IMPACT OF STUDENT AND CLINICAL INSTRUCTOR LEARNING STYLES ON STUDENT PERFORMANCE AND/OR SATISFACTION DURING PHYSICAL THERAPY CLINICAL INTERNSHIPS
Lindsey Phelps, SPT, Danielle Sabo, SPT, Derek Tocco, SPT, Ashley Wiesner, SPT; Ann Marie Decker PT, MSA, GCS Rockhurst University, Kansas City Missouri
INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE: Physical therapy students are put through a rigorous curriculum requiring didactic learning in the classroom and clinical education internships. Clinical education is an opportunity for the student physical therapist (SPT) to utilize the knowledge gained in the classroom and apply it to real clinical situations under the supervision of a clinical instructor (CI). To date, limited information on if/how learning styles may impact the student internship has been published. The purpose of this study is to determine whether the similarity or difference in learning styles between the SPT and his/her CI will impact the SPT’s ratings on the Clinical Performance Instrument (CPI) or the SPT’s overall satisfaction with the internship.
SUBJECTS: The study solicited volunteer student subjects from the Rockhurst University (RU) DPT class of 2013. Five SPT/CI pairs consented to and completed the study in this phase. In addition, eight SPT/CI pairs of students from the Class of 2012 consented to/completed the study. Information from all thirteen pairs of SPT’s and CI’s are included in this study.
METHODS: Students were recruited from RU DPT program along with their respective CI. Participants completed demographic form and VARK® learning style. SPT competence was determined by CI ratings on the CPI upon completion of SPT’s nine-week clinical rotation. SPT satisfaction was determined by an overall rating. To compare data the Kruskal-Wallace statistical test was utilized.
RESULTS: Across the thirteen pairs of SPT’s and CI’s, 38% were a total match for learning style, 38% were a moderate match, and 23% were a partial match. Statistical analysis showed no significant difference (P ≤.05) when comparing the learning style match of SPT/CI pair to overall CPI score or student satisfaction. When examining raw data scores, moderately matched pairs scored higher on both the student satisfaction survey and CPI scores, but did not reach a level of significant difference from other matched pairs.
CONCLUSION: This study showed that similarities and differences between the SPT and CI learning styles may not be related to student performance and satisfaction with the internship. Further research should be conducted with a larger sample size.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Special acknowledgements to the Rockhurst University DPT class of 2013 and to Mohamed Kohia, PT, Ph.D. for data analysis.
Lindsey Phelps, SPT, Danielle Sabo, SPT, Derek Tocco, SPT, Ashley Wiesner, SPT; Ann Marie Decker PT, MSA, GCS Rockhurst University, Kansas City Missouri
INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE: Physical therapy students are put through a rigorous curriculum requiring didactic learning in the classroom and clinical education internships. Clinical education is an opportunity for the student physical therapist (SPT) to utilize the knowledge gained in the classroom and apply it to real clinical situations under the supervision of a clinical instructor (CI). To date, limited information on if/how learning styles may impact the student internship has been published. The purpose of this study is to determine whether the similarity or difference in learning styles between the SPT and his/her CI will impact the SPT’s ratings on the Clinical Performance Instrument (CPI) or the SPT’s overall satisfaction with the internship.
SUBJECTS: The study solicited volunteer student subjects from the Rockhurst University (RU) DPT class of 2013. Five SPT/CI pairs consented to and completed the study in this phase. In addition, eight SPT/CI pairs of students from the Class of 2012 consented to/completed the study. Information from all thirteen pairs of SPT’s and CI’s are included in this study.
METHODS: Students were recruited from RU DPT program along with their respective CI. Participants completed demographic form and VARK® learning style. SPT competence was determined by CI ratings on the CPI upon completion of SPT’s nine-week clinical rotation. SPT satisfaction was determined by an overall rating. To compare data the Kruskal-Wallace statistical test was utilized.
RESULTS: Across the thirteen pairs of SPT’s and CI’s, 38% were a total match for learning style, 38% were a moderate match, and 23% were a partial match. Statistical analysis showed no significant difference (P ≤.05) when comparing the learning style match of SPT/CI pair to overall CPI score or student satisfaction. When examining raw data scores, moderately matched pairs scored higher on both the student satisfaction survey and CPI scores, but did not reach a level of significant difference from other matched pairs.
CONCLUSION: This study showed that similarities and differences between the SPT and CI learning styles may not be related to student performance and satisfaction with the internship. Further research should be conducted with a larger sample size.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Special acknowledgements to the Rockhurst University DPT class of 2013 and to Mohamed Kohia, PT, Ph.D. for data analysis.