Learning Outcomes of Hybrid In-Person and At-Home Orthosis Fabrication Instruction for Occupational Therapy Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, occupational therapy students at one university received all orthosis fabrication education through an in-person laboratory-based environment supported by clinicians and instructional videos. Due to the pandemic restrictions, orthosis fabrication labs for occupational therapy students were transitioned to a hybrid in-person and at-home supported lab. Presently, there is no research investigating how a hybrid in-person orthosis lab and at-home orthosis fabrication experience impacts the professional practice skill development of occupational therapy students entering the workforce. This research examined the learning outcomes of participation in a hybrid orthosis fabrication experience consisting of one in-person laboratory-based experience and one at-home supported experience (instructional videos, written instructions, without instructor supervision). The research also explored the implications of this hybrid learning experience for future curriculum development. This qualitative study included two components: (1) Interviews with six occupational therapy graduates; (2) 26 student reflections following the hybrid learning experience. The results of this study highlighted three overarching themes: orthosis skill development; transferable skills development; future considerations for implementing a hybrid learning method. A hybrid learning approach provided unique opportunities for the scaling of independence and productive struggle to develop student competence in orthosis fabrication. This research provided insights for occupational therapy curriculum developers to modify educational approaches and effectively support students as they develop into competent occupational therapists.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".