Learning Styles in Problem-based Learning Environments Impacts on Student Achievement and Professional Preparation in University Level Physical Therapy Courses
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is unknown if matching students’ preferred learning style with course delivery style improves academic success and further study is warranted in this area (Feely & Biggerstaff, 2017; Newton & Miah, 2017). Recently, there has been a call to better identify and understand the preferred learning styles of physical therapy education students and the effect this has on education (Brudvig, Mattson, & Guarino, 2016; Lowdermilk, 2016). While the benefit of matching teaching and learning styles has been investigated in other academic disciplines, it has not been investigated in physical therapy education. The purpose of this study was to determine if student preferred learning style is related to success in a learner centered problem-based learning formatted class and program, specifically for physical therapy students. Results provide insights into preferred learning styles and student achievement in a problem-based learning centered Doctoral level Physical Therapy Program.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it