Conclusiones Generales

As noted in Chapter 1, there is no consensus on the definitions of key terms such as “learning” or “understanding,” and no context-dependent learning theory has been published to focus or guide additional educational research within biology or the associated sub-discipline of anatomy & physiology. However, previous work from SAL has produced learning theories that have been applied within specific contexts.

The Australian Group, led by John Biggs, utilized quantitative methods to categorize student learning approaches as surface or deep. This led to the develop- ment of the Presage-Process-Product (3P) Model [Biggs et al., 2001] (see Figure 2.1) in which students’ approaches to learning are situated within a larger educational system that includes dynamic interactions between student factors, teaching context, on-task approaches to learning, and learning outcomes. The Presage factors (termed “predictive” factors in some literature) include Teaching Context and Student Fac- tors. Teaching context, as defined by Biggs includes the overall learning environment, course and exam design, teaching and assessment methods, and the instructor’s be-

Figure 2.1: The 3P (Presage-Process-Product) Model for student approaches to learning [Biggs et al., 2001].

liefs. Student factors were defined by Biggs to include information processing skills, personality, age, prior knowledge, motivation, and preferred approaches to learning. The Process factor includes the single area of Learning Activities, defined as “how students approach a task.” This included actual approaches to learning within the context, which encompasses motivation and study strategies. The Product factor in- cludes the single area of Learning Outcomes, which included quantitative, qualitative and affective results.

In his review of the contributions of Biggs, Barattuci [2017] describes the 3P Model in this way:

With regard to predictive variables, we can see that the student’s indi- vidual characteristics include information processing skills, personality, age, prior knowledge in similar or preparatory subjects, prediction of suc- cess, motivation. The characteristics of the educational context include environmental variables such as course and exam design, teaching and assessment methods, type of exams, teachers’ beliefs about teaching and students. Compared to the previous [versions of] models, the division into

groups of variables involved in the learning process, is neither strict nor unidirectional. In fact, not only changes in predictive variables can de- termine changes in approach to study and, as a results, in outcomes, but outcomes, in turn, can affect the subsequent learning experiences and can act backwards by influencing process and predictive variables. ([Barattuci, 2017, pg. 82-83])

Therefore, the 3P Model serves as a fruitful starting point or framework from which to better understand these processes in specific contexts.

Previous research has been conducted using the 3P Model [Biggs et al., 2001] as a theoretical framework. Clinton [2014] sought to examine the impact of a student’s preferred approach to learning on the Process stage of the model. In her work, she asked 67 participants to read and comment, using a think-aloud protocol, on expository texts about different scientific concepts. Participants also completed the revised Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F), an instrument developed by Biggs et al. [2001] and described in Chapter 1, and pre- and post-testing using open-ended questions to assess information recall and deeper understanding. While the data analysis showed some positive correlations of accurate answers on comprehension questions and students scoring with a high deep approach to learning, I have concerns about the design of this study. First, the task set before the students was “artificial,” meaning the tasks were not a part of a specific context. While this is similar to the work of Marton and Saljo [1976], more recent scholarship has highlighted the importance of this aspect of SAL. In addition, Clinton notes that student approach to learning is not a fixed characteristic, but then administers the R-SPQ-2F after the reading, think aloud, and post-term processes, activities which Biggs acknowledges to alter student approach [Clinton, 2014, Biggs et al., 2001]. Because of these issues,

it is difficult to use Clinton’s findings about learning process. In a separate study, Ganotice and Chan [2019] utilized the 3P Model to better understand the roles of specific presage, process, and product traits in the context of computer-supported interprofessional team-based learning. However, the model they produced limited the characteristics measured in each area of the model and was conceptualized as a linear process.

Others studies have sought to confirm the relationships and interactions in the 3P Model utilizing structural equation modeling. Fryer and Ginns [2017] conducted a longitudinal study to quantify the relationships theorized in the 3P Model. Their findings support the reciprocal relationships represented in the model, but note that these may not easily predict student achievement. Lee and Chan [2018] also con- ducted a longitudinal study to quantify relationships between Presage, Process, and Product areas of the model. However, they measured a single variable, student epis- temic beliefs, for the Presage area. It is notable that this student characteristic has not been associated with Student Characteristics of the 3P Model in previous work. Additionally, there was movement for some variables in the 3P Model factors demon- strated in this study. For example, student perception of the learning environment was considered a Process variable, rather than a Presage variable.

Despite the remaining questions about the 3P Model as a predictive tool, there is little question that the noted areas in the model are important factors to consider concerning student learning and that there are interactions between the groups. As noted by Barattuci [2017]:

The strength of the construct approach to study lies in the fact that it is focused on a set of factors influencing the quality of learning, such as

learning and teaching environment, types of teaching and assessment, and the related students’ perceptions.

Therefore, use of the 3P Model to guide data collection in a qualitative study would be valuable. However, the Process factor of the model, also described as Learning Activities, is not fully defined or described by Biggs et al. [2001]. Given the aim of this study is to better understand these processes, previous research in A&P education provides additional structure and detail for this area of the 3P Model.

2.2

Learning Activities in Anatomy & Physiology