Relationship between learning approach, Bloom’s taxonomy, and student performance in an undergraduate Human Anatomy course

Abstract

Researchers have long been interested in understanding how different learning approaches impact learning outcomes. Learning approaches are often conceptualized as a dichotomy of superficial and deep, and learning outcomes are typically viewed on a cognitive scale that ranges from lower- to higher-order. While there appears to be an inherent relationship between learning approach and outcomes where superficial approaches lead to lower-order learning and deep approaches result in higher-order learning, this concept is not well documented. The purpose of this study is to better understand this relationship by evaluating whether student performance on higher- and lower-order examination questions is influenced by the approach a student takes when studying. To investigate this, survey and examination data were collected from an upper-level undergraduate Human Anatomy course at the University of Cincinnati. Results indicate that, on average, students in the course favored a deep approach to learning. The impact that learning approach had on examination performance was investigated using a series of analytical approaches, which revealed that students who took a deep approach to learning performed marginally better on both higher- and lower-order examination questions in lecture and practical examination settings. These results are contextualized within the literature, which highlights the need for more research surrounding the interrelatedness and dependency of categories within both learning approaches and cognitive levels.

Visuospatial ability and student approach to learning as predictors of academic performance on written versus laboratory‐based assessments in human anatomy

“…Furthermore, deep approaches have been correlated with greater performance on both higher-and lower-order examination questions in human anatomy (Thompson & Lake, 2023). Therefore, developing environments that encourage deep approaches to learning is widely thought to align with beneficial, student-centered approaches to teaching (Trigwell & Prosser, 1991).…”

“…In other fields, it is commonly reported that deep approaches have been tied to several desirable learning outcomes such as academic achievement, development of transferable skills, and other meaningful learning outcomes, while surface approaches are generally negatively correlated with these outcomes (Lizzio et al, 2002; Wilson & Fowler, 2005; Pandey & Zimitat, 2006; Diseth & Martinsen, 2010). Furthermore, deep approaches have been correlated with greater performance on both higher‐ and lower‐order examination questions in human anatomy (Thompson & Lake, 2023). Therefore, developing environments that encourage deep approaches to learning is widely thought to align with beneficial, student‐centered approaches to teaching (Trigwell & Prosser, 1991).…”

“…Nonetheless, these data reinforce the notion that increasing students' use of deep approaches to learning is a more powerful approach for changing performance outcomes in anatomy than targeting surface approaches to learning. A recent study demonstrated that encouraging a combined superficial and deep learning approach actually maximized information acquisition across cognitive levels (Thompson & Lake, 2023). This reinforces the notion that educators should place their primary focus on promoting intrinsic motivation and focused engagement in their courses when trying to improve learning outcomes in the classroom, rather than discouraging more surface‐aligned strategies that may still offer some learning benefits (Trigwell & Prosser, 1991; Hartwig & Dunlosky, 2012; Donoghue & Hattie, 2021; Walck‐Shannon et al, 2021).…”

“…and rote learning strategies. Characteristics associated with deep approaches to learning parallel higher‐order cognitive processes such as analysis, application, and evaluation of information, while surface approaches to learning parallel the lower‐order processes better outlined by the ‘remember’ and ‘understand’ levels of Bloom's taxonomy (Anderson et al, 2001; Thompson & Lake, 2023).…”

Conceptual Utility Model for the Management of Stress and Psychological Wellbeing, CMMSPW™ in a university environment: theoretical basis, structure and functionality

“…a. The learner’s individual characteristics the model identifies as factors likely or probable to varying degrees to mediate the process, students’ habitual study methods ( Thompson and Lake, 2023 ). And the student’s motivation and study strategies ( Valle-Arias et al, 1998 ; Cano-García and Hughes, 2000 ).…”