Presentation Description
Andy Wearn1
Sanjeev Krishna, Michael Chieng, Shomel Gauznabi, George Shand and Nathan Ryckman1
1 University Of Auckland
Sanjeev Krishna, Michael Chieng, Shomel Gauznabi, George Shand and Nathan Ryckman1
1 University Of Auckland
Background:
Medical students are expected to learn and gain competencies in applied clinical knowledge. Progress testing (PT) is intended to assist in knowledge acquisition and promote ongoing recall and review. This study explored student preparation for PT, relationships between approach and performance, and patterns of support.
Medical students are expected to learn and gain competencies in applied clinical knowledge. Progress testing (PT) is intended to assist in knowledge acquisition and promote ongoing recall and review. This study explored student preparation for PT, relationships between approach and performance, and patterns of support.
Summary:
A cross-sectional survey exploring study approach and individual student context was designed. Students self-reported their aggregate grade for each completed year. The survey was sent to all clinical students at two sites (n=297). A positivist approach was taken for quantitative data, and a constructivist view for qualitative data.
Results:
129 students responded (43.4%). Most had stable performance over time, whilst 22 students had improving or deteriorating aggregate grades. Most students reported doing regular weekly background study (87.0%). Almost all students accessed basic feedback on their PT performance (94.1%), but few accessed the learning points and linked resources (12.7%). Poor early PT performance was associated with having an improvement strategy (X2 6.954, p=0,008). Students never falling below satisfactory were less likely to have an improvement strategy (X2 10.084, p=0.001). A third of students reported events that impacted their study, and accessing pastoral care was associated with poorer performance (X2 4.701, p=0.030).
Discussion & Conclusions:
Student approaches to PT preparation are diverse and have variable efficacy. Students who performed poorly early in the programme and had targeted support, improved performance over time. Using question banks alone was insufficient to impact results without additional approaches. External impacts to performance were common. The feedback provided on their individualised dashboard was underutilised, suggesting a need to improve feedback literacy and ensure that information provided is fit-for-purpose.
Take-home:
1. Targeted support helped students to develop strategies to improve
2. Non-academic support also plays a part in performance
3. Best intentions for individualised feedback may not meet student need