Learning Strategies Among High-Performing Students in a First-Year Scientific Foundations of Medicine Course: A Descriptive Study

Background:
The Scientific Foundations of Medicine (SFM) is the first foundational course in our medical curriculum and is heavily rooted in biochemistry and molecular mechanisms. It is one of the earliest and most academically demanding courses in the first year, and as such, a significant proportion of students struggle with the volume and conceptual depth of the material. In contrast, a small subset of students consistently achieve top-tier performance. Understanding the learning strategies of these high-performing students may provide actionable insights to support future cohorts. This study aims to identify the self-reported study behaviors and learning strategies most commonly used by top-performing students enrolled in the SFM course.

Methods:
We designed a cross-sectional descriptive study targeting the top-performing students (>90% grade in the course, achieved by around 15 students) in the SFM course. Participants will complete an 18-item Likert-scale survey examining study structure, use of active learning strategies, resource utilization, lecture engagement, peer collaboration, test-taking approaches, and self-attribution of success. Items were selected to focus on modifiable study behaviors rather than fixed characteristics. Planned analyses will include descriptive statistics summarizing response distributions (means, frequencies, and percentages) for each survey item to identify commonly endorsed learning behaviors among high-performing students.

Results:
Data collection is currently underway. Results will be available prior to the conference and will include summary statistics of endorsed learning behaviors and patterns that characterize high-performing students.

Conclusion:
Identifying the self-reported strategies of top-performing students may inform targeted academic support interventions and early guidance for incoming medical students in this rigorous foundational science course. Findings should be interpreted in light of the study’s limitations, including the small sample size and the focus on a select group of high-performing students from a single course, which may limit generalizability.