4.5 Review

Motivation as an independent and a dependent variable in medical education: A review of the literature

期刊

MEDICAL TEACHER
卷 33, 期 5, 页码 E242-E262

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2011.558539

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Motivation in learning behaviour and education is well-researched in general education, but less in medical education. Aim: To answer two research questions, 'How has the literature studied motivation as either an independent or dependent variable? How is motivation useful in predicting and understanding processes and outcomes in medical education?' in the light of the Self-determination Theory (SDT) of motivation. Methods: A literature search performed using the PubMed, PsycINFO and ERIC databases resulted in 460 articles. The inclusion criteria were empirical research, specific measurement of motivation and qualitative research studies which had well-designed methodology. Only studies related to medical students/school were included. Results: Findings of 56 articles were included in the review. Motivation as an independent variable appears to affect learning and study behaviour, academic performance, choice of medicine and specialty within medicine and intention to continue medical study. Motivation as a dependent variable appears to be affected by age, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, personality, year of medical curriculum and teacher and peer support, all of which cannot be manipulated by medical educators. Motivation is also affected by factors that can be influenced, among which are, autonomy, competence and relatedness, which have been described as the basic psychological needs important for intrinsic motivation according to SDT. Conclusion: Motivation is an independent variable in medical education influencing important outcomes and is also a dependent variable influenced by autonomy, competence and relatedness. This review finds some evidence in support of the validity of SDT in medical education.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据