Evaluation of Learning Approaches Among Physiotherapy Students in Haryana: A Cross-Sectional Study

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Pooja, Megha Gakhar, Bhawna Verma, Vinay Jagga
{"title":"Evaluation of Learning Approaches Among Physiotherapy Students in Haryana: A Cross-Sectional Study","authors":"Pooja,&nbsp;Megha Gakhar,&nbsp;Bhawna Verma,&nbsp;Vinay Jagga","doi":"10.1111/jep.14253","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Understanding students' learning approach, modifying teaching methods, curriculum and material accordingly is essential to deliver quality education. Knowing more about the learning approaches assists in upgrading the profession's quality for continuous professional development.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>The cross-sectional study was carried out among physiotherapy students studying in physiotherapy colleges affiliated with the same university. The Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students questionnaire was used to evaluate learning approaches in both preclinical and clinical students. Data were analysed using the IBM Statistical Package SPSS 27. Statistical significance was set at <i>p</i> &lt; 0.05.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 250 participants with a mean age of 21.09 + 1.93 years, 129 (51.6%) in the preclinical group and 121 (48.4%) in the clinical group participated in the study. 67 (26.7%) of the students were male, while 183 (72.9%) were females. The vast majority of participants (97.6%) adopt a deep approach to learning, while only a small fraction (2.0%) use a surface approach, with the strategic approach being rarely used (0.4%). No significant difference was observed between the males and females, and students of different colleges under the same university.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The predominant approach is the deep learning approach reflecting active learning. This may indicate that curriculum and strategies of teaching are employed over physiotherapy students to promote quality learning. Also, the teaching preferences varies between two group of physiotherapy students. Thus, this will also assist physiotherapy educators in planning and delivering learning activities according to learners by knowing their preferences.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.14253","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Understanding students' learning approach, modifying teaching methods, curriculum and material accordingly is essential to deliver quality education. Knowing more about the learning approaches assists in upgrading the profession's quality for continuous professional development.

Methods

The cross-sectional study was carried out among physiotherapy students studying in physiotherapy colleges affiliated with the same university. The Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students questionnaire was used to evaluate learning approaches in both preclinical and clinical students. Data were analysed using the IBM Statistical Package SPSS 27. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results

A total of 250 participants with a mean age of 21.09 + 1.93 years, 129 (51.6%) in the preclinical group and 121 (48.4%) in the clinical group participated in the study. 67 (26.7%) of the students were male, while 183 (72.9%) were females. The vast majority of participants (97.6%) adopt a deep approach to learning, while only a small fraction (2.0%) use a surface approach, with the strategic approach being rarely used (0.4%). No significant difference was observed between the males and females, and students of different colleges under the same university.

Conclusion

The predominant approach is the deep learning approach reflecting active learning. This may indicate that curriculum and strategies of teaching are employed over physiotherapy students to promote quality learning. Also, the teaching preferences varies between two group of physiotherapy students. Thus, this will also assist physiotherapy educators in planning and delivering learning activities according to learners by knowing their preferences.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信