Learning Objective #1: Identify the importance a nursing student's learning style has on didactic and clinical performance

Learning Objective #2: State the four types of learning styles as defined by Kolb's learning style inventory

---

Background: Many nursing programs primarily use rote memory learning strategies to teach nursing concepts as compared to more innovative and interactive learning techniques (Beitz, 1998). Information about how a nursing student prefers to process new information (i.e. their learning style) can impact their success in the nursing program. Ausubels'assimilation theory (based on the the cognitive learning theorists) was the conceptual framework used to direct the research. Research question: What are learning styles measured by the Kolb Learning Style Inventory (LSI) of freshman associate degree nursing students at a southwest Missouri university? Design: Quantitative, descriptive study 1.Administered Kolb's learning style inventory (LSI) to 57 freshman associate degree nursing students currently enrolled at a university in southwest Missouri. 2.Compared the students' LSI with their demographic data. Analysis: This sample of associate-degree nursing students did not display one prominent learning style but had a mixture from all four learning style groups. The accommodator learning style received the most responses, followed by assimilator, diverger, and converger, respectively. Students who work in the healthcare setting and provide direct patient care displayed a similar breakdown of learning styles with accommodator being the most frequent response followed by assimilator, converger, and diverger, respectively. When the paired t-test was performed on the four learning modes (CE, RO, AC, and AE), comparing the sample of freshman ADN students with Kolb's standardized sample, the results revealed a 0.667 probability that the nursing students are a subset of the Kolb population. When the sample was subdivided into those students with concrete (diverger + accommodator) or abstract (converger + assimilator) learning styles, the Chi-square was calculated. A X2= 0.849; df=1; p=0.357 indicates that there are no statistically significant difference between the concrete and abstract learning styles in students with direct patient care work history.