EXPERIENCES IN COMPULSORY PHYSIOTHERAPY COURSES RELATED
TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF AUTONOMOUS WORK
Rodríguez-Fuentes G, Oliveira IM
Faculty of Physiotherapy, University of Vigo
gfuentes@uvigo.es, irismacoli@uvigo.es
KEYWORDS: Active learning; Teaching; Higher Education; Physiotherapy.
INTRODUCTION
OBJECTIVE
The new paradigm on Higher Education requires promoting autonomous learning by students with a view to facilitating
“learning to learn” process. This will stimulates not only the active role of students in their own learning process so their
point of view on the importance of continuing education. This continuing education throughout professional life is a really
important point regarding areas of knowledge which are constantly changing, like, for example, health sciences. Based on
those aspects, we have designed and programmed different activities to promote autonomous learning in different
compulsory courses of the Degree in Physiotherapy.
The objective of our study was to assess the participation and
involvement of students in learning activities requiring an
active role in its own learning process and which were
developed within different compulsory courses of the Degree
in Physiotherapy.
METHODOLOGY
Second-grade students of the Degree in Physiotherapy at the University of Vigo,
enrolled in General Physiotherapy, and Electrotherapy and Ultrasound Therapy.
Subjects
Average age
ACADEMIC
SAMPLE*
AGE†
2012-13
44/49 (89.8%)
21.34 ± 5.29
21/23
2013-14
48/56 (85.71%)
21.23 ± 4.02
25/23
2012-13
44/49 (89.8%)
21.95 ± 5.95
21/23
2013-14
45/56 (80.36%)
21.4 ± 4.22
25/20
LEARNING MATERIAL
2012-13
30/55 (54.55%)
21.58 ± 5.07
13/17
PREPARATION
2013-14
39/55 (70.9%)
20.52 ± 2.03
22/17
LEARNING ACTIVITY
COURSE
See table 1.
JIGSAW TECHNIQUE
Experimental procedure
A cross-sectional descriptive study.
A double ad hoc questionnaire: one centered on the subjects included in the activity,
and other on the activity assessment (specific for each activity and which included
open-ended and closed-ended questions, being those last assessed by means of a 5point Likert scale – 5 being the maximum score)..
Was voluntary. In order to encourage the participation in the activities, it was agreed:
who participated in the activity of Jigsaw technique and had the exam approved after
it, those subjects would be excluded from the theoretical test; one of the final
questions included in the test would be related to the educative video activity carried
out; and regarding the activity related to the reading and comprehension of the
learning material provided by the teacher, that all the questions included in such
material would be solved between all and some of them would be included in the
theoretical test.
Instrument
Participation
Statistical analysis
GENDER
EDUCATIVE VIDEO
(F/M)
*Sample: values in parentheses are the percentage of students who participated in each activity with respect to the total enrolled students by each
course.
†Age:
values represent the mean age ± standard deviation.
Table 1. Sample participation by each activity and academic year, and demographic data.
Descriptive analysis using Excel software.
RESULTS
The main results observed were, by one hand, the high participation of the students, over 70% except for one activity (over 50%), in the different activities during both
academic years (see table 1).
On the other hand, and related to the real involvement of the students in each activity, the results are presented in table 2.
Finally, it is important to note that the three activities modalities, in both academic years, were assessed by the students by means of questionnaires. The scores obtained in
those items from closed-ended questions, which were common to the three activities’ questionnaires, are shown in table 3.
LEARNING
ACADEMIC
ACTIVITY
COURSE
Jigsaw technique
Learning activity
RESULTS
2012-13
4 of 44 students did not pass the theoretical test
2013-14
4 of 48 students did not pass the theoretical test
QUESTIONS
Academic
course
Jigsaw
Educative
technique
video
5 students did not read the paper previously
2012-13
2 students did not attend the preparation class
preparation
SCORE*
2012-13
3.19 ± 1.04
4.34 ± 0.68
4.33 ± 0.48
seemed interesting to me.
2013-14
3.35 ± 0.89
3.91 ± 0.97
3.68 ± 1.17
14 students did not read the material provided and did not try to answer the
I have learned and understood
2012-13
3.66 ± 0.57
4.05 ± 0.65
4.33 ± 0.55
questions given
the proposed topic.
2013-14
3.42 ± 0.9
4.18 ± 0.72
3.63 ± 0.88
6 students read the material, but did not try to answer the questions given
It would not mind employing
2012-13
3.09 ± 1.05
4.2 ± 0.82
4.22 ± 0.7
3 students did not fill the final assessment questionnaire
this methodology in other
2013-14
2.77 ± 1.02
3.47 ± 1.08
3.26 ± 1.04
2012-13
3.55 ± 1.08
4.35 ± 0.89
4.26 ± 0.76
2013-14
3.45 ± 1.38
3.73 ± 1.31
3.53 ± 1.12
13 students did not read the paper previously
2013-14
1 student did not attend the preparation class
Learning material
19 students did not read the material provided and did not tried to answer
preparation
the questions given
5 students read the material, but did not try to answer the questions given
2013-14
material
The methodology employed
Educative video
2012-13
Learning
2 students tried to answer the questions with no previous reading of the
occasions along the course.
I consider the proposed
evaluation system
material
appropriated.
5 students did not fill the final assessment questionnaire
I consider the activity had a
2012-13
4.14 ± 1.01
4.64 ± 0.57
4.69 ± 1.01
positive work climate.
2013-14
4.4 ± 0.71
4.51 ± 0.55
4.51 ± 0,66
Table 2. Results on the participation of the students in the different activities by academic year.
* Score: represent the average of the scores (5-points Likert scale) ± SD.
CONCLUSION
As a conclusion, we could say that the higher
level of students’ involvement in their own learning
process is linked to the fact that this participation
is taken into account to their final marks. It seems
necessary to promote autonomous learning
among our students
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
All the students implicated in the study.
Table 3. Students’ asessment on closed-ended questions of each activity by academic year.
REFERENCES
•
•
•
•
Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephin, C., Sikes, J. and Sanpp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing Company.
Aronson, E. and Patnoe, S. (2011). Cooperation in the classroom: The jigsaw method. 3rd ed. London: Pinter & Martin, Ltd.
Bravo, J.L. (1996). ¿Qué es el video educativo? Comunicar 6, pp. 100-105.
EACEA P9 Eurydice (2013). El Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior en 2012: Informe sobre la implantación del Proceso de Bolonia. Madrid: Ministerio de
Educación, Cultura y Deporte.
• Graffam, B. (2007). Active learning in medical education: Strategies for beginning implementation. Medical Teacher 29(1), pp. 38-42.
• Rodríguez Fuentes, G., e Iglesias Santos, R. (2002). Bases físicas de la hidroterapia. Fisioterapia 24(MN 2), pp. 14-21.
• Váquez-Carrera, M., Laguna, J.C., Alegret, M., y Sánchez, R.M. (2007). Estrategias para fomenter el trabajo autónomo en Farmacología. Edusfarm, revista
d’eduació superior en Farmacia 2, pp. 1-14.