Nurse Practitioner Preferences for Distance Education Methods Related to Learning Style, Course Content, and Achievement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationships among multiple distance delivery methods, preferred learning style, content, and achievement was sought for primary care nurse practitioner students. A researcher-designed questionnaire was completed by 86 (71%) participants, while 6 engaged in follow-up interviews. The results of the study included: participants preferred learning by "considering the big picture"; "setting own learning plans"; and "focusing on concrete examples." Several positive associations were found: learning on own with learning by reading, and setting own learning plans; small group with learning through discussion; large group with learning new things through hearing and with having learning plans set by others. The most preferred method was print-based material and the least preferred method was audio tape. The most suited method for content included video teleconferencing for counseling, political action, and transcultural issues; and video tape for physical assessment. Convenience, self-direction, and timing of learning were more important than delivery method or learning style. Preferred order of learning was reading, discussing, observing, doing, and reflecting. Recommended considerations when designing distance courses include a mix of delivery methods, specific content, outcomes, learner characteristics, and state of technology.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".