KUWAIT MEDICAL JOURNAL December 2009 310 INTRODUCTION More than 30 years ago, Marton and Saljo [1] used the terms deep and surface level processing to describe the different levels of processing they identified in their research. Later, Entwistle et al contended that the term “processing” to describe the deep and surface level phenomenon under study was inadequate and the term “approach” came to be preferred to describe the differences in these two learning forms [2] . Students using deep strategy read widely, gather more information, relate to other areas of interest and discuss with others. They study a topic in order to form their own conclusions. These students continue to study most of the suggested readings until they have abstracted the problem solving conclusions. On the other hand, students using surface strategy study just enough to get a pass mark from assessments. Their Original Article Students’ Learning Approaches at Medical Schools Applying Different Curricula in Turkey Kuwait Medical Journal 2009; 41 (4): 310-315 Cihat Tetik 1 , Erol Gurpinar 2 , Hilal Batı 3 1 Department of General Surgery, School of Medicine, Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey 2 Department of Medical Education, School of Medicine, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey 3 Department of Medical Education, School of Medicine, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey Address correspondence to: Dr. Cihat Tetik, MD, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of General Surgery, School of Medicine, Pamukkale University, Denizli, 20070, Turkey. Tel: +90-506 511 1811, Fax: +90-258 296 2433, E-mail: ctetik@pamukkale.edu.tr ABSTRACT KEY WORDS: education, medical students, study characteristics, undergraduate Objective: To investigate the learning approaches of undergraduate students at different medical schools applying different curricula in Turkey Design: Comparative study Setting: Three medical schools applying different curricula, namely, Hybrid (Akdeniz University), Integrated (Ege University) and Problem Based Learning (Pamukkale University) Subjects: All Year I and Year II students (n = 1038) at these three schools were invited to participate after institutional ethics committee approval was obtained in 2008. Interventions: The Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire was chosen to reveal learning approaches. Another questionnaire was established in order to see any association between learning approaches and demographic characteristics. Statistical analyses were done by using SPSS for PC 13.0. Chi-square test was used for the analysis of the data. Main Outcome Measures: Learning approaches, gender, living area, parents’ graduation and high school characteristics of all students Results: Nine hundred and sixty six out of 1038 (93%) students filled out the questionnaires. More participants in Year I have approached their learning activities more deeply than those in Year II (χ2 = 16.417, p = 0.00). Only at the medical school applying Problem Based Learning, more participants in Year II have a deep approach than those in Year I (χ2 = 9.983, p = 0.00 for Year I and χ2 = 16.263, p = 0.00 for Year II). No association between demographic characteristics except gender and learning approaches was found. Conclusions: Application of Problem Based Learning curriculum may be more helpful in developing a deep learning approach than a Hybrid or Integrated curricula. Measurement of learning approaches at later years will provide stronger evidence. extrinsic motivation causes premature closure of their study with minimal effort within a short period [3,4] . Some students may intend to get highest scores from the assessments organizing their time and effort. Entwistle explored the concept of strategic or achieving approach for this type of learning [5] . In a later study, Kember et al reported that students’ approaches to learning could be described by a model consisting of two main factors namely deep and surface regardless of intermediate approaches [6] . Biggs et al clustered students’ previous learning strategies and motivation together and called them “preferred approaches to learning” which they described as another student related factor [7] . Preferred learning approaches which are associated with student related presage factors can be influenced by other presage factors, learning-