Approaches to Learning for the ANZCA Final Examination and Validation of the Revised Study Process Questionnaire in Specialist Medical Training

Abstract

When evaluating assessments, the impact on learning is often overlooked. Approaches to learning can be deep, surface and strategic. To provide insights into exam quality, we investigated the learning approaches taken by trainees preparing for the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) Final Exam. The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) was modified and validated for this context and was administered to ANZCA advanced trainees. Additional questions were asked about perceived value for anaesthetic practice, study time and approaches to learning for each exam component. Overall, 236 of 690 trainees responded (34%). Responses indicated both deep and surface approaches to learning with a clear preponderance of deep approaches. The anaesthetic viva was valued most highly and the multiple choice question component the least. Despite this, respondents spent the most time studying for the multiple choice questions. The traditionally low short answer questions pass rate could not be explained by limited study time, perceived lack of value or study approaches. Written responses suggested that preparation for multiple choice questions was characterised by a surface approach, with rote memorisation of past questions. Minimal reference was made to the ANZCA syllabus as a guide for learning. These findings indicate that, although trainees found the exam generally relevant to practice and adopted predominantly deep learning approaches, there was considerable variation between the four components. These results provide data with which to review the existing ANZCA Final Exam and comparative data for future studies of the revisions to the ANZCA curriculum and exam process.

The Impact of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists’ Specialist Examinations on Trainee Learning and Wellbeing: A Qualitative Study

“…We attempted to address this bias through using researchers with no involvement in the anaesthesia training program to conduct the interviews and undertake the primary analysis. The small number of interviewees in a qualitative study limits generalisability of findings, but our numbers were consistent with usual sample sizes in qualitative research and the data is consistent with findings in a previous study including 236 survey respondents 19 .…”

“…In a previous study 19 , we surveyed anaesthesia trainees on their approaches to learning for the ANZCA Final Examination. Respondents used both deep and surface approaches, with a clear preponderance of deep approaches.…”

“…Data for this study (and the trainee survey 19 ) were from trainees experiencing the 2004 ANZCA Curriculum. Changes to the ANZCA training program in 2013 included an early assessment of anaesthetic competence in the first six months of training, a more clinical focus to the Primary Examination, which may not be taken before at least six months of anaesthesia training and the introduction of workplace-based assessments 32 .…”

Impact of Faculty Development Workshops in Student‐Centered Teaching Methodologies on Faculty Members’ Teaching and Their Students’ Perceptions

“…36 In contrast to our results (Figure 3), Sullivan et al described a higher deep to surface approach to learning ratio of 1.49 for 46 finalyear UK medical students, 37 while Weller et al found an even higher ratio of 1.87 in 236 medical trainees preparing for the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists final exam. 38 Our study had some limitations, the most evident of which is the short observation period. Indeed, it appears that one year is not long enough to see the full benefits of a faculty development program in teaching and learning skills development.…”

“…34 38 Our study had some limitations, the most evident of which is the short observation period. Pandey and Zimitat found a 0.97 proportion in first-year medical students studying anatomy at an Australian university.…”