Differences between high- and low-achieving pre-clinical medical students: a qualitative instrumental case study from a theory of action perspective

References

• Yates J. Development of a 'toolkit' to identify medical students at risk of failure to thrive on the course: an exploratory retrospective case study. BMC Med Educ. 2011;11(1):95.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Maher BM, Hynes H, Sweeney C, et al. Medical school attrition-beyond the statistics a ten year retrospective study. BMC Med Educ. 2013;13(1):13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Walke YS, Samuel LJ, Bandodkar LV. A cross-sectional comparative study to determine the factors contributing to the academic performance of the high performers and low performers in 2nd year medical students. Int J Basic Clin Pharmacol. 2015;4(6):1072–1079.
   Google Scholar
• O’Neill LD, Wallstedt B, Eika B, et al. Factors associated with dropout in medical education: a literature review. Med Educ. 2011;45(5):440–454.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holder NAKA. The hows and whys of academic failure among year 1 struggling students Kuala Lumpur. Malaysia: Universiti Malaya; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Yusoff MSB, Pa MNM, Mey SC, et al. A longitudinal study of relationships between previous academic achievement, emotional intelligence and personality traits with psychological health of medical students during stressful periods. Educ Health. 2013;26(1):39–47.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Melaku L, Mossie A, Negash A. Stress among medical students and its association with substance use and academic performance. J Biomed Educ. 2015;2015:1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Artino AR Jr, Hemmer PA, Durning SJ. Using self-regulated learning theory to understand the beliefs, emotions, and behaviors of struggling medical students. Acad Med. 2011;86(10 Suppl):S35–S8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Todres M, Tsimtsiou Z, Sidhu K, et al. Medical students’ perceptions of the factors influencing their academic performance: an exploratory interview study with high-achieving and re-sitting medical students . Med Teach. 2012;34(5):e325–e31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mirza IA, Usmani A. Attribution to success and failure among medical students. Experience at Bahria University Medical and Dental College Karachi. Pak Armed Forces Med J. 2017;6(67):890–898.
   Google Scholar
• Aleidi SM, Elayah E, Zraiqat D, et al. Factors affecting the academic performance of medical, dental, and pharmacy students in Jordan. Jordan J Pharm Sci. 2020;13(2):169–182.
   Google Scholar
• Lievens F, Coetsier P, De Fruyt F, et al. Medical students’ personality characteristics and academic performance: a five-factor model perspective . Med Educ. 2002;36(11):1050–1056.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khalil MK, Williams SE, Hawkins HG. The use of learning and study strategies inventory (LASSI) to investigate differences between low vs high academically performing medical students. Med Sci Educ. 2020;30(1):287–292.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Alexander PA, Schallert DL, Reynolds RE. What is learning anyway? A topographical perspective considered. Educ Psychol. 2009;44(3):176–192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel R, Tarrant C, Bonas S, et al. The struggling student: a thematic analysis from the self-regulated learning perspective . Med Educ. 2015;49(4):417–426.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abdulghani HM, Al-Drees AA, Khalil MS, et al. What factors determine academic achievement in high achieving undergraduate medical students? A qualitative study. Med Teach. 2014;36(sup1):S43–S8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vergel J, Quintero GA, Isaza-Restrepo A, et al. The influence of different curriculum designs on students’ dropout rate: a case study. Med Educ Online. 2018;23(1):1432963.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chou CL, Kalet A, Costa MJ, et al. Guidelines: the dos, don’ts and don’t knows of remediation in medical education. Perspect Med Educ. 2019;8(6):322–338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casey PM, Palmer BA, Thompson GB, et al. Predictors of medical school clerkship performance: a multispecialty longitudinal analysis of standardized examination scores and clinical assessments. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16(1):128– 128.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yin RK. Case study research: design and methods. Vol. 5. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Patton MQ. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 4th ed. Saint Paul, MN: SAGE Publications, Inc; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Christle CA, Jolivette K, Nelson CM. School characteristics related to high school dropout rates. Remedial and Special Education. 2007;28(6):325–339.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hays R. Integration in medical education: what do we mean? Educ Prim Care. 2013;24(3):151–152.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Argyris C, Schon DA. Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 1974. p. 224.
   Google Scholar
• Argyris C. Learning and teaching: a theory of action perspective. J High Educ Policy Manag. 1997;21(1):9–26.
   Google Scholar
• Argyris C. Action science and organizational learning. J Managerial Psych. 1995;10(6):20–26.
   Google Scholar
• Argyris C. Inner contradictions of rigorous research. California: Academic Press; 1980.
   Google Scholar
• Xiang Y, Dahlin M, Cronin J, et al. Do high flyers maintain their attitude?. Performance trends of top students. Washington D.C.: Thomas B. Fordham Institute; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Loveless T, Parkas S, Duffett A. High-achieving students in the era of NCLB. Washington D.C.: Thomas B. Fordham Institute; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Bromberg M, Theokas C. Breaking the glass ceiling of achievement for low-income students and students of color. Shattering expectations series. Washington, D.C: Education Trust; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Holder NAKA, Sim ZL, Foong CC, et al. Developing a reflection guiding tool for underperforming medical students: an action research project. TJHE. 2019;7(1):115–163.
   Google Scholar
• Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.
   Google Scholar
• King N. Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In: Catherine Cassell GS, editor. Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2004. p. 256.
   Google Scholar
• Varpio L, Ajjawi R, Monrouxe LV, et al. Shedding the cobra effect: problematising thematic emergence, triangulation, saturation and member checking. Med Educ. 2017;51(1):40–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denzin NK. The research act: a theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New Jersey: Aldine Transaction; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Patton MQ. Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Serv Res. 1999;34(5 Pt 2):1189–1208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferguson E, James D, Madeley L. Factors associated with success in medical school: systematic review of the literature. BMJ. 2002;324(7343):952–957.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liles J, Vuk J, Tariq S. Study habits of medical students: an analysis of which study habits most contribute to success in the preclinical years. Med Ed Publish. 2018;7(1):61.
   Google Scholar
• Yip MC. Differences between high and low academic achieving university students in learning and study strategies: a further investigation. Educ Res Eval. 2009;15(6):561–570.
   Google Scholar
• Shukri AK, Mubarak AS. Factors of academic success among undergraduate medical students in Taif University, Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study. Int J Pharm. 2019;8(1):158–170.
   Google Scholar
• Hashim R, Hameed S, Ayyub A, et al. What went wrong: why did I fail. Pak Armed Forces Med J. 2014;64(2):343–346.
   Google Scholar
• Cleland J, Leggett H, Sandars J, et al. The remediation challenge: theoretical and methodological insights from a systematic review. Med Educ. 2013;47(3):242–251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenwood J. The role of reflection in single and double loop learning. J Adv Nurs. 1998;27(5):1048–1053.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Argyris C. Double-loop learning, teaching, and research. AMLE. 2002;1(2):206–218.
   Google Scholar
• Argyris C. Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making. Adm Sci Q. 1976;21(3):363–375.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denison AR, Currie AE, Laing MR, et al. Good for them or good for us? The role of academic guidance interviews. Med Educ. 2006;40(12):1188–1191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Synnott M. Reflection and double loop learning: the case of HS2. Teach Public Adm. 2013;31(1):124–134.
   Google Scholar
• Chaput de Saintonge DM. The helpless learner: a pilot study in clinical students. Med Teacher. 1998;20(6):583–586.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chandra S, Huebert CA, Crowley E, et al. Impostor syndrome: could it be holding you or your mentees back? Chest. 2019;156(1):26–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Usher EL, Pajares F. Sources of self-efficacy in school: critical review of the literature and future directions. Rev Educ Res. 2008;78(4):751–796.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korstjens I, Moser A. Series: practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: trustworthiness and publishing. Eur J Gen Pract. 2018;24(1):120–124.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hysenbegasi A, Hass SL, Rowland CR. The impact of depression on the academic productivity of university students. J Ment Health Policy Econ. 2005;8(3):145.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joo S-H, Durband DB, Grable J. The academic impact of financial stress on college students. J College Student Retention: Res Theory Practice. 2008;10(3):287–305.
   Google Scholar
• Jouhari Z, Haghani F, Changiz T. Factors affecting self-regulated learning in medical students: a qualitative study. Med Educ Online. 2015;20(1):28694.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vasileiou K, Barnett J, Thorpe S, et al. Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period. BMC Med Res Method. 2018;18(1):1–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar