Evaluation of Students' Approaches to Studying in a

Problem-based Physical Therapy Curriculum

Harry V K Van Langenberghe
PHYS THER. 1988; 68:522-527.

The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, can
be found online at: http://ptjournal.apta.org/content/68/4/522
Collections

This article, along with others on similar topics, appears

in the following collection(s):
Physical Therapist Education

e-Letters

To submit an e-Letter on this article, click here or click on

"Submit a response" in the right-hand menu under
"Responses" in the online version of this article.

E-mail alerts

Sign up here to receive free e-mail alerts

Downloaded from http://ptjournal.apta.org/ by guest on January 30, 2013

Evaluation of Students' Approaches to Studying in a

Problem-based Physical Therapy Curriculum
HARRY V. K. V A N LANGENBERGHE
The purpose of this study was to investigate the approaches to studying of firstand second-year students in a problem-based physical therapy program. The
Short Inventory of Approaches to Studying was administered to 112 first-year
students (66 female, 46 male) and 100 second-year students (62 female, 38
male). Ninety-nine first-year students and 88 second-year students responded to
the inventory, representing a return rate of 88%. The results of both groups were
compared. Further comparisons were made with reported normative inventory
scores and with inventory results reported of first-year students in a medical
problem-based school. All comparisons were made using two-tailed t tests. The
inventory scores proved similar in both year groups of physical therapy students
and were more desirable than the normative values. The first-year physical
therapy students' scores were similar to those of the first-year medical students
reported to be desirable. It was concluded that the physical therapy students
possess desirable approaches to studying.
Key Words: Education: physical therapist, teaching methods; Learning.

Traditionally, physical therapy education has been based

on the separate teaching of various disciplines. Increasingly,
however, physical therapy educators have pointed out deficiencies in this curricular arrangement.1-5 The teaching frequently emphasizes the acquisition of large quantities of
factual information, rather than critical assessment and appraisal of that information.1,6 The course content may not
always be relevant to professional practice, and there may be
little integration of subject matter. The students, thus, may
have difficulty integrating information from various disciplines. Additionally, evidence exists that students, when faced
with large amounts of factual information coupled with a
degree of perceived irrelevancy, may resort to rote learning or
memorizing in an attempt to reproduce this information.7
Barr specifically pointed out that traditional forms of teaching
fail to take into account the process of learning.1 The reported
deficiencies may detrimentally influence students' approaches
to studying, resulting in poor quality of knowledge.
Educational research has revealed numerous undesirable
and desirable studying approaches. Rote learning is undesirable because it can result in a superficial level of understanding
and is considered detrimental to both the quality and the
long-term retention of knowledge.7 Other approaches that are
considered undesirable are a tendency to reach conclusions
prematurely without sufficient evidence, an inclination to
make implausible links between ideas, and a failure to seek
relationships and analogies between concepts in the study
H. Van Langenberghe, BS, is Staff Physical Therapist, Physical Therapy
Department, St. Joseph's Hospital, 555 E Market St, PO Box 1512, Elmira,
NY 14902 (USA), and a doctoral candidate in life sciences, King's College
London, University of London. He was a postgraduate student in rehabilitation
studies at the University of Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom, when
this investigation was conducted and Research Associate, Physiotherapy Research Unit, Physiology Department, King's College London, University of
London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, United Kingdom, when this article was
written.
This article was submitted July 31, 1986; was with the author for revision 21
weeks; and was accepted June 10, 1987. Potential Conflict of Interest: 4.

material. These approaches may impede the development of

a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter.8 Entwistle notes that desirable approaches to studying include
well-organized study habits, competitiveness, and a seeking
of clues to what lecturers expect.9 Also desirable are efforts to
obtain a general understanding of a topic by using analogies
and examples, attempts to relate new information to knowledge already available, and a critical step-by-step examination
of details and evidence. A combination of these approaches
was found to enhance the quality and the long-term retention
of what is learned9,10 and is reported to facilitate a deep level
of understanding.9
Students' studying approaches vary widely among schools,
depending on the learning environment.11-14 With regard to
the quality of patient care, it is imperative that physical
therapy students receive their training in an environment that
facilitates desirable studying approaches, leading to the acquisition of a good quality of knowledge of a multidisciplinary
nature with long-term retention and enabling them to continuously update their knowledge after qualification.
In medical education, problem-based curricula have
emerged to provide such a facilitating learning environment.
These curricula were designed as an alternative to the traditional method of teaching, which was observed to have undesirable effects on the way students learn.15,16 For similar
reasons, problem-based (problem-solving) physical therapy
curricula have been devised in the United States1,2 and in The
Netherlands, where such a physical therapy program is currently functioning in The Hague.6
PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING

The following description briefly outlines how problembased studying is implemented in the preclinical part of the
program at the physical therapy school in The Hague (the
Haagse Academie voor Fysiotherapie). The description, which
is based on my observations during a 14-day visit to the school
PHYSICAL THERAPY

522
Downloaded from http://ptjournal.apta.org/ by guest on January 30, 2013

EDUCATION
3,6

and on internal and external publications, was approved of

by the school's educationist.
The first 2 years of the 4-year program are preclinical.
They are followed by one year of clinical placements and then
by half a year of preparation for the final examinations and
the writing of a dissertation. Around 100 new students are
admitted each academic year.
In problem-based education, the learning is structured
around specific problems that the students study and must
try to solve.15,16 In The Hague school, the problems take the
form of case studies and are presented in a written or videotaped format. They comprise personal data, letters of referral,
details of case history and clinical examination, and if relevant, radiographs and laboratory findings. After receiving the
case presentation, students meet in small study groups (five
or six people) to evaluate the information using the personal
and professional knowledge they already possess. The students
themselves determine what information must be gathered and
studied to fully understand and solve the given problem. This
information may be derived from the biomedical and behavioral sciences, as well as medicine and physical therapy.
A case study usually is completed within one week, and
each study group generally is scheduled to meet three times
during that period of time. In contrast to traditional curricula,
no lectures are scheduled. It is the study group's responsibility
to organize and define their own daily study activities and
tasks. These activities may include consulting, on their own
initiative, specialists among the college staff for specific help
and information. The students may also gather information
through library research, informative audiovisual media, and
anatomical models. Hence, each study group may have a
different itinerary each day. At the second group meeting, the
information the students have collected is discussed, evaluated, and collated in the context of the problem case. If
deemed necessary, additional information is subsequently
sought. The third group meeting serves to revise the case and
to devise a therapy program.
A tutor is present at each scheduled study group meeting.
This tutor may be a specialist in any field, not necessarily in
physical therapy. The tutor's task is not the teaching of a
specialized subject, but the facilitation of an appropriate and
systematic approach to the problem. The tutors regularly
receive training to perform this task properly.
A final evaluation meeting is scheduled at the completion
of the case study, when four or five study groups meet for a
case evaluation session. The tutor present at this final gathering always is a physical therapist. A representative from
each study group presents the group's approach to the case,
the therapy program devised, and its rationale. Alternative
approaches may be discussed. The tutor points out possible
flaws and inconsistencies, corrects mistakes, and finally evaluates the case.
During the course of the case study, the students also
participate in scheduled practical classes in examination or
treatment skills and may do various laboratory work. These
"hands-on" sessions are problem-based in the sense that they
focus on the case study problem of the preceding week. The
students, thus, have the opportunity to integrate practical
skills and knowledge into the theoretical construct they have
developed. These sessions, which are compulsory, and the
scheduled group meetings take up about one third of the time
students generally spend on their studies.
Problem-based learning, such as that outlined above, is
claimed to have educational advantages over traditional ways

1 -3,5,6,15,16

of learning.
The relevance of what is learned is arguably self-evident because it is determined by what is needed
to understand and solve real-life patient problems. Subject
matter from many disciplines is studied and learned in an
integrated manner, and students determine and implement
their own learning tasks. These factors presumably facilitate
desirable approaches to studying.

EVALUATION OF STUDENT LEARNING

Evidence to suggest that problem-based curricula have educational merit in terms of students' approaches to studying
exists, but it is scarce. Coles found that medical students in a
problem-based curriculum showed studying approaches superior to those of students in a traditional medical curriculum.1718 No study has been found in the literature addressing
the studying approaches of students in a problem-based physical therapy curriculum. Such an investigation might yield
insight into the worth of problem-based learning for physical
therapy education.
The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the studying approaches of the first- and second-year students in the
problem-based physical therapy curriculum in The Hague by
means of the Short Inventory of Approaches to Studying.9
The results of both year groups were compared with each
other and with normative inventory values published by
Entwistle.9 In addition, the first-year physical therapy students' scores were compared with inventory results reported
by Coles18 of first-year students in a medical problem-based
curriculum.
METHOD
Subjects
The target population consisted of allfirst-and second-year
students in the physical therapy school in The Hague at the
end of the academic year. According to the school's administration, the first-year class comprised 112 students (66 female, 46 male) with a mean age of 19.8 years (s = 2.4 years)
and the second-year class comprised 100 students (62 female,
38 male) with a mean age of 21.1 years (s = 2.7 years).
Instrumentation
The Short Inventory of Approaches to Studying, developed
by Entwistle and colleagues,9 contains 30 statements concerned with how students perform everyday academic tasks
and measures eight learning dimensions.919 The dimensions
entailed were derived from findings of several independently
working investigators and have been confirmed by cluster and
factor analyses. According to its authors, the inventory's
internal consistency, validity, and reliability have been shown
to be satisfactory after studies involving more than 2,000
students of various disciplines and year groups in higher
education.919 It has also been used in medical education to
evaluate the studying approaches of medical students.17,20 The
Appendix presents the inventory statements and identifies the
statements belonging to each dimension.
The students rate their response to each statement on a
five-point agreement scale (4 = definitely agree, 3 = agree
with reservations, 2 = uncertain, 1 = disagree with reservations, 0 = definitely disagree). Dimension scores are calculated
by addition of the scores on the relevant statements, in
accordance with instructions by the inventory's authors.9

Volume 68 / Number 4, April 1988

Downloaded from http://ptjournal.apta.org/ by guest on January 30, 2013

523

The eight dimensions are:

Achievement Motivation. A high score is desirable and
indicates well-organized study methods, regular and efficient
study habits, competitiveness, desire to achieve, and an aware
ness of implications of academic demands by staff members.
Reproducing Orientation. A high score is undesirable; it
relates to a preoccupation with memorizing and an interest
in the course only for the qualification it offers, with reliance
on the syllabus and on staff members to define studying tasks.
Meaning Orientation. A high score is desirable and indicates
efforts to understand the subject matter and relate new infor
mation with what is already known and a motivation fed by
interest in the topics to study.
Comprehension Learning Style. A high score indicates an
inclination to "map out" the subject area, to think divergently,
and to interrelate ideas.
Operation Learning Style. A high score indicates an incli
nation toward emphasis on facts, logical analysis, and use of
evidence to reach conclusions.
Versatility. A high score is desirable, indicating an ability
to use and adequately vary learning approaches depending on
the learning task. This ability includes efforts to understand
the subject matter, to relate new information to what is
already known, to interrelate ideas, to think divergently, to
map out the subject area, and to use logical step-by-step
analysis procedures.
Learning Pathologies. A high score is undesirable, indicat
ing the presence of one or more of the following poor studying
approaches: 1) an inclination to rote learning, 2) an overcau
tious reliance on textbook definitions and on details in the
study material, 3) a tendency to prematurely reach conclu
sions, 4) an inclination to ignore pertinent details or to focus
on irrelevant details, or 5) a tendency to generalize without
sufficient evidence.
Prediction of Success. A combination of the scores on
Achievement Motivation and Versatility minus the score on
Learning Pathologies. A high score is desirable, indicating
good overall studying approaches that make academic success
likely.
Procedure
The inventory was administered at the end of the academic
year and on the first day of a new case study to ensure that
the optimum number of students were reached. The students
were asked to respond to the statements anonymously, indi
cating only their year of study. They were urged to respond
as accurately as possible within the 20-minute time frame
allowed.
Data Analysis
I used the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences soft
ware program on a VAX 11/785 computer for the statistical
analysis. Numerous comparisons were made, all by means of
two-tailed t tests.
The mean scores and standard deviations were calculated
separately for the two year groups for each dimension. The
significance of the differences between the mean scores of the
two year groups was tested.
In addition, statistical comparisons were made between
results of the current investigation and inventory results of
two investigations reported in the literature. The dimension
scores from each year group were compared with normative

data obtained by Entwistle9 from 2,208 students of various

disciplines and year groups in higher education. A curriculumspecific comparison was made between the first-year physical
therapy students' results and scores from 70 students at the
end of their first academic year in a medical problem-based
school, reported by Coles18 as being desirable.
RESULTS
Ninety-nine first-year students and 88 second-year students
responded to the inventory, representing a return rate of 88%.
Table 1 presents the mean inventory scores and standard
deviations from year 1 and year 2, as well as normative scores.
No significant differences were found between the two year
groups (p > .05). The comparison with the normative data
shows that the first-year students' mean score on Achievement
Motivation is significantly higher than the normative value
(p .05), but that the second-year students' mean score is
not significantly different from the normative value (p > .05).
The scores from both year groups on Meaning Orientation
are not significantly different from the normative value (p >
.05). The scores from each year group on Reproducing Ori
entation, Operation Learning Style, and Learning Pathologies
are significantly lower (p .05) than the normative values,
but are significantly higher (p .05) on Comprehension
Learning Style, Versatility, and Prediction of Success.
In Table 2, the scores from the first-year physical therapy
students are compared with those from first-year medical
students in a problem-based school. No significant differences
were found (p > .05).
DISCUSSION
The comparison with the normative scores provides evi
dence that overall the physical therapy students in the prob
lem-based program in The Hague possess more desirable
studying approaches than a large sample of other students in
higher education. The differences found are highly significant.
The studying approaches are not significantly different be
tween the two year groups of the physical therapy school.
Also, the return rates are high, indicating that these ap
proaches are a common feature in the first- and second-year
groups in this school. In this context, it may be relevant that
the school does not screen students for their studying ap
proaches. In The Netherlands, aspiring physical therapy stu
dents apply for admission to a central admissions office.
Students are accepted for admission on the merit of their high
school qualifications and expressed geographical preference.
Some students may have expressed a preference for the school
because it offers a problem-based program. Interviews that I
conducted with 15 randomly chosen students, however, re
vealed that only 3 had expressed a preference for this reason.
Relative to the normative values, the physical therapy stu
dents' scores can be interpreted as follows. The first-year
physical therapy students' mean score on Achievement Mo
tivation shows that they have better-organized study methods,
work more regularly and effectively, and show more drive to
achieve than a large sample of other students in higher edu
cation. The second-year physical therapy students' mean score
on this dimension is exactly midway between the first-year
students' mean score and the normative value and is not
statistically different from either. A possible explanation for
this finding is that thefirst-yearphysical therapy students are
more eager and anxious to do well than a large sample of

524

PHYSICAL THERAPY
Downloaded from http://ptjournal.apta.org/ by guest on January 30, 2013

EDUCATION
TABLE 1
Inventory Results from Year 1 and Year 2 of the Physical Therapy School and Comparison Between the Two Year Groups and with
Normative Values
Physical Therapy

s
Achievement Motivation
Reproducing Orientation
Meaning Orientation
Comprehension Learning Style
Operation Learning Style
Versatility
Learning Pathologies
Prediction of Success

s
13.2
10.9
14.6
14.7
12.0
30.7
21.4
70.5

3.0
3.4
3.6
2.0
2.1
5.6
5.4
10.1

13.6
11.0
15.0
14.2
12.3
31.1
21.3
71.3

Normative
Valuesa
(N = 2,208)

Year 2
(n = 88)

Year 1
(n = 99)

Learning Dimension

2.9
3.6
3.1
2.1
2.1
4.9
6.1
10.4

Pb

Pc

Pd

.42
.84
.42
.09
.37
.62
.92
.55

.01
<.001
.06
<.001
<.001
.01
<.001
<.001

.19
<.001
.37
<.001
<.001
.01
<.001
<.001

s
12.8
13.5
14.3
13.1
13.3
29.6
24.6
65.9

4.3
4.4
4.5
3.6
3.7
7.0
7.2
13.0

Data from Entwistle.9

p value of difference between first- and second-year physical therapy students.
c
p value of difference between first-year physical therapy students and normative values.
d
p value of difference between second-year physical therapy students and normative values.
b

TABLE 2
Comparison Between Inventory Results from First-Year
Students in a Problem-based Physical Therapy School and in a
Problem-based Medical School

Learning Dimension

Physical
Therapy
(n = 99)

Medicala
(N = 70)
s

s
Achievement Motivation
Reproducing Orientation
Meaning Orientation
Comprehension Learning Style
Operation Learning Style
Versatility
Learning Pathologies
Prediction of Success
a

13.6
11.0
15.0
14.2
12.3
31.1
21.3
71.3

3.0
3.4
3.6
2.0
2.1
5.6
5.4
10.1

13.4
10.8
15.7
14.1
12.2
32.9
20.0
74.2

3.5
3.1
4.0
2.3
2.3
6.3
5.5
9.8

NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
.06
NS
.06

Data from Coles.18

students in other disciplines that includes many senior-year

students. For thefirst-yearstudents, the course is still relatively
new and they do not know exactly what to expect. This eager
attitude may have diminished somewhat in the second-year
group.
The physical therapy students' mean score on Reproducing
Orientation suggests that they rely less on memorizing than
other students. They are better able to define their own
studying tasks and are less dependent on the college staff
doing it for them. Also, they appear interested in their studies
because of the content, not only for the qualification the
program eventually offers.
The finding that the physical therapy students' mean score
on Meaning Orientation is similar to the normative value
suggests that they put as much effort into understanding the
subject matter and are equally motivated by interest as the
other students. The physical therapy students' scores on Comprehension Learning Style and Operation Learning Style may
indicate that they are more inclined toward divergent thinking
and interrelating of ideas in their studying and less inclined
toward logical step-by-step analysis and emphasis on facts
than other students. This finding is difficult to interpret

straightforwardly and needs some clarification. Pask noted

that the presence and alternation of both Comprehension
Learning Style and Operation Learning Style is needed to
achieve a complete understanding of the subject matter.8 This
ability to adequately vary studying styles is expressed in the
Versatility score. The physical therapy students' mean score
on this dimension indicates that they are better capable of
varying their study approaches and of adapting them to the
learning task than other students.
Comparison of scores on Learning Pathologies suggests that
physical therapy students are less inclined than other students
to use undesirable poor study approaches. Finally, the scores
on Prediction of Success suggest that overall the physical
therapy students have relatively good study skills, making
academic success likely.
The comparison between the inventory results of the firstyear students in the problem-based physical therapy curriculum and in the problem-based medical curriculum shows that
their studying approaches are similar. Coles used the inventory to compare the studying approaches of these first-year
medical students to those offirst-yearstudents in a traditional
medical curriculum.17,18 This comparison, at the end of the
academic year, showed the students in the problem-based
curriculum to have approaches to studying superior to those
of students in the traditional curriculum. The findings from
Coles' investigations17,18 and from my investigation suggest
that students in a problem-based curriculum possess more
desirable studying approaches than students in traditional
curricula.
Whether the observed studying approaches are brought
about by the problem-based structure of the curriculum remains questionable. Interesting in this respect is Coles' initial
finding that entry-level medical students in both traditional
and problem-based curricula had equally desirable inventory
scores.1718 The significant differences he found after one year
resulted from the fact that students in the problem-based
curriculum had maintained or even improved on their initial
inventory scores, whereas the scores of the students in the
traditional curriculum had deteriorated. Coles suggested that
traditional curricula may stifle the initially desirable approaches to studying the students commence their studies

Volume 68 / Number 4, April 1988

Downloaded from http://ptjournal.apta.org/ by guest on January 30, 2013

525

with, whereas a problem-based program may encourage them

to continue approaching their studies in a desirable manner.
A recent evaluation at The Hague provides some support for
this suggestion. Inventory scores from first-year students on
their day of entry to the program and again at the end of the
academic year were not significantly different, but in both
instances desirable (J. H. M. Tromp, personal communication, November 1986).
The inventory results reveal that the students in the problem-based physical therapy curriculum demonstrate numerous capabilities that clinically and professionally may be of
importance. Entwistle concludes from his own studies and
those by others that the presence of desirable studying approaches and the absence of undesirable ones are prerequisites
for a deep and "holistic" level of understanding of the subject
matter. This level of understanding, in turn, leads to relevant
and comprehensive knowledge with long-term retention.9 It
seems logical to infer that if physical therapists can retain a
high quality of knowledge, the quality of their patient care
may directly benefit. The students' interest, their ability to
identify and define deficiencies in their professional knowledge, and their use of studying approaches that enable them
to efficiently and successfully obtain the lacking information
also may predispose them to becoming good "life-long learners." This attribute seems essential to keep abreast of the
profession's rapidly developing scientific knowledge and clinical methods. Good studying skills may help practicing therapists to update and enhance their knowledge and skills, which
ultimately is of benefit to the patient. In addition, similar
skills and aptitudes could be deemed essential prerequisites
for potential researchers; their development early in their
professional education may stimulate therapists to pursue
vital research activities, thus contributing to physical therapy's
body of knowledge.
Firm conclusions based solely on this investigation cannot
be drawn. Additional comparisons of the studying approaches
of students in problem-based and traditional physical therapy
schools are needed. Also, it will be necessary to investigate
whether graduates from problem-based curricula have superior professional skills and knowledge compared with graduates from traditional schools. A further question to address is
whether physical therapists graduating from problem-based
schools retain their studying skills and have less difficulty
updating their knowledge than those trained traditionally. In
the meantime, physical therapy educators may find it worthwhile to evaluate this type of curriculum critically, because
the potential advantages are of utmost importance for members of an expanding health care profession.

CONCLUSION

The results from this investigation indicate that the students

in the problem-based physical therapy school in The Hague
possess desirable approaches to studying. These approaches
are similar to those of medical students in a problem-based
curriculum and compare favorably with those of a large
sample of students in other forms of higher education.
Acknowledgments. I am very grateful to Dr. Colin Coles
for his permission to reproduce data from his doctoral thesis,
to Dr. Hans Tromp for his assistance in this investigation,
and to Christine Van Langenberghe-Zryd and Sue Carter for
their critical comments.
REFERENCES
1. Barr JS: A problem-solving curriculum design in physical therapy. Phys
Ther 57:262-270, 1977
2. May BJ: An integrated problem-solving curriculum design for physical
therapy education. Phys Ther 57:807-813,1977
3. Rietmeijer EFH, Tromp JHM: Een nieuw onderwijsmodel aan de opleiding
fysiotherapie in Den Haag. Fysiovisie, December 1982, pp 7-8 (Dutch)
4. Beenhakker JC: Deficiencies in physiotherapy education. South African
Journal of Physiotherapy 42(2):37-39,1986
5. Olsen SL: Teaching treatment planning: A problem-solving model. Phys
Ther 63:526-529,1983
6. Tromp JHM: Probleemgestuurd onderwijs. Fysiovisie, April 1985, pp 1 1 13 (Dutch)
7. Marton F, Saljo R: On qualitative differences in learning: 1. Outcome and
process. Br J Educ Psychol 46:4-11,1976
8. Pask G: Styles and strategies of learning. Br J Educ Psychol 46:128-148,
1976
9. Entwistle NJ: Styles of Learning and Teaching: An Integrative Outline of
Educational Psychology for Students, Teachers, and Lecturers. Chichester, England, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 1981
10. Svensson L: On qualitative differences in learning: 3. Study skill and
learning. Br J Educ Psychol 47:233-243,1977
11. Fransson A: On qualitative differences in learning: 4. Effects of motivation
and test anxiety on process and outcome. Br J Educ Psychol 47:244257, 1977
12. Laurillard DM: The process of student learning. Higher Education 8:395409,1979
13. Ramsden P: Student learning and perception of the academic environment.
Higher Education 8:411-428,1979
14. Ramsden P, Entwistle NJ: Effects of academic departments on students'
approaches to studying. Br J Educ Psychol 51:368-385,1981
15. Barrows HS, Tamblyn RM: Problem-based Learning: An Approach to
Medical Education. New York, NY, Springer Publishing Co Inc, 1980
16. Schmidt HG: Problem-based learning: Rationale and description. Med Educ
17:11-16,1983
17. Coles C: Differences between conventional and problem-based curricula
in their students' approaches to studying. Med Educ 19:308-309, 1985
18. Coles C: A Study of the Relationships Between Curriculum and Learning
in Undergraduate Medical Education. Doctoral Thesis. University of Southampton, Hampshire, England, 1985
19. Entwistle NJ, Hanley M, Hounsell DJ: Identifying distinctive approaches to
studying. Higher Education 8:365-380,1979
20. Newble Dl, Gordon Ml: The learning style of medical students. Med Educ
19:3-8, 1985

526

PHYSICAL THERAPY
Downloaded from http://ptjournal.apta.org/ by guest on January 30, 2013

EDUCATION
APPENDIX

Inventory Statements and Identification of Statements Pertaining to Each Learning Dimensiona

1. I find it easy to organise my study time effectively.
2. I try to relate ideas in one subject to those in others, whenever
possible.
3. Although I have a fairly good general idea of many things, my
knowledge of the details is rather weak.
4. I like to be told precisely what to do in essays or other set work.
5. The best way for me to understand what technical terms mean is
to remember the text-book definitions.
6. It's important to me to do really well in the courses here.
7. I usually set out to understand thoroughly the meaning of what I
am asked to read.
8. When I'm reading I try to memorise important facts which may
come in useful later.
9. When I'm doing a piece of work, I try to bear in mind exactly wha
that particular lecturer seems to want.
10. I am usually cautious in drawing conclusions unless they are well
supported by evidence.
11. My main reason for being here is so that I can learn more about
the subjects which really interest me.
12. In trying to understand new ideas, I often try to relate them to
real-life situations to which they might apply.
13. I suppose I am more interested in the qualification I'll get than in
the courses I'm taking.
14. I'm usually prompt at starting work in the evenings.
15. Although I generally remember facts and details, I find it difficult
to fit them together into an overall picture.
16. I generally put a lot of effort into trying to understand things
which initially seem difficult.

17. I often get criticised for introducing irrelevant ideas into essays
or discussions.
18. Often I find I have to read things without having a chance to
really understand them.
19. If conditions aren't right for me to study, I generally manage to
do something to change them.
20. Problems fascinate me, particularly where you have to work
through the material to reach a logical conclusion.
21. I often find myself questioning things that I hear in lectures or
read in books.
22. I find it helpful to "map out" a new topic for myself by seeing
how the ideas fit together.
23. I tend to read very little beyond what's required for completing
assignments.
24. It is important to me to do things better than my friends if I
possibly can.
25. Tutors seem to want me to be more adventurous in making
use of my own ideas.
26. I spend a good deal of my spare time in finding out more about
interesting topics which have been discussed in classes.
27. I seem to be a bit too ready to jump to conclusions without
waiting for all the evidence.
28. I find academic topics so interesting, I should like to continue
with them after I finish this course.
29. I think it is important to look at problems rationally and logically
without making intuitive jumps.
30. I find I have to concentrate on memorising a good deal of what
we have to learn.

Achievement Motivation: 1,6, 9,14,19, 24

Reproducing Orientation: 4, 8,13,18, 23, 30
Meaning Orientation: 7,11,16, 21, 26, 28
Comprehension Learning Style: 2, 3,12,17, 22, 27
Operation Learning Style: 5,10,15, 20, 25, 29
Versatility: 2, 7,10-12, 16, 20-22, 26, 28, 29
Learning Pathologies: 3-5, 8, 13,15, 17, 18, 23, 25, 27, 30
Prediction of Success: Achievement Motivation plus Versatility minus Learning Pathologies
a

Reprinted with permission of John Wiley & Sons Ltd.9

Volume 68 / Number 4, April 1988

Downloaded from http://ptjournal.apta.org/ by guest on January 30, 2013

527

Evaluation of Students' Approaches to Studying in a

Problem-based Physical Therapy Curriculum
Harry V K Van Langenberghe
PHYS THER. 1988; 68:522-527.

http://ptjournal.apta.org/subscriptions/

Subscription
Information

Permissions and Reprints http://ptjournal.apta.org/site/misc/terms.xhtml

Information for Authors

http://ptjournal.apta.org/site/misc/ifora.xhtml

Downloaded from http://ptjournal.apta.org/ by guest on January 30, 2013