C A Coker1. 1. New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the learning styles of undergraduate athletic training students to determine their consistency in traditional classroom versus clinical settings. DESIGN AND SETTING: Subjects completed the Learning Styles Inventory twice, once focusing on learning new information in the classroom and the other focusing on learning new information in the clinical setting. The order of focus regarding setting (classroom or clinical) was counterbalanced across subjects. SUBJECTS: A total of 26 undergraduate athletic training students from a Committee on the Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs accredited athletic training education program (16 women and 10 men; mean age, 24.42 +/- 6.44 years) who were currently assigned to a clinical practicum as part of their academic program served as subjects. MEASUREMENTS: I performed 4 paired t tests, 1 for each learning mode, to determine if differences existed between the classroom and clinical settings. The percentage of respondents whose learning styles changed across settings was also calculated. RESULTS: The paired t tests revealed a significant difference between the Reflective Observation and Active Experimentation modes across settings. In addition, 58% of respondents' learning styles changed according to setting focus. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that learning styles do indeed shift, depending on the domain through which an individual is learning. Consequently, teaching strategies incorporated in 1 setting may not be equally effective in the other setting. Each learning setting should, therefore, be treated separately in order to accommodate individual learning styles and maximize learning achievement. Furthermore, if learning styles are to be considered when designing athletic training education, these findings indicate that in order to ensure the validity of the resulting learning style profile, it may be necessary to provide the respondent with a specific focus, either that of a classroom or clinical setting, before completing the Learning Styles Inventory.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the learning styles of undergraduate athletic training students to determine their consistency in traditional classroom versus clinical settings. DESIGN AND SETTING: Subjects completed the Learning Styles Inventory twice, once focusing on learning new information in the classroom and the other focusing on learning new information in the clinical setting. The order of focus regarding setting (classroom or clinical) was counterbalanced across subjects. SUBJECTS: A total of 26 undergraduate athletic training students from a Committee on the Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs accredited athletic training education program (16 women and 10 men; mean age, 24.42 +/- 6.44 years) who were currently assigned to a clinical practicum as part of their academic program served as subjects. MEASUREMENTS: I performed 4 paired t tests, 1 for each learning mode, to determine if differences existed between the classroom and clinical settings. The percentage of respondents whose learning styles changed across settings was also calculated. RESULTS: The paired t tests revealed a significant difference between the Reflective Observation and Active Experimentation modes across settings. In addition, 58% of respondents' learning styles changed according to setting focus. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that learning styles do indeed shift, depending on the domain through which an individual is learning. Consequently, teaching strategies incorporated in 1 setting may not be equally effective in the other setting. Each learning setting should, therefore, be treated separately in order to accommodate individual learning styles and maximize learning achievement. Furthermore, if learning styles are to be considered when designing athletic training education, these findings indicate that in order to ensure the validity of the resulting learning style profile, it may be necessary to provide the respondent with a specific focus, either that of a classroom or clinical setting, before completing the Learning Styles Inventory.
Authors: Stephanie L Stradley; Bernadette D Buckley; Thomas W Kaminski; MaryBeth Horodyski; David Fleming; Christopher M Janelle Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Hans Martin Bosse; Jonathan Mohr; Beate Buss; Markus Krautter; Peter Weyrich; Wolfgang Herzog; Jana Jünger; Christoph Nikendei Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2015-02-19 Impact factor: 2.463