Abstract
Innovations in medical curricula require a thorough evaluation of all aspects playing a role in the complex interrelations between learners—teachers—educational context. Among these numerous factors, the congruency of the educational alignment is of upmost importance. To evaluate this alignment, two essential components need to be examined: the learning approach of students (deep approach vs surface approach) and the teaching approach of staff members (student centered approach vs teacher centered approach). The results obtained can be used to determine if the learning objectives and the educational interventions are properly aligned to assure a high quality program, fostering self-directed and life-long learning professionals. The literature here presented can serve the purpose of encouraging institutions undergoing curricular changes into analyzing important aspects that were commonly ignored in more traditional programs.
Gibbs G. Dimensions of quality [internet]. York: The Higher Education Academy; 2010. Avalaible from: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/dimensions_of_quality.pdf
Chambers E. Work-load and the quality of student learning. Stud in High Educ. 2002;17:141-53.
Biggs JB. What the student does: teaching for enhanced learning. HERD. 1999;18(1):57-75.
Trigwell K. & Prosser M. Improving the quality of student learning: the influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes. High Educ. 1991;22:251-6.
Biggs JB, Kember D, Leung DYP. The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. Brit J Educ Psychol. 2001;71:133-49.
Biggs J B. Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. High Educ. 1996;32:1-18.
De Vita GD. Learning styles, culture and inclusive instruction in the multicultural classroom: a business and management perspective. Innov Educ Teach Int. 2001;38:165-74.
Cook DA. Learning and cognitive styles in web-based learning: Theory, evidence and application. Acad Med. 2005;80:266-78.
Bandaranayake RC. A practical guide for medical teachers. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: Elsevier; 2009.
Biggs JB. What do inventories of students’ learning processes really measure?: A theoretical review and clarification. Brit J Educ Psychol. 1993;63:1-17.
Entwistle N, Waterston S. Approaches to studying and levels of processing in University students. Brit J Educ Psychol. 1988;58:258-65.
Marton F, Säljö R. On qualitative differences in learning-II: Outcome as a function of the learner’s conception of the task. Brit J EducPsychol. 1976;46:115-27.
Lizzio A, Wilson K, Simons R. University students’ perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes: implications for theory and practice. Stud HE. 2002;27(1):27-52.
Prosser M, Trigwell K. Teaching for learning in higher education. Buckingham: Open University Press; 1998.
Lubawy WC. Evaluating teaching using the best practice model. Am J Pharma Educ. 2003;67(3):87-93.
Duff A, McKinstry S. Students’ approaches to learning. Issues Account Edu. 2007;22(2):183-14.
Biggs JB. From theory to practice: A cognitive systems approach. HERD. 1993;12:73-86.
Entwistle N, Ramsden P. Understanding Student Learning. London: Croom Helm; 1983.
Prosser M, Trigwell K. Relations between perceptions of the teaching environment and approaches to teaching. Brit J Educ Psychol. 1997;67:25-35.
Smith CF, Mathias H. An investigation into medical students’ approaches to anatomy learning in a systems-based prosection course. Clin Anat. 2007;20:843-8.
Stes A, De Maeyer S, Van Petegem P. Examining the cross-cultural sensitivity of the Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) and validation of a dutch version. PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e54009.
Mattick K, Dennis I, Bligh J. Approaches to learning and studying in medical students: validation of a revised inventory and its relation to student characteristics and performance. Med Educ. 2004;38:535-43.
Manikutty S, Anuradha NS, Hansen K. Does culture influence learning styles in higher education? Int J Learn Change. 2007;2(1):70-87.
Marton F, Hounsell D, Entwistle N. The experience of learning: Implications for teaching and studying in higher education. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, Centre of Teaching, Learning and Assessment; 2005.
Samarakoon L, Fernando T, Rodrigo C, Rajapakse S. Learning styles and approaches to learning among undergraduates and postgraduates. BMC Med Educ. 2013;13(42):1-6.
Kember D, Jamieson QW, Pomfret M, Wong ETT. Learning approaches, study time and academic performance. High Educ. 1995;29:329-43.
Kember D, Nig S, Pomfret M, Tse H, Wong ETT. An examination of the inter-relationships between work load, study time, learning approaches and academic outcomes. Stud High Educ. 1996;21(3):347-58.
Aaron S, Skakun E. Correlation of student’s characteristics with their learning styles as they begin medical school. Acad Med. 1999;74(3):260-2.
Ramsden P. Learning to teach in higher education. 2nd ed. London: Falmer Press; 2003.
Kember D. Interpreting student workload and the factors which shape students’ perception of their workload. Stud High Educ. 2004;29(2):165-84.
Zeegers P. Approaches to learning in science: a longitudinal study. Brit J Educ Psychol. 1998;71:115-32.
Mc Manus IC, Richards P, Winder BC, Sproston KA. Clinical experience, performance in final examination and learning styles in medical students: a prospective study. Brit Med J. 1998;316:345-50.
Trigwell K, Prosser M, Waterhouse F. Relations between teacher’s approaches to teaching and student’s approaches to learning. High Educ. 1999;37:57-70.
Vermetten YJ, Lodewijks HG, Vermunt JD. Consistency and variability of learning strategies in different university courses. High Educ. 1999;37:1-21.
Zeegers P. A revision of the Bigg’s Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ). High Educ Devel. 2002;21(1):73-92.
Eley M G. Differential adoption of study approaches within individual students. High Educ. 1992;23:231-54.
Scouller KM, Prosser M. Students’ experiences in studying for multiple choice questions examinations. Stud High Educ. 1994;19(3):267-79.
Scouller KM. The influence of assessment methods on students’ learning approaches: Multiple choice examinations versus assignment essay. High Educ. 1998;35:453-72.
Van de Watering G, Gijbels D, Dochy F, Van der Rijt D. Students’ assessment preferences, perceptions of assessment and their relationship to study results. High Educ. 2008;56:645-58.
Richardson JTE. Students’ approaches to learning and teachers’ approaches to teaching in higher education. Educ Psychol. 2005;25(6):673-80.
Trigwell K, Prosser M. Congruence between intention and strategy in science teachers’ approach to teaching. High Educ. 1996;32:77-87.
Kember D, Leung DYP. Characterizing a teaching and learning environment conductive to making demands on student while not making their workload excessive. Stud High Educ. 2006;31(2):185-98.
Yan L, Kember D. The influence of the curriculum and learning environment on the learning approaches of groups of students outside the classroom. Learn Environ Res. 2003;6:285-307.
Buendía L, Olmedo E M. Estudio transcultural de los enfoques de aprendizaje en Educación Superior. Rev Invest Educ. 2003;21(2):371-86.
Recio Saucedo MA, Cabero Almenara J. Enfoques de aprendizaje, rendimiento académico y satisfacción de los alumnos en formación de ambientes virtuales. Rev Medios Edud. 2005;25:93-115.
Gargallo B, Garfella EP, Pérez C B. Enfoques de aprendizaje y rendimiento académico en estudiantes universitarios. Rev Orient Pedagog. 2006;58(3):327-43.
Montealegre G, Núñez M L. Tienen aprendizaje de calidad los estudiantes de Medicina? AMC. 2009;34(3):122-7.
Trigwell K, Prosser M. Development and use of the approaches to teaching inventory. Educ Psychol Rev. 2004;16(4):409-24.
Prosser M, Trigwell K. confirmatory factor analysis of the approaches to teaching inventory. B J Educ Psychol. 2006;76:405-19.
Trigwel K, Prosser M, Ginns P. Phenomenographic pedagogy and a revised approaches to teaching inventory. High Educ Res Dev;2005;24(4):349-60.
Sabucedo AC, Sarmiento JA, Pérez A. Las concepciones sobre la enseñanza de los estudiantes que realizaron CAP y el máster en educación secundaria en la Universidad
de Vigo. Rev Invest Educ. 2012;10(1):100-14.
Gulikers J, Kester L, Kirscner P, Bastiaens T. The effect of practical experience on perceptions of assessment authenticity, study approach and learning outcomes. J Learn Instruc. 2008;18:172-86.
This journal is registered under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License. Thus, this work may be reproduced, distributed, and publicly shared in digital format, as long as the names of the authors and Pontificia Universidad Javeriana are acknowledged. Others are allowed to quote, adapt, transform, auto-archive, republish, and create based on this material, for any purpose (even commercial ones), provided the authorship is duly acknowledged, a link to the original work is provided, and it is specified if changes have been made. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana does not hold the rights of published works and the authors are solely responsible for the contents of their works; they keep the moral, intellectual, privacy, and publicity rights.
Approving the intervention of the work (review, copy-editing, translation, layout) and the following outreach, are granted through an use license and not through an assignment of rights. This means the journal and Pontificia Universidad Javeriana cannot be held responsible for any ethical malpractice by the authors. As a consequence of the protection granted by the use license, the journal is not required to publish recantations or modify information already published, unless the errata stems from the editorial management process. Publishing contents in this journal does not generate royalties for contributors.