کد مقاله | کد نشریه | سال انتشار | مقاله انگلیسی | نسخه تمام متن |
---|---|---|---|---|
353211 | 618777 | 2014 | 17 صفحه PDF | دانلود رایگان |
ObjectiveIdentify student learning preferences and assess learning satisfaction, gain, motivation, time spent studying, and effort used when studying.MethodsFirst-year pharmacy students completed a survey about exposure to learning style models and subsequently participated in a learning preference workshop in the second professional year (P2). Identification of learning preferences using a unified learning style model (ULSM) was completed using faculty assessment (FA), learning preference questionnaire (LPQ), and student self-assessment (SA). Agreement of FA with LPQ and FA with SA was described using kappa values. Students also completed a “learning satisfaction questionnaire” before the workshop and at the end of the semester to assess learning satisfaction, gain, motivation, time spent studying, and effort used when studying.ResultsEight of 58 students (14%) had exposure to learning preferences. Seventy-three students completed the P2 workshop. Slight to fair agreement was found between FA with LPQ and slight to moderate agreement was found between FA and SA of various learning preference sub-categories. No significant changes were seen in mean scores for overall learning satisfaction, gain, motivation, time spent studying, and effort used when studying at the end of the semester. The proportion of students answering “always” versus other categories increased in learning satisfaction (1.4% versus 6.8%, p = 0.05) and effortless studying (0% versus 6.8% students, p = 0.03).ConclusionsLearning preferences may be identified using either faculty assessment or a combination of survey and student self-assessment, although a substantial level of agreement between different methods is unlikely. This may suggest learning preferences are more “state-like” rather than “trait-like.”
Journal: Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning - Volume 6, Issue 1, January–February 2014, Pages 41–57