» Articles » PMID: 16558659

Consistency of Learning Styles of Undergraduate Athletic Training Students in the Traditional Classroom Versus the Clinical Setting

Overview
Journal J Athl Train
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2006 Mar 25
PMID 16558659
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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.

Citing Articles

The benefit of repetitive skills training and frequency of expert feedback in the early acquisition of procedural skills.

Bosse H, Mohr J, Buss B, Krautter M, Weyrich P, Herzog W BMC Med Educ. 2015; 15:22.

PMID: 25889459 PMC: 4339240. DOI: 10.1186/s12909-015-0286-5.


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

Gould T, Caswell S J Athl Train. 2006; 41(1):109-16.

PMID: 16619103 PMC: 1421495.


Overview of Athletic Training Education Research Publications.

Turocy P J Athl Train. 2003; 37(4 Suppl):S162-S167.

PMID: 12937539 PMC: 164419.


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

Stradley S, Buckley B, Kaminski T, Horodyski M, Fleming D, Janelle C J Athl Train. 2003; 37(4 Suppl):S141-S146.

PMID: 12937535 PMC: 164415.

References
1.
Geiger M, Pinto J . Changes in learning style preference during a three-year longitudinal study. Psychol Rep. 1991; 69(3 Pt 1):755-62. DOI: 10.2466/pr0.1991.69.3.755. View

2.
Coker C . Learning style consistency across cognitive and motor settings. Percept Mot Skills. 1995; 81(3 Pt 1):1023-6. DOI: 10.2466/pms.1995.81.3.1023. View

3.
Brockhaus J, Woods M, Brockhaus Sr R . Structured experiential learning exercises: a facilitation to more effective learning in clinical settings. J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv. 1981; 19(10):27-32. DOI: 10.3928/0279-3695-19811001-06. View