Category: BMERG work

Adding to the BMERG blog series on building community, our BMERG Journal Club lead Dr Claire Hudson reflects on the discussion from our recent BMERG journal club session focussing on Self-regulated Learning.

Paper reviewed: Zarei Hajiabadi, Z., Sandars, J., Norcini, J. and Gandomkar R, 2023. The potential of structured learning diaries for combining the development and assessment of self-regulated learning. Adv in Health Sci Educ. pp1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-023-10239-6

As the first journal club hosted by BMERG, I wanted to choose a research topic that focussed on medical students, but also assessed teaching and learning strategies applicable to other student groups. As someone who predominantly teaches MSc students within the Bristol Medical School, I have my own interest in student autonomy of learning, whether this is self-regulated learning (SRL) or self-directed learning (SDL) – there is a difference, explained by Gandomkar and Sandars in their paper, “Clearing the confusion about self-directed learning and self-regulated learning“[1].

The general premise of SRL is a cycle of planning, performing and evaluating, but in the context of a specific task; at least that’s my very simple interpretation.

What was the research?

The purpose of the main research study was to determine whether an SRL intervention could help academically low-achieving medical students perform better in a specific exam. The SRL intervention consisted of Structured Self-Regulated Learning (SSRL) diaries accompanied by SRL training over a 4-week period, delivered to 20 students who subsequently sat the exam. The SSRL diaries consisted of 21 questions based around constructs aligned with the SRL model proposed by Zimmerman (2002) [2]. The scores in this exam, and a broader measure of academic attainment across the year, were compared to a matched group of students from a previous year, who did not receive the intervention. In an earlier publication, Zarei Hajiabadi et al (2022), they reported that the exam grade was higher in the intervention group compared to the ‘quasi’ control, but overall attainment (GPA score) was not different [3].

In the 2023 publication, the authors sought to determine:

1. whether the SSRL diaries can act as a reliable measurement of SRL development over time
2. what the efficacy of the intervention (SSRL diaries + training) was for developing SRL skills

They determined 1) by conducting internal consistency and generalisability analyses of the SSRL entries and 2) by taking the mean scores for different SRL attributes from the SSRL diaries and determining their change over time using ANOVA.

To summarise, the authors documented good generalisability scores, and they conclude that their intervention increased the students self-reported SRL abilities.

What did we think?

Firstly, the complexity of the aforementioned consistency and generalisability analyses went over the heads of most in our discussion group, and we felt that the paper was overly complicated. We wish we’d read the 2022 paper first (linked below), which is a simpler, more interesting and more pertinent publication, so I advise doing that!

The ‘quasi’ control group from a previous cohort was a study limitation, however this is a common study design when trying to measure the efficacy of a teaching intervention. There are issues with a classical experimental design, i.e., a control versus intervention group; if you hypothesise that your intervention will benefit the students then the control group may be unfairly disadvantaged.

We also questioned the authors’ conclusion that the intervention increased the students self-reported SRL abilities. Students rated their SRL abilities via the SSRL diary over a 4-week timescale, however, since the students were also studying for the exam during this period, these skills may naturally have increased leading up to the exam, in spite of the SRL training and diary. It’s very hard to determine cause and effect in this instance.

Overall reflections

This paper provoked some interesting discussion; with the diversity of our student populations it is natural that some students require additional support more than others. However, we questioned whether it is appropriate to ‘target’ lower-achieving students, and how labelling students in such ways could be demoralising. Providing additional support as an optional resource also has its limitations, since the students who don’t engage are often the ones who would benefit most. I think most educators are familiar with this problem. However, for students that have performed poorly, for example failed an assessment at first attempt, then interventions to help them study more effectively for a second attempt should be encouraged.  

The SSRL diaries provide good suggestions for questions/prompts that encourage goal setting, self-monitoring and self-evaluation practices; these could be incorporated into a diverse range of learning activities such as clinical skills training, exam revision or to provide momentum during MSc research projects. Overall, I enjoyed reading about this study, and it has sustained my interest in nurturing SRL and structured reflections in my students; the more ideas, the better!

References:

1. Gandomkar R, Sandars J, 2018. Clearing the confusion about self-directed learning and self-regulated learning. Med Teach. 40:8,862-863, DOI: 10.1080/0142159X.2018.1425382. Epub 2018 Jan 12. PMID: 29327634.
2. Zimmerman B, 2002. Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview, Theory Into Practice, 41:2, 64-70, DOI: 10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
3. Zarei Hajiabadi Z, Gandomkar R, Sohrabpour A & Sandars J, 2022. Developing low-achieving medical students’ self-regulated learning using a combined learning diary and explicit training intervention, Medical Teacher, 45:5,475-484, DOI: 10.1080/0142159X.2022.2152664