MATERIALS AND METHODS: A quasi-experimental study was conducted to develop and administer a team-based SDL versus a conventional SDL to teach undergraduate surgical topics. One hundred and seventy-four medical students who underwent the Year 5 surgical posting were recruited. They were assigned to two groups receiving either the teambased SDL or the conventional SDL. Pre- and post-SDL assessments were conducted to determine students' understanding of selected surgical topics. A selfadministered questionnaire was used to collect student feedback on the team-based SDL.
RESULTS: The team-based SDL group scored significantly higher than the conventional SDL group in the post-SDL assessment (74.70 ± 6.81 vs. 63.77 ± 4.18, t = -12.72, p < 0.01). The students agreed that the team-based SDL method facilitated their learning process.
CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated that the use of a teambased SDL is an effective learning strategy for teaching the Year 5 surgical posting. This method encouraged peer discussion and promoted teamwork in completing task assignments to achieve the learning objectives.
METHODS: This study employed a document phenomenological approach, which is a systematic process to examine documents, interpret them to attain understanding, and develop empirical knowledge of the phenomenon studied. Using document analysis, interview transcripts and reflective essays of 16 Year 1 medical students who experienced academic failure were analysed. Based on this analysis, codes were developed and further reduced into categories and themes. Thirty categories in eight themes were linked to make sense of the series of events leading to academic failure.
RESULTS: One or more critical incidents commenced during the academic year, which led to possible resulting events. The students had poor attitudes, ineffective learning methods, health problems or stress. Students progressed to mid-year assessments and reacted differently to their results in the assessments. Afterwards, the students tried different types of attempts, and they still failed the end-of-year assessments. The general process of academic failure is illustrated in a diagram describing chronological events.
CONCLUSION: Academic failure may be explained by a series of events (and consequences) of what students experience and do and how they respond to their experiences. Preventing a preceding event may prevent students from suffering these consequences.
OBJECTIVE: This research aims to determine factors influencing students' behavioural intention to use Rain Classroom.
METHODS: In this cross-sectional and correlational investigation, 1138 medical students from five medical universities in Guangxi Province, China, made up the sample. This study added self-efficacy (SE), motivation (MO), stress (ST), and anxiety (AN) to the UTAUT framework. This study modified the framework by excluding actual usage variables and focusing only on intention determinants. SPSS-26 and AMOS-26 were used to analyze the data. The structural equation modelling technique was chosen to confirm the hypotheses.
RESULTS: Except for facilitating conditions (FC), all proposed factors, including performance expectancy (PE), effort expectancy (EE), social influence (SI), self-efficacy (SE), motivation (MO), anxiety (AN), and stress (ST), had a significant effect on students' behavioural intentions to use Rain Classroom.
CONCLUSIONS: The research revealed that the proposed model, which was based on the UTAUT, is excellent at identifying the variables that influence students' behavioural intentions in the Rain Classroom. Higher education institutions can plan and implement productive classrooms.
METHODS: This study employed a qualitative instrumental case study design intended to compare two groups of students-high-achieving students (n = 14) and low-achieving students (n = 5), enrolled in pre-clinical medical studies at the Universiti Malaya, Malaysia. Data were collected through reflective journals and semi-structured interviews. Regarding journaling, participants were required to recall their learning experiences of the previous academic year. Two analysts coded the data and then compared the codes of high- and low-achieving students. The third analyst reviewed the codes. Themes were identified iteratively, working towards comparing the learning processes of high- and low-achieving students.
RESULTS: Data analysis revealed four themes-motivation and expectation, study methods, self-management, and flexibility of mindset. First, high-achieving students were more motivated and had higher academic expectations than low-achieving students. Second, high-achieving students adopted study planning and deep learning approaches, whereas low-achieving students adopted superficial learning approaches. Third, in contrast to low-achieving students, high-achieving students exhibited better time management and studied consistently. Finally, high-achieving students proactively sought external support and made changes to overcome challenges. In contrast, low-achieving students were less resilient and tended to avoid challenges.
CONCLUSION: Based on the theory of action, high-achieving students utilize positive governing variables, whereas low-achieving students are driven by negative governing variables. Hence, governing variable-based remediation is needed to help low-achieving students interrogate the motives behind their actions and realign positive governing variables, actions, and intended outcomes.Key MessagesThis study found four themes describing the differences between high- and low-achieving pre-clinical medical students: motivation and expectation, study methods, self-management, and flexibility of mindset.Based on the theory of action approach, high-achieving pre-clinical medical students are fundamentally different from their low-achieving peers in terms of their governing variables, with the positive governing variables likely to have guided them to act in a manner beneficial to and facilitating desirable academic performance.Governing variable-based remediation may help students interrogate the motives of their actions.