Cognitive Flexibility Levels, Learning Approaches and Learning Strategies of The Medical Students

Çetin Toraman; Ayşen Melek Aytuğ Koşan; Mustafa Onur Yurdal

doi:10.25282/ted.589099

Araştırma Makalesi

Tıp Fakültesi Öğrencilerinin Bilişsel Esneklik Düzeyleri, Öğrenme Yaklaşımları ve Kullandıkları Öğrenme Stratejileri

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 19 Sayı: 57, 76 - 97, 30.04.2020

Çetin Toraman Ayşen Melek Aytuğ Koşan Mustafa Onur Yurdal

https://doi.org/10.25282/ted.589099

Cited By: 4

Öz

Amaç: Bu araştırmanın amacı, üniversite öğrencilerinin bilişsel esneklik düzeyleri, öğrenme yaklaşımları ile kullandıkları öğrenme stratejilerini belirlemek ve bunlar arasındaki ilişkileri incelemektir.

Gereç ve Yöntem: Araştırmada açımlayıcı desen karma araştırma yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın nicel kısmında öğrencilerin bilişsel esneklik düzeyleri, öğrenme yaklaşımları ve kullandıkları öğrenme stratejileri incelenmiş ve aralarındaki ilişkiler belirlenmiştir. Araştırmanın nitel kısmında bilişsel esneklik, öğrenme yaklaşımları ve öğrenme stratejileri ölçeğinden öğrencilerin elde ettikleri puanlar göz önünde bulundurularak, bu ölçeklerden yüksek ve düşük puan alan her dönemden iki öğrenci olmak üzere toplam on iki öğrenci odak grup olarak belirlenmiş ve bu öğrencilerle görüşme gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmanın nicel kısmında tıp fakültesi dönem I’den dönem VI’ya 626 öğrenci, nitel kısımda ise odak grupta yer alan 12 öğrenci araştırma grubunu oluşturmuştur. Veriler, bilişsel esneklik, öğrenme yaklaşımları ve öğrenme stratejileri ölçeğiyle elde edilmiştir.

Bulgular: Araştırma sonucunda tıp fakültesi öğrencilerinin bilişsel esneklik düzeyinin yüksek olduğu, derin ve yüzeysel öğrenme yaklaşımına sahip olmakla birlikte derin öğrenme yaklaşımlarının yüzeysel öğrenme yaklaşımlarından bir miktar yüksek olduğu, sosyo-duyuşsal, anlamlandırma, tekrar ve dikkat öğrenme stratejilerinin her birinden yararlandıkları belirlenmiştir. Erkeklerin yüzeysel öğrenme eğilimi kadınlardan yüksektir. Kadınlar dikkat öğrenme stratejisini erkeklerden daha çok kullanmaktadır. Çalışmada yer alan öğrenciler, sınavların kendilerinin öğrenme düzeylerini ölçmediğini, sınavların onları “bilgiyi ezberlemeye” yönlendirdiğini belirtmiştir.

Sonuçlar: Derin öğrenme yaklaşımı ile yüzeysel öğrenme yaklaşımının bir arada yüksek miktarda kullanılması bir çelişki gibi görünse de odak grup görüşmeleri göstermiştir ki; eğitim sistemi öğrencilere bazı mesajlar vermektedir: “Derin öğrenmeye çalışırsan sınıfı geçebileceğin garanti değil, ancak gereken bilgileri ezberlersen durum net: Başarı!”. Bilişsel esneklik arttıkça sosyo-duyuşsal öğrenme stratejisi kullanımı da artmaktadır. Derin öğrenme yaklaşımı arttıkça sosyo-duyuşsal öğrenme stratejisi, anlamlandırma öğrenme stratejisi ve tekrar öğrenme stratejisi kullanımı artmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bilişsel Esneklik, Öğrenme Yaklaşımı, Öğrenme Stratejisi, Tıp Eğitim

Kaynakça

1. Martin MM, Anderson CM. The cognitive flexibility scale: Three validity studies. Communication Repots. 1998 Jan; 11:1-9.
2. Dennis JP, Vander Wal JS. The cognitive flexibility inventory: Instrument development and estimates of reliability and validity. Cognitive Therapy and Research [Internet]. 2010 Jun; 34:241-53. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10608-009-9276-4 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10608-009-9276-4
3. Gülüm İV, Dağ İ. Tekrarlayıcı düşünme ölçeği ve bilişsel esneklik envanterinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması, geçerliliği ve güvenilirliği. Anadolu Psikiyatri Dergisi. 2012 Jun; 13:216-23.
4. Cropley AJ. Creativity and mental health in everyday life. Creativity Research Journal [Internet]. 1990 Nov; 3(3):167-78. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10400419009534351 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400419009534351
5. Reiter Palmon R, Mumford MD, Threlfall KV. Solving everyday problems creatively: The role of problem construction and personality type. Creativity Research Journal [Internet]. 1998 Jun; 11(3):187-97. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15326934crj1103_1 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1103_1
6. Anderson P. Assessment and development of executive function (EF) during childhood. Child Neuropsychology [Internet]. 2002 Jun; 8(2):71-82. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12638061 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/chin.8.2.71.8724
7. Eslinger PJ, Grattan LM. Frontal lobe and frontal-striatal substrates for different forms of human cognitive flexibility. Neuropsychologia [Internet]. 1993 Jan; 31(1):17-28. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8437679 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(93)90077-D
8. Stevens AD. Social problem-solving and cognitive flexibility: Relations to social skills and problem behavior of at-risk young children. Doctoral Dissertation, Seattle Pacific University. USA; 2009
9. Altunkol F. Üniversite öğrencilerinin bilişsel esneklikleri ile algılanan stres düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Çukurova Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Adana; 2011
10. Bilgin M. Bilişsel esnekliği yordayan bazı değişkenler. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2009 Jan; 36(3):142-57.
11. Diril A. Lise öğrencilerinin bilişsel esneklik düzeylerinin sosyodemografik değişkenler ve öfke düzeyi ile öfke ifade tarzları arasındaki ilişki açısından incelenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Adana; 2011
12. Gündüz B. Bağlanma stilleri, akılcı olmayan inançlar ve psikolojik belirtilerin bilişsel esnekliği yordamadaki katkıları. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri [Internet]. 2013 Jun; 13(4), 2071-2085. Available from: http://www.idealonline.com.tr/IdealOnline/lookAtPublications/paperDetail.xhtml?uId=664 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12738/estp.2013.4.170
13. Martin MM, Staggers SM, Anderson CM. The relationships between cognitive flexibility with dogmatism, intellectual flexibility, preference for consistency, and self-compassion. Communication Research Reports [Internet]. 2011 Jul; 28(3):275-80. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08824096.2011.587555 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2011.587555
14. Lin YW. The effects of cognitive flexibility and openness to change on college students’ academic performance. Doctorate Dissertation. La Sierra University; 2013
15. Tchanturia K, Harrison A, Davies H, Roberts M, Oldershaw A, Nakazato M, et al. Cognitive flexibility and clinical severity in eating disorders. Plos One [Internet]. 2011 Jun; 6(6):1-5. Available from: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0020462 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020462
16. Merrill, K, Joiner T, Fresco DM, Lewinsohn P. Relationship of Cognitive Flexibility to Depression and Anxiety symptoms in a Large Community Sample of High School Students. A poster presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies, Washington, DC. 2005
17. Carlson SM, Moses LJ. Individual differences in inhibitory control and children’s theory of mind. Child Development [Internet]. 2001 Jul-Aug; 72:1032-53. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11480933 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00333
18. Müller U, Zelazo PD, Imrisek S. Executive function and children’s understanding of false belief: How specific is the relation? Cognitive Development [Internet]. 2005 Apr-Jun; 20:173-89. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885201404000887?via%3Dihub DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2004.12.004
19. Jacques S, Zelazo PD. Language and the development of cognitive flexibility: Implications for theory of mind. In Astington JW, Baird JA editors. Why language matters for theory of mind. Oxford: Oxford University Pres; 2005, pp 144-62
20. Bull R, Scerif G. Executive functioning as a predictor of children’s mathematics ability: Inhibition, switching, and working memory. Developmental Neuropsychology [Internet]. 2001 Jun; 19:273-93. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15326942DN1903_3 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15326942DN1903_3
21. Beattie V, Collins B, Mcinnes B. Deep and surface learning: A simple or simplistic dichotomy? Accounting Education [Internet]. 1997 Oct; 6(1):1-12. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/096392897331587 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/096392897331587
22. Batı AH, Tetik C, Gürpınar E. Öğrenme yaklaşımları ölçeği yeni şeklini Türkçeye uyarlama ve geçerlilik güvenirlilik çalışması. Türkiye Klinikleri J. Med. Sci. 2010 Oct; 30(5):1639-46.
23. Gordon C, Debus R. Developing deep learning approaches and personal teaching efficacy within a preservice teacher education context. Br J Educ Psychol [Internet]. 2002 Dec; 72(4):483-511. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12495563 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/00070990260377488
24. Biggs JB. Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research; 1987
25. Açıkgöz KÜ. Etkili öğrenme ve öğretme. İzmir: Biliş; 2009
26. Weinstein CE, Mayer RE. The teaching of learning strategies. In Wittrock M, editor. Handbook of research on teaching. New York, NY: Macmillan; 1986, pp. 315-327
27. Arends RI. Classroom instruction and management. New York: The McGraw-Hill; 1997
28. Ashman A, Conway R. An introduction to cognitive education: Theory and applications. The UK: Routledge; 2002
29. Özer B. İlköğretim ve ortaöğretim okullarının eğitim programlarında öğrenme stratejileri. Eğitim Bilimleri ve Uygulama. 2002 Jun; 1(1):17-32.
30. Çelikkaya T. Sosyal bilgiler öğretmen adaylarının kullandıkları öğrenme stratejileri. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2010 Ara; 11(3):65-84
31. Özdamar K. Paket programlar ile istatistiksel veri analizi. Eskişehir: Nisan Kitabevi; 2013
32. Büyüköztürk Ş. Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi; 2013
33. Kalaycı Ş. SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri. Ankara: Asil Yayın Dağıtım; 2005
34. Green SB, Salkind NJ. Using SPSS for windows and Macintosh-analyzing and understanding data. USA: Pearson Prentice Hal; 2008
35. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. The USA: Pearson Education; 2013
36. Pallant J. SPSS survival manual. The USA: McGraw-Hill Education; 2016
37. Everitt BS, Howell DC. Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science. The UK: John Willey and Sons; 2005
38. Field A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics. The USA: Sage; 2018
39. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis fort he behavioral science. The USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 1988
40. Chonkar SP, Ha TC, Hang Chu SS, Ng AX, Shan Lim ML, Ee TX, et al. The predominant learning approaches of medical students. BMC Medical Education [Internet]. 2018 Jan; 18(17):2-8. Available from: https://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12909-018-1122-5 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1122-5
41. Delgado ÁHA, Almeida JPR, Mendes LSB, Oliveira IN, Ezequiel ODS, Lucchetti ALG, et al. Are surface and deep learning approaches associated with study patterns and choices among medical students? A cross-sectional study. Sao Paulo Medical Journal [Internet]. 2018 Sep-Oct; 136(5):414-20. Available from: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802018000500414 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1516-3180.2018.0200060818
42. Hall E. The tenacity of learning styles: a response to Lodge, Hansen, and Cottrell. Learning: Research and Practice [Internet]. 2016 Jan; 2:18-26. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23735082.2016.1139856 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2016.1139856
43. Nijhuis JFH, Sergers MSR, Gijselaers WH. Influence of redesigning a learning environment on student perceptions and learning strategies. Learning Environments Research [Internet]. 2005 Jan; 8:67-93. Available from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ924373 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10984-005-7950-3
44. Michael P, Keith T. Understanding Learning and Teaching. The experience in Higher Education. Open Univeristy Press; 1999
45. Severiens S, Ten Dam G. Gender and gender identity differences in learning styles. Educational Psychology [Internet]. 1997 Nov; 17:79-93. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0144341970170105 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144341970170105
46. Wilson K, Grif JF. Assessing the impact of learning environments on students' approaches to learning: Comparing conventional and action learning designs. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education [Internet]. 2005 Sep; 30(1):87-101. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0260293042003251770 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0260293042003251770
47. Birenbaum M, Breuer K, Cascallar E, Dochy F, Dori Y, Ridgway J, et al. A learning integrated assessment system, In Wiesemes R. Nickmans G. editors. European association for research on learning and instruction. EARLI Series of Position Papers [Internet]. Available from: https://community.dur.ac.uk/smart.centre1/publications/EARLI%20Position%20paper%201%20assessment.pdf; 2005, pp 1-8
48. Wickramasinghe DP, Samarasekera DN. Factors influencing the approaches to studying of preclinical and clinical students and postgraduate trainees. BMC Medical Education [Internet]. 2011 May, 11:22. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21599886 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-11-22
49. Ekinci N. Üniversite öğrencilerinin öğrenme yaklaşımlarının belirlenmesi ve öğretme-öğrenme süreci değişkenleri ile ilişkileri. Doktora Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara; 2008
50. Smith SN, Miller RJ. Learning approaches: Examination type, discipline of study, and gender. Educational Psychology [Internet]. 2005 Oct; 25(1):43-53. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0144341042000294886 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144341042000294886
51. Miller CD, Finley J, McKinley DL. Learning approaches and motives: Male and female differences and implications for learning assistance programs. Journal of College Student Development. 1990 May; 31(2):147-54.
52. Watkins D. The influence of social desirability on learning process questionnaires: A neglected possibility? Educational Psychology. 1996 Jun; 52:260-263.
53. Mpofu E, Oakland T. Predicting school achievement in zimbabwean multiracial schools using biggs’ learning process questionnaire. South African Journal of Psychology [Internet]. 2001 Aug; 31(3):20-9. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/008124630103100303 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/008124630103100303
54. Richardson JTE, King E. Gender differences in the experience of higher education: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Educational Psychology [Internet]. 1991 Nov; 11:363-382. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0144341910110311 Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144341910110311
55. Watkins D, Mboya M. Assessing the learning processes of Black South African students. The Journal of Psychology [Internet]. 1997 Apr; 131(6):636-640. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00223989709603845 Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223989709603845

Cognitive Flexibility Levels, Learning Approaches and Learning Strategies of The Medical Students

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 19 Sayı: 57, 76 - 97, 30.04.2020

Çetin Toraman Ayşen Melek Aytuğ Koşan Mustafa Onur Yurdal

https://doi.org/10.25282/ted.589099

Cited By: 4

Öz

Purpose: This study aims to investigate university students’ cognitive flexibility level, learning approaches and strategies they use as well as the relations between these approaches and strategies.

Instrument and Method: In this study, exploratory design mixed research method was applied. In the quantitative part of the study, students’ cognitive flexibility levels, learning approaches, and strategies they use were investigated and the relations among them were determined. In the qualitative part of the study, 12 student-centered interviews, of both semesters, were conducted with those who had high and low grades from cognitive flexibility, learning approaches and learning strategies scale. In the quantitative part of the study, 626 students of medical school from I. year to the VI and in the qualitative part, the 12 students who were in the focus group formed the study group. The data were collected via cognitive flexibility, learning approaches and learning strategies scale.

Findings: In the study it was revealed that medical faculty students’ cognitive flexibility level was high; students had both deep and surface learning approaches while deep learning approaches were higher than surface ones to a certain extent, students benefited from each of socio-emotional, sense-making, repetition and attention learning strategies. Male students’ surface learning tendency is higher than that of the female. The female students use attention learning strategy more than the male ones do. The students that took part in the study claimed that the examinations did not measure their learning degree and forced them to towards “memorizing information”.

Results: While using deep learning approach and surface learning approach at a high quantity may seem as a contradiction, focus group interviews have shown that education system gives some messages to students: “If you study deeply, it is not certain to pass; but if you memorize, it is clear: Success!”. When cognitive flexibility increases, the usage of socio-emotional learning strategy also increases. When deep learning approach increases, the use of socio-emotional learning strategy, sense-making learning strategy and repetition learning strategy increases.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Cognitive Flexibility, Learning Approach, Learning Strategy, Medical Education

Kaynakça

1. Martin MM, Anderson CM. The cognitive flexibility scale: Three validity studies. Communication Repots. 1998 Jan; 11:1-9.
2. Dennis JP, Vander Wal JS. The cognitive flexibility inventory: Instrument development and estimates of reliability and validity. Cognitive Therapy and Research [Internet]. 2010 Jun; 34:241-53. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10608-009-9276-4 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10608-009-9276-4
3. Gülüm İV, Dağ İ. Tekrarlayıcı düşünme ölçeği ve bilişsel esneklik envanterinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması, geçerliliği ve güvenilirliği. Anadolu Psikiyatri Dergisi. 2012 Jun; 13:216-23.
4. Cropley AJ. Creativity and mental health in everyday life. Creativity Research Journal [Internet]. 1990 Nov; 3(3):167-78. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10400419009534351 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400419009534351
5. Reiter Palmon R, Mumford MD, Threlfall KV. Solving everyday problems creatively: The role of problem construction and personality type. Creativity Research Journal [Internet]. 1998 Jun; 11(3):187-97. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15326934crj1103_1 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1103_1
6. Anderson P. Assessment and development of executive function (EF) during childhood. Child Neuropsychology [Internet]. 2002 Jun; 8(2):71-82. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12638061 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/chin.8.2.71.8724
7. Eslinger PJ, Grattan LM. Frontal lobe and frontal-striatal substrates for different forms of human cognitive flexibility. Neuropsychologia [Internet]. 1993 Jan; 31(1):17-28. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8437679 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(93)90077-D
8. Stevens AD. Social problem-solving and cognitive flexibility: Relations to social skills and problem behavior of at-risk young children. Doctoral Dissertation, Seattle Pacific University. USA; 2009
9. Altunkol F. Üniversite öğrencilerinin bilişsel esneklikleri ile algılanan stres düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Çukurova Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Adana; 2011
10. Bilgin M. Bilişsel esnekliği yordayan bazı değişkenler. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2009 Jan; 36(3):142-57.
11. Diril A. Lise öğrencilerinin bilişsel esneklik düzeylerinin sosyodemografik değişkenler ve öfke düzeyi ile öfke ifade tarzları arasındaki ilişki açısından incelenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Adana; 2011
12. Gündüz B. Bağlanma stilleri, akılcı olmayan inançlar ve psikolojik belirtilerin bilişsel esnekliği yordamadaki katkıları. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri [Internet]. 2013 Jun; 13(4), 2071-2085. Available from: http://www.idealonline.com.tr/IdealOnline/lookAtPublications/paperDetail.xhtml?uId=664 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12738/estp.2013.4.170
13. Martin MM, Staggers SM, Anderson CM. The relationships between cognitive flexibility with dogmatism, intellectual flexibility, preference for consistency, and self-compassion. Communication Research Reports [Internet]. 2011 Jul; 28(3):275-80. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08824096.2011.587555 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2011.587555
14. Lin YW. The effects of cognitive flexibility and openness to change on college students’ academic performance. Doctorate Dissertation. La Sierra University; 2013
15. Tchanturia K, Harrison A, Davies H, Roberts M, Oldershaw A, Nakazato M, et al. Cognitive flexibility and clinical severity in eating disorders. Plos One [Internet]. 2011 Jun; 6(6):1-5. Available from: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0020462 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020462
16. Merrill, K, Joiner T, Fresco DM, Lewinsohn P. Relationship of Cognitive Flexibility to Depression and Anxiety symptoms in a Large Community Sample of High School Students. A poster presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies, Washington, DC. 2005
17. Carlson SM, Moses LJ. Individual differences in inhibitory control and children’s theory of mind. Child Development [Internet]. 2001 Jul-Aug; 72:1032-53. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11480933 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00333
18. Müller U, Zelazo PD, Imrisek S. Executive function and children’s understanding of false belief: How specific is the relation? Cognitive Development [Internet]. 2005 Apr-Jun; 20:173-89. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885201404000887?via%3Dihub DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2004.12.004
19. Jacques S, Zelazo PD. Language and the development of cognitive flexibility: Implications for theory of mind. In Astington JW, Baird JA editors. Why language matters for theory of mind. Oxford: Oxford University Pres; 2005, pp 144-62
20. Bull R, Scerif G. Executive functioning as a predictor of children’s mathematics ability: Inhibition, switching, and working memory. Developmental Neuropsychology [Internet]. 2001 Jun; 19:273-93. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15326942DN1903_3 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15326942DN1903_3
21. Beattie V, Collins B, Mcinnes B. Deep and surface learning: A simple or simplistic dichotomy? Accounting Education [Internet]. 1997 Oct; 6(1):1-12. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/096392897331587 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/096392897331587
22. Batı AH, Tetik C, Gürpınar E. Öğrenme yaklaşımları ölçeği yeni şeklini Türkçeye uyarlama ve geçerlilik güvenirlilik çalışması. Türkiye Klinikleri J. Med. Sci. 2010 Oct; 30(5):1639-46.
23. Gordon C, Debus R. Developing deep learning approaches and personal teaching efficacy within a preservice teacher education context. Br J Educ Psychol [Internet]. 2002 Dec; 72(4):483-511. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12495563 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/00070990260377488
24. Biggs JB. Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research; 1987
25. Açıkgöz KÜ. Etkili öğrenme ve öğretme. İzmir: Biliş; 2009
26. Weinstein CE, Mayer RE. The teaching of learning strategies. In Wittrock M, editor. Handbook of research on teaching. New York, NY: Macmillan; 1986, pp. 315-327
27. Arends RI. Classroom instruction and management. New York: The McGraw-Hill; 1997
28. Ashman A, Conway R. An introduction to cognitive education: Theory and applications. The UK: Routledge; 2002
29. Özer B. İlköğretim ve ortaöğretim okullarının eğitim programlarında öğrenme stratejileri. Eğitim Bilimleri ve Uygulama. 2002 Jun; 1(1):17-32.
30. Çelikkaya T. Sosyal bilgiler öğretmen adaylarının kullandıkları öğrenme stratejileri. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2010 Ara; 11(3):65-84
31. Özdamar K. Paket programlar ile istatistiksel veri analizi. Eskişehir: Nisan Kitabevi; 2013
32. Büyüköztürk Ş. Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi; 2013
33. Kalaycı Ş. SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri. Ankara: Asil Yayın Dağıtım; 2005
34. Green SB, Salkind NJ. Using SPSS for windows and Macintosh-analyzing and understanding data. USA: Pearson Prentice Hal; 2008
35. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. The USA: Pearson Education; 2013
36. Pallant J. SPSS survival manual. The USA: McGraw-Hill Education; 2016
37. Everitt BS, Howell DC. Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science. The UK: John Willey and Sons; 2005
38. Field A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics. The USA: Sage; 2018
39. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis fort he behavioral science. The USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 1988
40. Chonkar SP, Ha TC, Hang Chu SS, Ng AX, Shan Lim ML, Ee TX, et al. The predominant learning approaches of medical students. BMC Medical Education [Internet]. 2018 Jan; 18(17):2-8. Available from: https://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12909-018-1122-5 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1122-5
41. Delgado ÁHA, Almeida JPR, Mendes LSB, Oliveira IN, Ezequiel ODS, Lucchetti ALG, et al. Are surface and deep learning approaches associated with study patterns and choices among medical students? A cross-sectional study. Sao Paulo Medical Journal [Internet]. 2018 Sep-Oct; 136(5):414-20. Available from: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802018000500414 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1516-3180.2018.0200060818
42. Hall E. The tenacity of learning styles: a response to Lodge, Hansen, and Cottrell. Learning: Research and Practice [Internet]. 2016 Jan; 2:18-26. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23735082.2016.1139856 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2016.1139856
43. Nijhuis JFH, Sergers MSR, Gijselaers WH. Influence of redesigning a learning environment on student perceptions and learning strategies. Learning Environments Research [Internet]. 2005 Jan; 8:67-93. Available from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ924373 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10984-005-7950-3
44. Michael P, Keith T. Understanding Learning and Teaching. The experience in Higher Education. Open Univeristy Press; 1999
45. Severiens S, Ten Dam G. Gender and gender identity differences in learning styles. Educational Psychology [Internet]. 1997 Nov; 17:79-93. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0144341970170105 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144341970170105
46. Wilson K, Grif JF. Assessing the impact of learning environments on students' approaches to learning: Comparing conventional and action learning designs. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education [Internet]. 2005 Sep; 30(1):87-101. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0260293042003251770 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0260293042003251770
47. Birenbaum M, Breuer K, Cascallar E, Dochy F, Dori Y, Ridgway J, et al. A learning integrated assessment system, In Wiesemes R. Nickmans G. editors. European association for research on learning and instruction. EARLI Series of Position Papers [Internet]. Available from: https://community.dur.ac.uk/smart.centre1/publications/EARLI%20Position%20paper%201%20assessment.pdf; 2005, pp 1-8
48. Wickramasinghe DP, Samarasekera DN. Factors influencing the approaches to studying of preclinical and clinical students and postgraduate trainees. BMC Medical Education [Internet]. 2011 May, 11:22. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21599886 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-11-22
49. Ekinci N. Üniversite öğrencilerinin öğrenme yaklaşımlarının belirlenmesi ve öğretme-öğrenme süreci değişkenleri ile ilişkileri. Doktora Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara; 2008
50. Smith SN, Miller RJ. Learning approaches: Examination type, discipline of study, and gender. Educational Psychology [Internet]. 2005 Oct; 25(1):43-53. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0144341042000294886 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144341042000294886
51. Miller CD, Finley J, McKinley DL. Learning approaches and motives: Male and female differences and implications for learning assistance programs. Journal of College Student Development. 1990 May; 31(2):147-54.
52. Watkins D. The influence of social desirability on learning process questionnaires: A neglected possibility? Educational Psychology. 1996 Jun; 52:260-263.
53. Mpofu E, Oakland T. Predicting school achievement in zimbabwean multiracial schools using biggs’ learning process questionnaire. South African Journal of Psychology [Internet]. 2001 Aug; 31(3):20-9. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/008124630103100303 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/008124630103100303
54. Richardson JTE, King E. Gender differences in the experience of higher education: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Educational Psychology [Internet]. 1991 Nov; 11:363-382. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0144341910110311 Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144341910110311
55. Watkins D, Mboya M. Assessing the learning processes of Black South African students. The Journal of Psychology [Internet]. 1997 Apr; 131(6):636-640. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00223989709603845 Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223989709603845

Toplam 55 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil	İngilizce
Konular	Sağlık Kurumları Yönetimi
Bölüm	Orjinal Araştırma
Yazarlar	Çetin Toraman 0000-0001-5319-0731 Ayşen Melek Aytuğ Koşan 0000-0001-5298-2032 Mustafa Onur Yurdal 0000-0002-9632-7192
Yayımlanma Tarihi	30 Nisan 2020
Gönderilme Tarihi	8 Temmuz 2019
Yayımlandığı Sayı	Yıl 2020 Cilt: 19 Sayı: 57

Kaynak Göster

Vancouver	Toraman Ç, Aytuğ Koşan AM, Yurdal MO. Cognitive Flexibility Levels, Learning Approaches and Learning Strategies of The Medical Students. TED. 2020;19(57):76-97.

Cited By

Exploring the relationships between cognitive flexibility, learner autonomy, and reflective thinking

Thinking Skills and Creativity

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100838

ORTAOKUL ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN ÖZ-DÜZENLEME BECERİLERİ, SOSYAL BİLGİLER ÖĞRENME YAKLAŞIMLARI, ANNE-BABA VE ÖĞRETMENLERİNİN AKADEMİK KATILIMLARININ İNCELENMESİ

Tıp Eğitimi Dünyası

Tıp Fakültesi Öğrencilerinin Bilişsel Esneklik Düzeyleri, Öğrenme Yaklaşımları ve Kullandıkları Öğrenme Stratejileri

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kaynakça

Cognitive Flexibility Levels, Learning Approaches and Learning Strategies of The Medical Students

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kaynakça

Ayrıntılar

Kaynak Göster

Cited By

Exploring the relationships between cognitive flexibility, learner autonomy, and reflective thinking

Thinking Skills and Creativity

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100838

ORTAOKUL ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN ÖZ-DÜZENLEME BECERİLERİ, SOSYAL BİLGİLER ÖĞRENME YAKLAŞIMLARI, ANNE-BABA VE ÖĞRETMENLERİNİN AKADEMİK KATILIMLARININ İNCELENMESİ

International Journal Of Turkish Literature Culture Education

https://doi.org/10.7884/teke.1312785

Tıp Fakültesi Öğrencilerinin Akademik Mükemmeliyetçilik ve Bilişsel Esneklik Düzeyleri

Tıp Eğitimi Dünyası

https://doi.org/10.25282/ted.1135315

ARIMA YAPAY ZEKA YÖNTEMİ KULLANILARAK ISPARTA İLİNDEKİ ÖRNEK BİR KAVŞAK İÇİN ARAÇ SAYISI VE ARAÇ GEÇİŞ SÜRELERİNİN TESPİTİ

Mühendislik Bilimleri ve Tasarım Dergisi

Gökhan KADİROĞULLARI

https://doi.org/10.21923/jesd.826041