JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Medical school admission pathways are designed to select suitable applicants, with different approaches across institutions potentially impacting students' academic outcomes, learning behaviors, and evaluation preferences. Understanding these differences is essential for supporting student success and guiding curricular improvements.

Objective:

This study aimed to compare student perspectives on curricular development and non-grading evaluation, as well as learning behaviors and academic performance among students from different admission pathways, and to analyze correlations and regressions between summative scores, learning behaviors, and CLO scores within each group.

Methods:

This retrospective questionnaire and observational study examined four admission pathways at our medical school in the Academic Year 2021, including science Olympiads (academic group, n=23), bachelor graduates/athletics, and musical talents (quota group, n=6), central admission test (test group, n=258), and students required to serve as rural doctors (rural group, n=29).

Results:

The academic group rated higher scores in actively setting goals and feeling enthusiasm compared to other groups but rated lower scores of stress when reading books or following lessons during studies. Conversely, the rural group rated higher scores of stress when reading books before exams compared to the other groups. The rural group preferred a two-category pass/fail evaluation, unlike other groups favoring a three-category outstanding/pass/fail system. The academic group demonstrated significantly higher CLO and summative scores but fewer total and intentional attempts and instances of first-pass and highest-scoring attempts compared to other groups, while the rural group showed significantly lower scores and a higher instance of first-pass and highest-scoring attempts compared to other groups. Correlation and multiple linear regression analyses indicate that summative scores were positively influenced by the number of passing(s) for each CLO and CLO scores and negatively by instances of first-pass and highest-scoring attempts. Overall, the academic group, generally from competitive backgrounds, demonstrated higher academic performance, fewer total and intentional attempts, and instances of first-pass and highest-scoring attempts. Conversely, the rural group, often from less competitive backgrounds, showed lower academic performance, requiring more attempts for first-passing CLOs.

Conclusions:

Admission pathways significantly influence student perspectives on curricular development and non-grading evaluation, study behaviors, and academic performance. Clinical Trial: -