The 20-question Revised Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F), which is frequently used to categorize student learning approaches as either deep or surface, was administered to three sections of Anatomy & Physiology (A&P) courses at a highest research university in the southeastern United States as part of a larger research project. Two hundred thirty-one (231) respondents completed the full survey and 11 participants were recruited to a comparative case study. Initial review of interview transcripts raised concerns about the validity of the R-SPQ-2F results with the population of interest. Interview transcripts were coded using a priori codes corresponding to the R-SPQ-2F items, and qualitative and quantitative results were then triangulated. Additional survey responses were collected in a subsequent semester and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed using the complete responses from 381 students. The CFA yielded similar or better measures of reliability and fit to the two-factor structure as those in previously reported work by other authors. Nonetheless, findings from triangulation suggest that the R-SPQ-2F was not able to group students by deep and surface approaches to learning in the context of an undergraduate A&P course. In addition, six interviews (3 deep, 3 surface) demonstrated a new theme of surface leading to deep with participants indicating that memorization was necessary for the purpose of gaining a full understanding of the course material. This mixed method analysis calls into question whether the results are valid for separating student approaches into the previously published descriptions of deep and surface approaches. The finding of the surface leading to deep orientation, which may align with previous descriptions of an achieving approach, has significant implications for both research and instruction, as memorizing and other “surface” strategies are often minimized and discouraged, yet are an important step in student learning.

Biology education research often utilizes the terms learning, memorizing, studying, and understanding without providing their specific definition. When definitions have been provided, they are often inconsistent across publications. As part of a larger research study, we interviewed 11 participants on 2 occasions while they were enrolled in a sequence of anatomy and physiology courses. Part of the interview protocol asked participants for their definitions of learning, memorizing, studying, and understanding. Definitions were isolated from the transcript, deidentified, and sorted by qualitative similarities. The research team developed code categories and assigned definitions to these groups after discussing coding differences. Multiple definition groups emerged for each term. Learning, memorizing, and studying definition groups highlighted processes, outcomes, or a combination of both a process and outcome. Understanding definition groups focused solely on an outcome. These findings highlight the need for communication between students and instructors with regard to term usage. In addition, future research in biology and physiology education should be careful to provide working definitions of these terms to ensure communicative and interpretive validity and to promote transferability and repeatability of findings.

This qualitative study investigated processes used by undergraduate students over a course sequence in anatomy and physiology (A&P). Longitudinal data for each participant include weekly written reflections and interviews at the beginning, middle, and end of the two-semester sequence. The themes that emerged describe three variations of approach to learning the course content. In some cases, the focus was on completing tasks and actions without connecting those to a specific outcome. In other cases, the focus was on outcomes without specific references to what steps might lead to that outcome. A third approach explicitly linked tasks and actions to one or more of nine different outcomes, including both personal and course expectations. Two other themes emerged as salient in combination with the three approaches: self-identified shortcomings with their study approaches and affective responses to the course and content. Affective responses included both positive affect such as enjoyment or excitement and negative affect such as frustration or dislike. Understanding the approaches that students take to learning, combined with their affect and shortcomings in those approaches, can inform instructor decisions about course activities and resources that support specific learning outcomes. It also provides a foundational knowledge base for the development of context-specific instruments for quantifying student learning processes in A&P.

No abstract

No abstract