Repository logo

Browsing by Author "Feller, Rich, advisor"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Analyzing the relationship of strengths to personality preferences and vocational interests utilizing Clifton StrengthsFinder, Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, and Strong Interest Inventory
    (Colorado State University. Libraries, 2009) Schenck, Paulette M., author; Feller, Rich, advisor
    Throughout the history of vocational psychology, career counselors have constantly searched for, devised, and implemented practices and techniques to best prepare clients for the world of work. The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between strengths to personality preference and vocational interests utilizing the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (CPP, 2003), Strong Interest Inventory (CPP, 2005), and the Clifton StrengthsFinder (Gallop, 2005) with 164 graduate students from two academic programs in an effort to expand career counseling knowledge and practice. Multiple interactions were observed between strengths and personality preferences. All (100%) of those with Communication and Woo as one of their top five strengths were Extravert. This same pattern occurred between Analytical and Significance with Sensing, Analytical with Thinking, and Discipline and Significance with Judging. Traits appearing with strengths 90 to 99% of the time included Extravert with Activator, Feeling with Empathy, and Judging with Consistency. One strength was totally (100%) associated with a mental function (Analytical and Sensing-Thinking); however, several had no association. This same pattern of connections and non-connections occurred between other strengths and personality types. In comparing strengths by top ten percent occurrence (90-100%) with the top clarity category, significant differences occurred. For example, while 100% of certain traits were paired with particular strengths by occurrence, these traits did not always have very clear clarity. This disparity suggests the relationship between personality traits and strengths may be more complex than just occurrence or clarity alone would indicate. The relationship between strengths and vocational interests was less defined. With few exceptions, all vocational interest-strength combination means were within one standard deviation. This lack of discernible interaction between vocational interests and strengths perhaps suggests that strengths can be applied across vocational endeavors, rather than being attracted to particular activities; supporting the notion that strengths are not field specific and can be applied across multiple life roles. Differences were further observed between two additional variables of gender and academic program. Some strengths were common between genders and academic programs but rankings often differed, while others were unique to the individual categories.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Learning styles of radiography students during clinical practice
    (Colorado State University. Libraries, 2009) Ward, L. Patrice, author; Feller, Rich, advisor
    The purpose of this study was to identify and describe the common learning styles of radiography students during clinical practice. Quantitative, descriptive research methodology identified the learning styles of radiography students. A single self-report questionnaire, developed to assess learning styles in clinical practice, was administered electronically via a Web page. The sample included 350 radiography students from Joint Review Committee on Education in Radiologic Technology (JRCERT) associate degree programs in the United States. There were six subscales of learning styles identified: structure, integration, experimentation, authority, orientation, and approach. Findings found three groups of radiography students with similar learning styles: task oriented (n = 101), purposeful (n = 134), and tentative (n = 114). Students identified with the task oriented learning style were characterized by preferences to test ideas and draw on intuition and feelings during clinical learning situations. Purposeful learning style students were distinguished by preferences to plan, actively integrate theory and practice, focus on results, and trust in theoretical concepts. The tentative learning style students were characterized by preferences for more prescriptive and results oriented clinical learning experiences and moderation in other learning style elements. Radiography students as a group tended to plan more than improvise and actively rather than passively integrate theory and practice. During clinical learning experiences, they were inclined to focus on results more than process and were apt to rely on i themselves rather than depend on experts for guidance. There were statistically significant differences in distribution for gender, level in program, and age among the three groups of common learning styles. Findings found males were more likely to identify with the purposeful learning style and females with the tentative learning style. First year students were more likely to identify with the purposeful learning style and second year students with the task oriented learning style. Traditional students were more likely to identify with the tentative learning style and nontraditional students with the purposeful learning style. There were no significant differences in distribution associated with learning styles and level of education. Implications for practice include suggestions for students and clinical faculty to apply knowledge of learning styles to understand differences among students, to enhance discussion about learning, and to inspire creative techniques to facilitate learning during clinical practice. Findings offer possibilities for refining the questionnaire and directions for future research to improve teaching effectiveness and student achievement.