A total of 228 students completed the survey, with the majority of students coming from the School of Health-Related Professions, the School of Medicine, and the School of Dentistry (Fig. 1). The overall response rate is approximately 6%. Around 80% of the participants in the study were born after 1985, with over half of them falling into the category of either millennials or Generation Z, having been born after 1994 (Fig. 2). Most participants were in the first, second, or third year of their programs, with majority in their first year.
When asked how they learn best, 71% of students responded “by doing”, as opposed to “by seeing/reading” or “by listening” (p < 0.001, Chi-squared test). Several stated that a combination of “by seeing/reading” and “by doing” was how they learned best. An example of this integration of passive and active styles is seen in the “flipped classroom” model, where students are introduced to content at home first and then practice working through it with the instructor in a facilitated manner. When asked if they felt that flipped classroom was helpful, 63% of participants answered “yes” (p = 0.004, Chi-squared test). Most of participants (63%) said they preferred active learning better than passive learning (p = 0.007, Chi-squared test).
The survey asked about specific types of active learning techniques. Students specifically reported that case workshops (77%, p < 0.001), gaming (66%, p = 0.001), and team-based learning (63%, p = 0.004) were beneficial to their education. When participants were asked to rank various learning tools listed in Table 2, “Working problems” emerged as the highest-ranked tool, while “Article reading” receiving the lowest ranking. When participants were asked to rank the technology tools presented in Table 3, "Online videos" and "Recorded lectures" emerged as the highest-ranked tools.
Table 2. Participants’ ranking on study tools
Study Tools
|
Rank (median)
|
IQR
|
Significant Influence
|
Working problems (A)
|
8
|
7-9
|
SON
|
Study guides (A)
|
6
|
4-8
|
SHRP
|
Class discussions (A)
|
6
|
4-8
|
SOM
|
Classroom lecture (P)
|
5
|
3-8
|
SOD, SOM
|
Online lecture (P)
|
5
|
3-7
|
|
Small groups (A)
|
5
|
3-7
|
|
Book reading (P)
|
5
|
3-7
|
SOD
|
Article reading (P)
|
3
|
1-5
|
SOD, SOM
|
Table 2. Tools were ranked from most helpful (8) to least helpful (1), with the median ranking for each tool shown. Participants instructed to put “0” for tools they do not find helpful at all. In the right column, programs in red designate that they tended to rank the tool lower than other programs did, while programs in green designate that they tended to rank the tool higher than other programs did. A Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA test had to be used to determine p-value because the data were not normally distributed (p < 0.001). “IQR”- interquartile range, “SON” – School of Nursing, “SHRP” – School of Health-Related Professions “SOD” – School of Dentistry, “SOM” – School of Medicine. “A”- Active learning; “P”-Passive learning
Table 3. Participants’ ranking on technology tools
Technology Tools
|
Rank (median)
|
IQR
|
Significant Influence
|
Online videos
|
6
|
4-8
|
|
Recorded lectures
|
5
|
3-7
|
|
Do it yourself
|
5
|
4-8
|
|
Games
|
4
|
3-5
|
SOD, SOM
|
Electronic textbook
|
3
|
1-5
|
|
Podcast
|
3
|
1-5
|
SOM
|
Table 3. Technology tools were ranked from most helpful (8) to least helpful (1), with the median ranking for each tool shown. In the right column, programs in red designate that they tended to rank the tool lower than other programs did, while programs in green designate that they tended to rank the tool higher than other programs did. A Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA test had to be used to determine p-value because the data were not normally distributed (p < 0.001). “IQR”- interquartile range, “SON” – School of Nursing, “SHRP” – School of Health-Related Professions, “SOD” – School of Dentistry, “SOM” – School of Medicine.
Participants were also asked to classify themselves into a level of educational engagement as defined by Phillip Schlecty in his book “Engaging Students: The Next Level of Working on the Work” (9). Ranked from highest level of engagement to lowest, the levels are engagement, strategic compliance, ritual compliance, retreatism, and rebellion. The definitions of each level and the results from the survey question can be seen in Table 4. Overall, most participants (67%) believed they are at the highest level of engagement, with very few (2%) identifying with the lowest level. It is worth noting that the School of Dentistry students tended to place themselves within the middle range of the levels of engagement, with fewer of them identifying with the highest level.
Table 4. Responses on levels of educational engagement as defined by Phillip Schlecty
Engagement Level
|
Definition
|
Respond Count
|
Significant Influence
|
Engagement
|
You associate the task with the result or product that has meaning and value. You will persist in the face of difficulty if your extrinsic goals are met or not.
|
153
|
SOD
|
Strategic Compliance
|
The task has little inherent or direct value to you but you associate it with the outcomes or results that do have value to you (such as grades). You will abandon work if extrinsic goals are not realized.
|
50
|
Ritual Compliance
|
You are willing to expend whatever effort is needed to avoid negative consequences. The emphasis is on meeting the minimal requirements, you don’t feel necessary to go above or beyond this.
|
19
|
Retreatism
|
You are disengaged from the task and do not attempt to comply with the program's demands. You are not disruptive to others but you do not feel it necessary or beneficial to participate.
|
2
|
Rebellion
|
You don't try to complete your work, and you talk to your peers during class instead of listening. You have become very frustrated and bitter about your educational process and may have developed a negative attitude.
|
4
|
Table 4. Engagement Levels based on Phillip Schlecty’s book “Engaging Students: The Next Level of Working on the Work” (9) can be seen here, listed from highest to lowest levels of engagement. “Count” column lists the response numbers for different levels. In the rightest column, one program (SOD) in red designate that they tended to rank the levels lower (p < 0.001). “SOD” – School of Dentistry.
When participants were asked whether the teaching in their respective programs enables them to best understand material in order to pass board exams and enter their future careers, approximately 60% of participants responded “Yes” while around 40% responded “No” (p = 0.04, Chi-squared test). It indicates that there is a possible association between participants' perceptions of teaching effectiveness and their performance on high stakes examinations.