Motivational component profiles in university students learning histology: a comparative study between genders and different health science curricula

BMC Medical Education

Miguel Alaminos¹  Tomás Sola²  Miguel-Ángel Martín-Piedra¹  Víctor Carriel¹  Juan Antonio López-Núñez²  Antonio Campos-Sánchez² 

[1] Department of Histology, School of Medicine, University of Granada, Avenida de Madrid, 11 E18071 Granada, Spain;Department of Didactics and School Organization, School of Education, University of Granada, Campus de Cartuja, E18071 Granada, Spain

关键词: Health sciences;    Histology;    Curriculum;    Components;    Motivation;   

Others  :  1118245
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6920-14-46

 received in 2013-02-05, accepted in 2014-02-11,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The students’ motivation to learn basic sciences in health science curricula is poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of different components of motivation (intrinsic motivation, self-determination, self-efficacy and extrinsic -career and grade- motivation) on learning human histology in health science curricula and their relationship with the final performance of the students in histology.

Methods

Glynn Science Motivation Questionnaire II was used to compare students’ motivation components to learn histology in 367 first-year male and female undergraduate students enrolled in medical, dentistry and pharmacy degree programs.

Results

For intrinsic motivation, career motivation and self-efficacy, the highest values corresponded to medical students, whereas dentistry students showed the highest values for self-determination and grade motivation. Genders differences were found for career motivation in medicine, self-efficacy in dentistry, and intrinsic motivation, self-determination and grade motivation in pharmacy. Career motivation and self-efficacy components correlated with final performance in histology of the students corresponding to the three curricula.

Conclusions

Our results show that the overall motivational profile for learning histology differs among medical, dentistry and pharmacy students. This finding is potentially useful to foster their learning process, because if they are metacognitively aware of their motivation they will be better equipped to self-regulate their science-learning behavior in histology. This information could be useful for instructors and education policy makers to enhance curricula not only on the cognitive component of learning but also to integrate students’ levels and types of motivation into the processes of planning, delivery and evaluation of medical education.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Campos-Sánchez et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Kusurkar RA, Croiset G, Mann KV, Custers E, Ten Cate O: Have motivation theories guided the development and reform of medical education curricula? A review of the literature. Acad Med 2012, 87:735-743.
• [2]Blumenfeld PC, Kempler TM, Krajcik JS: Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environments. In The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Edited by Sawyer RK. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2006:475-488.
• [3]Eccles JS, Wigfield A: Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annu Rev Psychol 2002, 53:109-132.
• [4]Pintrich PR: A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. J Educ Psychol 2003, 95:667-686.
• [5]Kusurkar RA, Ten Cate TJ, van Asperen M, Croiset G: Motivation as an independent and a dependent variable in medical education: a review the literature. Med Teach 2011, 33:242-262.
• [6]Maslow AH: A theory of achievement motivation. In Twentieth Century Psychology: Recent Developments in Psychology. Edited by Harriman PL. North Stratford, NH: Ayer Publishing; 1970:22-48.
• [7]Franken RE: Motivation for achievement and power. In Human Motivation. 2nd edition. Edited by Franken RE. Pacific Grove, Calif: Brookes/Cole Publishing Co; 1988:420.
• [8]Atkinson JW: Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. In A Theory of Achievement Motivation. Edited by Atkinson JW, Feather NT. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1966:11-29.
• [9]Weiner B: Achievement Motivation and Attribution Theory. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press; 1974.
• [10]Deci EL, Ryan RM: Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York, NY: Plenum; 1985.
• [11]Pintrich PR: An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation terminology, theory, and research. Contemp Educ Psychol 2000, 25:92-104.
• [12]Bandura A: Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 1986.
• [13]Bandura A: Social cognitive theory. In Annals of child development. Volume 6. Edited by Vasta R. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press; 1989:1-66.
• [14]Bandura A: Social cognitive theory: an agentive perspective. Annu Rev Psychol 2001, 52:1-26.
• [15]Bryan RR, Glynn SM, Kittleson JM: Motivation, achievement, and advanced placement intent of high school students learning science. Sci Educ 2011, 95:1049-1063.
• [16]Glynn SM, Brickman P, Armstrong N, Taasoobshirazi G: Science motivation questionnaire II: validation with science majors and nonscience majors. J Res Sci Teach 2011, 48:1159-1176.
• [17]Mann KV: Motivation in medical education: How theory can inform our practice. Acad Med 1999, 74:237-239.
• [18]Bandura A: Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev 1977, 34:191-215.
• [19]Ryan RM, Deci EL: Self-determination theory and facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. Am Psychol 2000, 55:68-78.
• [20]Eccles JS, Simpkins SD, Davis-Kean PE: Math and science motivation: a longitudinal examination of the links between choices and beliefs. Dev Psychol 2006, 2006(42):70-83.
• [21]Mazlo J, Dormedy D, Neimoth-Anderson JD, Urlacher T, Carson GA, Kelter PB: Assessment of motivational methods in the general chemistry laboratory. J Coll Sci Teach 2002, 36:318-321.
• [22]Black AE, Deci EL: The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: a self- determination theory perspective. Sci Edu 2000, 84:740-756.
• [23]Baldwin J, Ebert-May D, Burns D: The development of a college biology self-efficacy instrument for non-majors. Sci Educ 1999, 83:397-408.
• [24]Lawson AE, Banks DL, Logvin M: Self-efficacy, reasoning ability, and achievement in college biology. J Res Sci Teach 2007, 44:706-724.
• [25]Lin YG, McKeachie WJ, Kim YC: College student intrinsic and/or extrinsic motivation and learning. Learn Individ Differ 2003, 13:251-258.
• [26]Glynn SM, Koballa TRJ: Motivation to learn college science. In Handbook of college science teaching. Edited by Mintzes JJ, Leonard WH. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press; 2006:25-32.
• [27]Glynn SM, Taasoobshirazi G, Brickman P: Nonscience majors learning science: a theoretical model of motivation. J Res Sci Teach 2007, 44:1088-1107.
• [28]Glynn SM, Taasoobshirazi G, Brickman P: Science motivation questionnaire: construct validation with nonscience majors. J Res Sci Teach 2009, 46:127-146.
• [29]Crossley ML, Mubarik A: A comparative investigation of dental and medical student’s motivation towards career choice. Br Dent J 2002, 193:471-473.
• [30]Drake RI, McBride JM, Lachman N, Pawlina W: Medical education in the anatomical sciences. The winds of change continue to blow. Anat Sci Educ 2009, 2:253-259.
• [31]Koballa TRJ, Glynn SM: Attitudinal and motivational constructs in science learning. In Handbook of research on science education. Edited by Abell SK, Lederman NG. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2007:75-102.
• [32]Osborne J, Simon S, Collins S: Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its implications. Int J Sci Educ 2003, 25:1049-1079.
• [33]Figg WD, Cox MC: Pharmacy education: back to the basics? Pharmacother 2003, 23:1381-1390.
• [34]Humphrey SP, Mathews RE, Kaplan AL, Beeman CS: Undergraduate basic science preparation for dental school. J Dent Educ 2002, 66:1252-1259.
• [35]Witt-Enderby PA, McFalls-Stringert MA: The integration of basic cell biology concepts into the practice of pharmacy. Am J Pharm Educ 2004, 68:1-9.
• [36]Hightower JA, Boockfor FR, Blake CA, Millette CF: The standard medical microscopic anatomy course: histology circa 1998. Anat Rec 1999, 257:96-101.
• [37]Husmann PR, O’Loughlin VD, Braun MW: Quantitative and qualitative changes in teaching histology by means of virtual microscopy in an introductory course in human anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 2009, 2:218-226.
• [38]Shaw PA, Friedman ES: Clinico-histologic conferences: histology and disease. Anat Sci Educ 2012, 5:55-61.
• [39]Merk M, Knuechel R, Perez-Bouza A: Web-based virtual microscopy at the RWTH Aachen university: didactic concept, methods and analysis of acceptance by the students. Ann Anat 2010, 192:383-387.
• [40]Tufts MA, Higgins-Opitz SB: What makes the learning of physiology in a PBL medical curriculum challenging? Student perceptions. Adv Physiol Educ 2009, 33:87-195.
• [41]Vasan NS, DeFouw DO, Compton S: Team-based learning in anatomy: an efficient, effective, and economical strategy. Anat Sci Educ 2011, 4:333-339.
• [42]Campos-Sánchez A, Martín-Piedra MA, Carriel V, González-Andrades M, Garzón I, Sánchez-Quevedo MC, Alaminos M: Reception learning and self-discovery learning in histology: students’ perceptions and their implications for assessing the effectiveness of different learning modalities. Anat Sci Educ 2012, 5:273-280.
• [43]Sanfeliz M, Stalzer M: Science motivation in the multicultural classroom. Sci Teach 2003, 70:64-66.
• [44]Hulsman RL, Van der einde JSJ, Oort FJ, Michels RPJ, Casteelen G, Griffioen FMM: Effectiveness of selection in medical school admissions: evaluations of the outcomes among freshmen. Med Educ 2007, 41:369-377.
• [45]Xie Y, Shauman KA: Women in science: Career processes and outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2003.
• [46]Kusurkar R, Kruitwagen EC, Ten Cate O, Croiset G: Effects of age, gender and educational background on strength of motivation for medical school. Adv Health Sci Educ 2010, 15:303-313.
• [47]Campos Muñoz A: Objetivos conceptuales y metodológicos de la investigación histológica. Educ Med 2004, 7:36-40.
• [48]DeVellis RF: Scale development: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage; 2003.
• [49]Susan M, Brookhart SM, Jarol G, DeVoge : Testing a theory about the role of classroom assessment in student motivation and achievement. Appl Meas Educ 1999, 12:409-425.
• [50]Turan S, Valcke M, De Maeseneer J, Aper L, Koole S, De Wispelaere C, Deketelaere A, Derese A: A novel medical achievement self-efficacy scale (MASS): a valid and reliable tool. Med Teach 2013, 35:575-580.
• [51]Bong M: Between- and within-domain relations of academic motivation among middle and high school students: Self-efficacy, task-value, and achievement goals. J Educ Psychol 2001, 93:23-34.
• [52]Chemers MM, Hu L, Garcia BF: Academic self-efficacy and first year college student performance and adjustment. J Educ Psychol 2001, 93:55-64.
• [53]Taasoobshirazi G, Carr M: A structural equation model of expertise in college physics. J Educ Psychol 2009, 101:630-643.
• [54]Zusho A, Pintrich PR: Skill and will: the role of motivation and cognition in the learning of college chemistry. Int J Sci Educ 2003, 25:1081-1094.
• [55]Gallagher J, Clarke W, Wilson N: Understanding the motivation: a qualitative study of dental students’ choice of professional career. Eur Dent Educ 2008, 12:89-98.
• [56]Vaglum P, Wiers-Jennsen J, Ekeberg O: Motivation for medical school: the relationship to gender and specialty preferences in a nation-wide sample. Med Educ 1999, 33:236-242.
• [57]Boiche JCS, Sarrazin PGS, Grouzet FME, Pelletier LG, Chanal J: Students’ motivational profiles and achievement outcomes in physical education: a self-determination perspective. J Educ Psychol 2008, 100:688-701.
• [58]Waldman HB: College major and its relation to performance in dental school and on licensing examinations. J Dent Educ 1982, 46:163-165.