↓ Skip to main content

Student approaches for learning in medicine: What does it tell us about the informal curriculum?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, October 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
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
Student approaches for learning in medicine: What does it tell us about the informal curriculum?
Published in
BMC Medical Education, October 2011
DOI 10.1186/1472-6920-11-87
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jianzhen Zhang, Raymond F Peterson, Ieva Z Ozolins

Abstract

It has long been acknowledged that medical students frequently focus their learning on that which will enable them to pass examinations, and that they use a range of study approaches and resources in preparing for their examinations. A recent qualitative study identified that in addition to the formal curriculum, students are using a range of resources and study strategies which could be attributed to the informal curriculum. What is not clearly established is the extent to which these informal learning resources and strategies are utilized by medical students. The aim of this study was to establish the extent to which students in a graduate-entry medical program use various learning approaches to assist their learning and preparation for examinations, apart from those resources offered as part of the formal curriculum.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 3%
Brazil 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Thailand 1 <1%
Croatia 1 <1%
Unknown 100 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 15%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Researcher 9 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Other 35 32%
Unknown 19 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 44%
Social Sciences 22 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Computer Science 2 2%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 23 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 07 July 2013.
All research outputs
#3,221,482
of 23,504,998 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#537
of 3,481 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,725
of 141,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#6
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,504,998 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,481 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
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 141,604 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.