What learning strategies influence higher-order learning behaviours of medical students?

Figures & data

Table

	Higher-order learning	Receptive learning strategies	Enquiry-based learning strategies	Reflective learning strategies	Integrative learning strategies	Collaborative learning strategies
Student self-harvest report	0.454	0.442	0.493	0.541	0.554	0.460

Table 1. Description of research variables.

Categorical variable		Identification of variable study design	Characteristics of variables
Dependent variables		Higher-order learning behaviour (HOC_HOL)	Time-variant
Predictor variable	Demographics	Gender and grade	Time-invariant
	Students learning strategy	Receptive learning (LS_TL), enquiry-based learning (LS_EL), reflective learning (LS_RL), integrative learning (LS_IL), cooperative learning (LS_CL)	Time-variant

Table 2. Overall description of the learning ability of medical students in provincial undergraduate colleges.

Indicator variable	Provincial undergraduate colleges (X1)	Minimal	Maximal	Chinese students norms (X2)	X1 compare X2	p Value
Receptive learning (LS_TL)	55.44 ± 18.64	8.32	100	52.52 ± 20.88	X1 > X2	.000***
Enquiry-based learning (LS_EL)	40.79 ± 16.44	5.55	100	36.99 ± 15.31	X1 > X2	.000***
Reflective learning (LS_RL)	54.32 ± 18.86	13.32	100	56.37 ± 17.25	X1 < X2	.000***
Integrative learning (LS_IL)	51.34 ± 18.77	8.32	100	51.61 ± 17.82	X1 < X2	.000***
Collaborative learning (LS_CL)	52.74 ± 17.51	6.66	100	53.04 ± 16.36	X1 < X2	.000***
Higher-order learning behaviour (HOC_HOL)	55.04 ± 21.66	8.32	100	52.52 ± 20.88	X1 > X2	.579

The Chinese Norms of medical students from Tsinghua University’s ‘Chinese Undergraduate Study and Development Tracking Survey’.

***p < .001.

Table 3. The influence of learning strategies with different demographic variables.

		Receptive learning (LS_TL)	Enquiry-based learning (LS_EL)	Reflective learning (LS_RL)	Integrative learning (LS_IL)	Collaborative learning (LS_CL)
Grade	High grade	57.42 ± 18.20	41.99 ± 16.65	57.48 ± 17.96	54.45 ± 18.88	55.22 ± 17.36
	Grade 4	54.17 ± 18.28	42.85 ± 16.39	57.70 ± 17.34	52.48 ± 15.79	56.11 ± 16.54
	Grade 3	55.77 ± 19.05	40.30 ± 15.57	52.46 ± 18.92	50.68 ± 18.62	52.54 ± 17.11
	Grade 1–2	54.02 ± 18.48	39.80 ± 17.44	53.30 ± 19.60	51.61 ± 19.84	49.91 ± 18.14
	p Value	0.307	0.354	0.012*	0.220	0.006**
Gender	Male	52.76 ± 18.44	43.19 ± 17.15	56.46 ± 19.18	53.09 ± 18.37	51.95 ± 16.98
	Female	56.42 ± 18.63	39.90 ± 16.10	53.53 ± 18.70	51.51 ± 18.91	52.03 ± 17.71
	p Value	0.015*	0.014*	0.056	0.569	0.451

*p < .05 and **p < .01.

Table 4. The influence of higher-order learning behaviours with different demographic variables.

	Grade					Gender
	High grade	Grade 4	Grade 3	Grade 1–2	p Value	Male	Female	p Value
Higher-order learning behaviour	58.54 ± 21.02	59.23 ± 19.16	53.31 ± 21.23	53.27 ± 23.14	.012*	53.49 ± 21.05	55.61 ± 21.87	.227

 * p <. 05.

Table 5. Correlation between higher-order learning behaviours with application of learning strategies.

	Higher-order learning behaviour (HOC_HOL)
	Correlation	p Value
Receptive learning (LS_TL)	0.479	.000***
Enquiry-based learning (LS_EL)	0.466	.000***
Reflective learning (LS_RL)	0.423	.000***
Integrative learning (LS_IL)	0.495	.000***
Collaborative learning (LS_CL)	0.499	.000***

***p < .001.

Table 6. Regression analysis of the impact factors of learning strategy for higher-order learning behaviours.

	Estimate	Standard deviation	Wald	df	Significance	Exp (B)
Receptive learning (LS_TL)	0.210	0.006	11.034	1	.001**	1.020
Enquiry-based learning (LS_EL)	0.200	0.008	7.070	1	.008**	1.021
Reflective learning (LS_RL)	0.000	0.007	0.001	1	.972	1.000
Integrative learning (LS_IL)	0.027	0.008	11.666	1	.001**	1.027
Collaborative learning (LS_CL)	0.024	0.007	12.269	1	.000***	1.025
Constant	–4.344	0.402	116.548	1	.000	0.013

**p < .01.

***p < .001.

Data availability statement

Additional data are available upon reasonable request.