The impact of practical experience on theoretical knowledge at different cognitive levels.

IF 0.9 4区 农林科学 Q3 VETERINARY SCIENCES
Rhoda Leask, Tanita Cronje, Dietmar E Holm, Linda Van Ryneveld
{"title":"The impact of practical experience on theoretical knowledge at different cognitive levels.","authors":"Rhoda Leask,&nbsp;Tanita Cronje,&nbsp;Dietmar E Holm,&nbsp;Linda Van Ryneveld","doi":"10.4102/jsava.v91i0.2042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although theoretical training of veterinary students is uncomplicated even for larger groups, practical training remains a challenge. Much has been said about the value of practical training in curriculum design. Yet, the impact of practical training on theoretical knowledge needs further research. A cohort of 89 students with very limited clinical practical experience completed an assessment at the end of their theoretical training in small ruminants. The scores obtained by the students were compared with those obtained by a group of 35 veterinarians who volunteered to participate in the study. In addition to comparing the scores between students and practitioners, the cognitive level of each of the questions was considered. Overall, veterinarians achieved higher test scores than did the students. The veterinarians outperformed the students in all cognitive levels except for 'applying' type questions where there was no difference. Different levels of experience, namely young veterinarians (n = 11), established veterinarians (n = 13) and veterinarians approaching retirement (n = 11), were evaluated against the revised Bloom's cognitive levels. When modelling congress attendance frequency, years' experience, proportion of time spent with ruminants and revised Bloom's levels, congress attendance was not a significant variable, and thus, only the other three variables remained. This investigation found that practical experience has a positive effect on theoretical knowledge. The type of practical experience and where such practical experience is included in a curriculum need further research. Working for a number of years in a specific discipline will provide the best support for theoretical knowledge.</p>","PeriodicalId":17467,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the South African Veterinary Association","volume":"91 0","pages":"e1-e7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4102/jsava.v91i0.2042","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the South African Veterinary Association","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4102/jsava.v91i0.2042","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Although theoretical training of veterinary students is uncomplicated even for larger groups, practical training remains a challenge. Much has been said about the value of practical training in curriculum design. Yet, the impact of practical training on theoretical knowledge needs further research. A cohort of 89 students with very limited clinical practical experience completed an assessment at the end of their theoretical training in small ruminants. The scores obtained by the students were compared with those obtained by a group of 35 veterinarians who volunteered to participate in the study. In addition to comparing the scores between students and practitioners, the cognitive level of each of the questions was considered. Overall, veterinarians achieved higher test scores than did the students. The veterinarians outperformed the students in all cognitive levels except for 'applying' type questions where there was no difference. Different levels of experience, namely young veterinarians (n = 11), established veterinarians (n = 13) and veterinarians approaching retirement (n = 11), were evaluated against the revised Bloom's cognitive levels. When modelling congress attendance frequency, years' experience, proportion of time spent with ruminants and revised Bloom's levels, congress attendance was not a significant variable, and thus, only the other three variables remained. This investigation found that practical experience has a positive effect on theoretical knowledge. The type of practical experience and where such practical experience is included in a curriculum need further research. Working for a number of years in a specific discipline will provide the best support for theoretical knowledge.

Abstract Image

不同认知层次的实践经验对理论知识的影响。
虽然兽医学生的理论训练并不复杂,即使对于更大的群体,实践训练仍然是一个挑战。关于课程设计中实践训练的价值,人们已经说了很多。然而,实践训练对理论知识的影响还有待进一步研究。89名临床实践经验非常有限的学生在小反刍动物理论训练结束后完成了一项评估。学生们得到的分数与一组35名自愿参加这项研究的兽医的分数进行了比较。除了比较学生和实践者之间的分数外,还考虑了每个问题的认知水平。总的来说,兽医的考试成绩高于学生。兽医在所有认知水平上的表现都优于学生,除了在“应用”类型的问题上没有差异。不同水平的经验,即年轻兽医(n = 11),经验丰富的兽医(n = 13)和接近退休的兽医(n = 11),根据修订后的Bloom认知水平进行评估。当对出席大会的频率、年数、与反刍动物相处的时间比例和修改后的Bloom水平进行建模时,出席大会并不是一个重要的变量,因此,只剩下其他三个变量。本调查发现,实践经验对理论知识有正向影响。实践经验的类型以及这种实践经验在课程中的位置需要进一步研究。在特定学科工作数年将为理论知识提供最好的支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the South African Veterinary Association is a contemporary multi-disciplinary scientific mouthpiece for Veterinary Science in South Africa and abroad. It provides veterinarians in South Africa and elsewhere in the world with current scientific information across the full spectrum of veterinary science. Its content therefore includes reviews on various topics, clinical and non-clinical articles, research articles and short communications as well as case reports and letters.
×
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