No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
To understand better determinants of effective collaboration in allied health education, students were paired by similar and opposite learning styles to work on a simulated clinical case exercise. Fifty-six sophomore and junior students enrolled in an anatomy, physiology, and pathophysiology course from a variety of allied health programs were assigned randomly in pairs to one of three subsets based on their Kolb Learning Style Inventory scores (concrete versus abstract learners). The students read the history and physical examination findings of an immunocompromised patient with an abscess in an undisclosed spinal cord location, then answered a series of case questions. Analysis of variance revealed that mismatched pairs (concrete/abstract) performed significantly better than matched concrete pairs (F2,21 = 3.83, p < 0.05) and slightly better than matched abstract pairs. This higher performance of the mismatched group was not attributed to differences in either general or specific level of academic preparation among the groups, as measured by cumulative grade point average and prior course examination scores, respectively (F2,21 = 2.15, p > 0.05 and F2,21 = 3.04, p > 0.05). Collapsing of all three subset groups into one cohort revealed that case exercise performance was correlated moderately, however, to cumulative grade point average (r = 0.49, p < 0.01) and correlated strongly to prior course exam scores (r = 0.76, p < 0.001). These findings suggest that clinical collaboration skills are enhanced not only by individual level of academic preparation but also by intentional pairing of concrete with abstract learners.
Loading…
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.