BSN graduates’ preferred learning styles: implications for student-centered learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of the study was to determine the learning styles that nursing graduates employed during the course of their BSN programme.Methods: Within a sequential, explanatory mixed methods design a survey was administered to determine graduates’ learning styles. From a population of 384 graduates, a sample of 200 agreed to participate. Data were collected using the Grasha-Riechmann Learning Styles Scales. MS Excel was used to enter the learning styles scores; descriptive statistics were computed using the statistical package SPSS Version 16.0.Results: The most dominant and preferred learning styles are Competitive learning style (x̄ = 3.98; SD = 0.52) and Avoidant learning style (x̄ = 3.88; SD = 0.68). Both are teacher-centered learning styles that do not promote learner independence, confidence, critical thinking and active learning. The least preferred is the Independent Learning Style (x̄ = 2.84; SD = 0.80). Implications for student-centered learning are inferred from the results.Conclusions: Graduates’ preference for the Competitive and Avoidant learning styles reflects an alignment with a teacher-centered paradigm and lack of diversity in use of learning styles during their study. The preferred learning styles detract from student-centered learning and point to an approach to teaching that integrates Socratic and facilitative methods to promote diversity of learning styles. As the educational paradigm shifts towards student-centered learning there is mounting pressure on educators to have better understanding on students’ preferred learning styles and adopt variety of pedagogical strategies to optimize ways students learn.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".