Preferred Learning Styles of Professional Undergraduate and Graduate Athletic Training Students

Abstract

Context: Recognizing the preferred learning style of professional undergraduate and graduate athletic training students will equip educators to more effectively improve their teaching methods and optimize student learning.Objective: To determine the preferred learning style of professional undergraduate and graduate athletic training students using Marshall and Merritt's Student Learning Style Questionnaire based on Kolb's theory of experiential learning.Design: Cross-sectional survey.Setting: Colleges with Commission on Accreditation of Athletic Training Education accredited professional undergraduate and/or graduate athletic training programs.Patients or Other Participants: Four hundred twenty-nine students (men ¼ 125, women ¼ 303, not available ¼ 1) from 88 professional undergraduate programs and 69 students (men ¼ 27, women ¼ 42) from 21 professional graduate programs. Intervention(s):A 40-item Student Learning Style Questionnaire (LSQ) was administered. Participants chose between words that were characteristic of how they learn. After scoring the LSQ, the learning style preferences were determined. The styles were Diverger, Assimilator, Converger, or Accommodator.Main Outcome Measure(s): Learning Style Questionnaire survey scores were used to determine the preferred learning style of male and female professional undergraduate athletic training students, male and female professional graduate athletic training students, and any significant differences between learning styles. The v 2 goodness of fit test and v 2 test of independence were used to compare differences between the groups.Results: A significant difference (P .0001) was observed between learning styles. The Diverger style was preferred by both professional undergraduate and graduate athletic training students. We found no significant difference in preferred learning style between the undergraduate and graduate student groups or between men and women.Conclusions: Although undergraduate and graduate athletic training students have a variety of learning styles, the Diverger style of learning, which relies on concrete experience and reflective observation, was preferred in our study. Educators should provide learning opportunities in a variety of ways to reach all preferred learning styles.

Flipped Classroom in an Orthopaedic Assessment Course: Students' Perspective

“…A few studies have investigated preferred learning styles in athletic training students. [33][34][35][36][37] However, most studies have investigated professional undergraduate learning styles, with varied results. Two studies 33,34 investigating undergraduate professional athletic training programs found that students had varied learning styles, whereas Harrelson et al 35 and Draper 37 found predominately kinesthetic preferences.…”

“…Two studies 33,34 investigating undergraduate professional athletic training programs found that students had varied learning styles, whereas Harrelson et al 35 and Draper 37 found predominately kinesthetic preferences. Thon and Hanson 36 investigated both professional undergraduate and graduate athletic training students and found they preferred the diverger learning style. As defined by Kolb, 38 the diverger learning style involves concrete experiences and reflective observers.…”

Assessing Self-Authorship Among Athletic Training Students

“…Moreover, in order to enact these dimensions, the individual must move through the phases of self-authorship where he or she initially relies on external formulas and authorities to discern his or her thoughts and actions, toward internally constructed, self-authored affections and behaviors. Thus, just as self- Educational topics such as learning over time (Amato, Konin, & Brader, 2002;Feiman-Nemser, 2001), professional socialization of athletic training students (Dodge, Mitchell, & Mensch, 2009;Mazerolle, Gavin, Pitney, Casa, & Burton, 2012;Pitney, Ilsley, & Rintala, 2002;Pitney, 2002), and student learning styles (Draper, 1989;Harrelson, Leaver-Dunn, & Wright, 1998;Stradley et al, 2002;Thon & Hansen, 2015) are well established in the athletic training education discourse. These previous paradigms of viewing athletic training student development have fueled enhancement of professional education in the field and facilitated continuous improvement of students' transitions to practice.…”

“…Educational topics such as learning over time (Amato, Konin, & Brader, 2002;Feiman-Nemser, 2001), professional socialization of athletic training students (Dodge, Mitchell, & Mensch, 2009;Mazerolle, Gavin, Pitney, Casa, & Burton, 2012;Pitney, Ilsley, & Rintala, 2002;Pitney, 2002), and student learning styles (Draper, 1989;Harrelson, Leaver-Dunn, & Wright, 1998;Stradley et al, 2002;Thon & Hansen, 2015) are Self-authorship can, arguably, serve as a conceptual framework for practicing and advancing clinical education in healthcare disciplines such as athletic training.…”

“…Previous paradigms of viewing athletic training student development have fueled enhancement of professional education in the field and facilitated continuous improvement of students' transitions to practice (Amato, Konin, & Brader, 2002;Dodge, Mitchell, & Mensch, 2009;Draper, 1989;Feiman-Nemser, 2001;Harrelson, Leaver-Dunn, & Wright, 1998;Mazerolle, Gavin, Pitney, Casa, & Burton, 2012;Pitney, Ilsley, & Rintala, 2002;Pitney, 2002;Stradley et al, 2002;Thon & Hansen, 2015). The field's body of knowledge, however, lacks interpretation of athletic training student development through the lens of constructive-developmental phenomena such as selfauthorship.…”