first one is to pass the subjects with the minimum effort; in the second one, there is a genuine interest in grasping knowledge and being acknowledged for one’s achievements. The objective of this research was to identify the learning approach of undergraduate interns, according to sex, age, specialty and grade.
Material and methods: an analysis of conglomerates was used as a statistical tool. The sample was formed by 179 undergraduate interns of 19 medical and surgical specialties offered at a concentration hospital. The form R-SPQ-2F, proposed by Biggs, was used as an instrument. The reliability and validity of the instrument was estimated by means of Cronbach’s alpha and factorial analysis of learning.
Results: 60.3 % of the students had a deep approach to learning; women and students older than 28 years old in greater proportion, as well as those studying internal medicine and those in the third year.
Conclusions: undergraduate interns are students with a high level of participation in their own learning process. This is probably due to the demands of the profession, the filters of selection and the nature of the subjects.

REFERENCES

1. Weinstein C, Mayer R. The teaching of learning strategies. En: Wittrock MC, editor. Handbook of research on teaching. New York: McMillan; 1999.
2. Biggs JB. Learning strategies, student motivation patterns and subjetively perceived success. Cognitive strategies and educational performance. Orlando Fl: Academic Press; 1984.
3. Marton F. On qualitative differences in learning I. Outcome and process. Br J Educ Psychol 1976; 46:4-11.
4. Sprinthall N. Psicología de la educación. Sexta edición. México: McGraw Hill; 1999.
5. Hernández-Ruiz L. La importancia en los estilos de aprendizaje en la enseñanza del inglés como lengua extranjera. Especulo. España: Facultad de Ciencias de la Información, Universidad Com-plutense de Madrid; 2004.
6. Biggs JB. What do inventories of students learning process really measure? A theoretical review and clarification. Br J Educ Psychol 1993:63:3-19.
7. Kember D. The dimensionality of approaches to learning: An investigation with confirmatory factor analysis on the structure of the SPQ and LPQ. Br J Educ Psychol 1998;68:395-407.
8. García C, Olea J. Práctica de introducción a la psicometría: construcción de un test y análisis de sus propiedades psicométricas. España: Facultad de Psicología, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid; 2001.
9. Kerlinger HB. Investigación del comportamiento. Sexta edición. México: McGraw Hill; 2002.
Pérez-López C. Técnicas estadísticas con SPSS. Madrid: Prentice; 2001. p. 483-592.
Gondar-Nores JE. A fondo Microsoft SQL Server 2000. España: McGraw Hill-Interamericana; 2001.
González-Cabanach R. Psicología de la instrucción. El profesor y el estudiante. España: Universidad de la Coruña; 1994.
Leung M, Chan K. Construct validity and psycho-metric properties of the revised two-factor study process questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) in the Hong Kong context. Trabajo presentado en Australian Association for Research in Education Annual Conference, 2001.
Biggs J, Kember D. The revised two factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. Br J Educ Psychol 2001;71:133-149.
1. Weinstein C, Mayer R. The teaching of learning strategies. En: Wittrock MC, editor. Handbook of research on teaching. New York: McMillan; 1999.
2. Biggs JB. Learning strategies, student motivation patterns and subjetively perceived success. Cognitive strategies and educational performance. Orlando Fl: Academic Press; 1984.
3. Marton F. On qualitative differences in learning I. Outcome and process. Br J Educ Psychol 1976; 46:4-11.
4. Sprinthall N. Psicología de la educación. Sexta edición. México: McGraw Hill; 1999.
5. Hernández-Ruiz L. La importancia en los estilos de aprendizaje en la enseñanza del inglés como lengua extranjera. Especulo. España: Facultad de Ciencias de la Información, Universidad Com-plutense de Madrid; 2004.
6. Biggs JB. What do inventories of students learning process really measure? A theoretical review and clarification. Br J Educ Psychol 1993:63:3-19.
7. Kember D. The dimensionality of approaches to learning: An investigation with confirmatory factor analysis on the structure of the SPQ and LPQ. Br J Educ Psychol 1998;68:395-407.
8. García C, Olea J. Práctica de introducción a la psicometría: construcción de un test y análisis de sus propiedades psicométricas. España: Facultad de Psicología, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid; 2001.
9. Kerlinger HB. Investigación del comportamiento. Sexta edición. México: McGraw Hill; 2002.
Pérez-López C. Técnicas estadísticas con SPSS. Madrid: Prentice; 2001. p. 483-592.
Gondar-Nores JE. A fondo Microsoft SQL Server 2000. España: McGraw Hill-Interamericana; 2001.
González-Cabanach R. Psicología de la instrucción. El profesor y el estudiante. España: Universidad de la Coruña; 1994.
Leung M, Chan K. Construct validity and psycho-metric properties of the revised two-factor study process questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) in the Hong Kong context. Trabajo presentado en Australian Association for Research in Education Annual Conference, 2001.
Biggs J, Kember D. The revised two factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. Br J Educ Psychol 2001;71:133-149.