Impact of Nontraditional Level I Fieldwork on Critical Thinking

Area of Science:

• Occupational Therapy Education
• Medical Education
• Health Sciences

Background:

• Level I fieldwork is a core component of occupational therapy curricula.
• Limited research has investigated the impact of Level I fieldwork on critical thinking development.
• Understanding how different fieldwork structures influence skill acquisition is crucial for curriculum design.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the effectiveness of nontraditional versus traditional Level I fieldwork in fostering critical thinking.
• To analyze the influence of fieldwork type on the development of critical thinking skills in occupational therapy students.

Main Methods:

• A pretest-posttest design was employed with 73 Master of Occupational Therapy students.
• Students were divided into traditional (1-week) or nontraditional (16-week) Level I fieldwork groups.
• Critical thinking was assessed using the Health Sciences Reasoning Test (HSRT) before and after the fieldwork experience.

Main Results:

• All students demonstrated significant improvement in the Analysis subtest of the HSRT.
• Students in the nontraditional fieldwork group showed significant gains in both Analysis and overall HSRT scores.
• Higher GPAs and prior science coursework predicted greater HSRT score improvements in the nontraditional fieldwork group.

Conclusions:

• Both traditional and nontraditional Level I fieldwork experiences positively impact occupational therapy students' critical thinking.
• Nontraditional fieldwork may offer enhanced benefits for critical thinking development.
• Further research into pedagogical strategies that optimize critical thinking in fieldwork is warranted.