A Study on How to Instruct Students in Field Work Performance —Instructing Students Who Had Problems in Learning the Physical Therapy Practical Process—

抄録

The author has compiled a list of 76 items to be learned by students in the Field Work Performance (FWP) program with the notion of framing a general idea of the Physical Therapy Practical Process (PTPP), and used these items to prepare a Self-Evaluation Achievement Checklist (SEA-Checklist) in the form of a questionnaire. Based on the SEA-Checklist, research has been carried out on the performance levels of students who have been engaged in clinical training. This study was carried out on students with mistakes in the FWP. Three types of instruction methods were carried out: the individual objective setting and executing type (A); the individual objective proposed type (B); and the experienced objective setting type (C). The study was performed by using these three methods and an examination of determined effects was made to learn if any difference can be found in learning PTPP. The chi-square test was carried out from the number of passing items and nonpassing items of each type. No significant difference was observed between any group at the beginning of the training. It was also found that the marks and the passing rates for all groups increased significantly after the training. A significant difference (p<0.05) was observed between types A and C, but not between types A and B, and types B and C. To review penetration of the effect of learning, when the level of rating criteria was raised one rank, to “almost satisfactory” from “achieved in some way” in the 7-stage rating, significant differences between types A and B (p<0.01) on the one hand, and those between types A and C on the other were confirmed. In determination of the effects of the three types of instruction for those with wrong steps in the FWP, it was noted that type A was the most effective method, type C was less effective, and type B was intermediate. It was possible to identify students with wrong steps in the FWP by using the SEA-Checklist obtained in the first study and to grasp the contents of the wrong steps. Working out the plans for overall targets and individual student targets was made easier. In FWP instruction, it was effective not only to post an overall target, but also to adopt the instructing method to correct each case as it may require by evaluating the situation as the students were actually engaged in FWP. In a sense, the use of instruction of individual target setting and excuting type (type A) turned out to be effective. Although the current situation does not allow use of this method, it was suggested that the execution of a instruction method of at least an individual target proposed type (type B) was required. This method was considered effective for the students with no mistakes in FWP.