Stylistic learning differences between undergraduate athletic training students and educators: Gregorc mind styles.

Abstract

CONTEXT: Learning theory and pedagogic research are unfamiliar to many educators trained in the sciences. Athletic training educators must learn to appreciate the theoretic and practical value of pedagogic research, including learning styles. OBJECTIVE: To extend the learning styles research in athletic training by introducing the Mind Styles model and Gregorc Style Delineator instrument to investigate students' and program directors' baseline style preferences and to study the effects of sex, education level, and academic role on mean composite Gregorc Style Delineator scores. DESIGN: Correlational research design. SETTING: Instruments were mailed to program directors and administered in classroom settings. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Ten of 10 athletic training programs accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs formed sample 1, with 200 undergraduate athletic training students (68 men, 132 women, age = 20.12 +/- 2.02 years). A total of 43 program directors (22 men, 21 women, age = 40.05 +/- 9.30 years) created sample 2. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): We used the Gregorc Style Delineator to measure participants' perceptual and ordering abilities, combining them in a quaternary design to create mean composite scores for the Concrete Sequential (CS), Abstract Sequential (AS), Abstract Random (AR), and Concrete Random (CR) Mind Styles subscales. We also noted each subject's sex, education level, and academic role. RESULTS: We obtained a response rate of 100% of undergraduates and 43% of program directors. The CS style was preferred by 44.5% (n = 89) of students and 58.1% (n = 25) of program directors. Program directors preferred the CS style more (P < .001) and the AS and AR styles less (P < .001) than predicted by chi(2) testing. Students preferred the CS style more (P < .001) and the AS style less (P < .001) than expected also. Men students preferred the AS style more (P < .01) and the AR style less (P < .01) than women students. Students by chi2 testing were also less likely to prefer the CS style (P < .01) and more likely to prefer the AR style (P < .001) than program directors. No significant main effect was noted for education level (P = .310) or the interaction (P = .108). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings add 2 unique elements to the athletic training literature by extending the investigation of styles to an original model (Mind Styles) and the effect of academic role on style. Program directors should strongly consider sex and academic role style differences when designing and implementing pedagogic methods.