↓ Skip to main content

Dynamics of study strategies and teacher regulation in virtual patient learning activities: a cross sectional survey

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Dynamics of study strategies and teacher regulation in virtual patient learning activities: a cross sectional survey
Published in
BMC Medical Education, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0644-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samuel Edelbring, Rolf Wahlström

Abstract

Students' self-regulated learning becomes essential with increased use of exploratory web-based activities such as virtual patients (VPs). The purpose was to investigate the interplay between students' self-regulated learning strategies and perceived benefit in VP learning activities. A cross-sectional study (n = 150) comparing students' study strategies and perceived benefit of a virtual patient learning activity in a clinical clerkship preparatory course. Teacher regulation varied among three settings and was classified from shared to strong. These settings were compared regarding their respective relations between regulation strategies and perceived benefit of the virtual patient activity. Self-regulation learning strategy was generally associated with perceived benefit of the VP activities (rho 0.27, p < 0.001), but was not true in all settings. The association was higher in the two strongly regulated settings. The external regulation strategy did generally associate weakly with perceived benefit (rho 0.17, p < 0.05) with large variations between settings. The flexible student-autonomous appeal of virtual patients should not lead to the dismissal of guidance and related course activities. External teacher and peer regulation seem to be productive for increasing learners' perceived benefit. Awareness of the interplay among teacher regulation (external) and various study strategies can increase the value of flexible web-based learning resources to students.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 1%
Ireland 1 1%
Unknown 68 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 13%
Lecturer 6 9%
Researcher 6 9%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 5 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Other 21 30%
Unknown 18 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 23%
Social Sciences 10 14%
Psychology 7 10%
Computer Science 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 20 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 May 2016.
All research outputs
#14,027,062
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,791
of 3,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,645
of 301,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#44
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,576 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 301,466 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.