MP39-03 THE LEARNING STYLES OF GRADUATING CANADIAN UROLOGY RESIDENTS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyEducation Research II (MP39)1 May 2024MP39-03 THE LEARNING STYLES OF GRADUATING CANADIAN UROLOGY RESIDENTS Nicolas Vanin Moreno and Naji J. Touma Nicolas Vanin MorenoNicolas Vanin Moreno and Naji J. ToumaNaji J. Touma View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008644.01945.6c.03AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The Kolb learning theory attributes differences in learning to how an experience is perceived and processed. Subsequent learning style inventories were created with the latest version in the form of the validated Kolb's Experiential Learning Profile (KELP). Studied in other surgical disciplines, identifying the learning style of urology residents may help in the development of teaching curricula that are best suited to knowledge and skill acquisition. The objective of this study is to both characterize the learning styles of graduating Canadian urology residents and correlate individual styles with exam performance. METHODS: The KELP was administered to all graduating Canadian Urological residents attending QUEST between 2021-23. All participants received a report at the conclusion of the course. Participants' preferred learning phase (Acting, Thinking, Reflecting, Experiencing) and a specific learning style (Deciding, Analyzing, Thinking, Acting, Initiating, Balancing, Reflecting, Experiencing, Imagining) were identified for all residents. Individual exam performance was recorded for both written and OSCE components. Cumulative, OSCE, and written scores were analyzed between learning phase, and learning style, respectively (mean percentile score±SD; One-way ANOVA, Tukey's multiple comparisons test, α=0.05). RESULTS: Graduates from 2021 (n=35), 2022 (n=29), and 2023 (n=37) were included. The most common preferred learning phase were "Acting" (38/101, 37.6%) and "Thinking" (35/101, 34.7%). The most common preferred learning styles were "Deciding" (19/101, 18.8%), "Acting" (15/101, 14.9%), and "Analyzing", "Initiating" and "Thinking" (14/101, 13.9%, each). There was no significant difference between preferred learning phase and oral, written, or total exam performance (p>0.05). Graduates with the "Acting" (69.72%±4.25 SD) learning style performed significantly better than the "Analyzing" (59.33%±10.67 SD) learning style in the OSCE component (p=0.02). There was no difference between learning styles and written or overall scores (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Graduating Canadian urology residents vary in their preferred learning styles, but the majority seem to learn by acting and thinking. There was evidence of better oral exam performance between a hands-on learning style compared to an analytic one, however increased test numbers may better elucidate the strength and relevance of this relationship. This lays the groundwork for future studies correlating learning style to exam performance and identifying predictors of successful completion of residency. Source of Funding: No source of funding to declare © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e652 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Nicolas Vanin Moreno More articles by this author Naji J. Touma More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,161 | 0,019 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».