Literature DB >> 12937535

A Nationwide Learning-Style Assessment of Undergraduate Athletic Training Students in CAAHEP-Accredited Athletic Training Programs.

Stephanie L Stradley1, Bernadette D Buckley, Thomas W Kaminski, MaryBeth Horodyski, David Fleming, Christopher M Janelle.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify the learning styles and preferred environmental characteristics of undergraduate athletic training students in Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs (CAAHEP)-accredited athletic training education programs and to determine if learning-style differences existed among geographic regions of the country. DESIGN AND
SETTING: Fifty CAAHEP-accredited athletic training programs were randomly selected in proportion to the number of programs in each geographic region. Ten students from each school were selected to complete the Kolb Learning Style Inventory (LSI) and the Productivity Environmental Preference Survey (PEPS).
SUBJECTS: A total of 193 undergraduate athletic training students (84 men, 109 women) with a mean age of 22.3 +/- 2.8 years completed the PEPS, while 188 students completed the LSI. MEASUREMENTS: We used chi-square analyses to determine if differences existed in learning-style type and if these differences were based on geographic location. We calculated analysis of variance to determine if there were any geographic differences in the mean overall combination scores of the LSI. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the PEPS.
RESULTS: The overall return rate was 38%. The chi-square analyses revealed no significant difference in learning-style type for athletic training students, regardless of the geographic region. The LSI yielded a relatively even distribution of learning styles: 29.3% of the students were accommodators, 19.7% were divergers, 21.8% were convergers, and 29.3% were assimilators. The overall mean combination scores were 4.9 (abstract-concrete) and 4.9 (active-reflective), and analysis of variance indicated no significant difference in the mean combination scores among the geographic regions. The PEPS revealed that undergraduate athletic training students demonstrated a strong preference for learning in the afternoon.
CONCLUSIONS: Undergraduate athletic training students demonstrated great diversity in learning style. Educators must strongly consider this diversity and incorporate teaching methods that will benefit all types of learners.

Entities:  

Year:  2002        PMID: 12937535      PMCID: PMC164415     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Athl Train        ISSN: 1062-6050            Impact factor:   2.860


  13 in total

1.  Assessing learning styles using a computerized learning style inventory.

Authors:  D M Billings
Journal:  Comput Nurs       Date:  1991 May-Jun

2.  An assessment of learning styles among undergraduate athletic training students.

Authors:  G L Harrelson; D Leaver-Dunn; K E Wright
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 2.860

3.  A four-year longitudinal study of dental student learning styles.

Authors:  W D Hendricson; W C Berlocher; R J Herbert
Journal:  J Dent Educ       Date:  1987-04       Impact factor: 2.264

4.  The assessment of student nurse learning styles using the Kolb Learning Styles Inventory.

Authors:  S J Cavanagh; K Hogan; T Ramgopal
Journal:  Nurse Educ Today       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 3.442

5.  Accommodating nursing students' diverse learning styles.

Authors:  D Griggs; S A Griggs; R Dunn; J Ingham
Journal:  Nurse Educ       Date:  1994 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.082

6.  Learning styles of nursing students and career choices.

Authors:  H K Laschinger; M W Boss
Journal:  J Adv Nurs       Date:  1984-07       Impact factor: 3.187

7.  Learning style preferences of baccalaureate nursing students.

Authors:  S L Merritt
Journal:  Nurs Res       Date:  1983 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.381

8.  An Investigation of Undergraduate Athletic Training Students' Learning Styles and Program Admission Success.

Authors:  Kelly A. Brower; Catherine L. Stemmans; Christopher D. Ingersoll; David J. Langley
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 2.860

9.  Consistency of Learning Styles of Undergraduate Athletic Training Students in the Traditional Classroom versus the Clinical Setting.

Authors:  C A Coker
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 2.860

10.  Learning styles: a review of selected models.

Authors:  R Partridge
Journal:  J Nurs Educ       Date:  1983-06       Impact factor: 1.726

View more
  3 in total

1.  Current knowledge, attitudes, and practices of certified athletic trainers regarding recognition and treatment of exertional heat stroke.

Authors:  Stephanie M Mazerolle; Ian C Scruggs; Douglas J Casa; Laura J Burton; Brendon P McDermott; Lawrence E Armstrong; Carl M Maresh
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2010 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.860

2.  Stylistic learning differences between undergraduate athletic training students and educators: Gregorc mind styles.

Authors:  Trenton E Gould; Shane V Caswell
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2006 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.860

3.  Effective Use of Multimedia Technology in Athletic Training Education.

Authors:  Denise L Wiksten; Jarrod Spanjer; Kathy LaMaster
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 2.860

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.