1. INTRODUCTION:

Students vary in ways they prefer to learn. These varied preferences in learning include but are not limited to; learning from lectures, group discussion, reading and jotting down notes on a topic, watching videos of materials to be learnt or by demonstration. These preferences according to Nilson (2010) can lead to easier ways students learn, otherwise known as learning styles. Identification of student’s learning styles can help them modify their learning preferences accordingly and also challenge educators to include many teaching methods to accommodate all learning style preferences. It can also help in maximizing students’ understanding of concepts (Amerson, 2006; Keene, 1993; Khanal, Shah and Koirala, 2014), improve their readiness for both internal and professional examination and also increase students’ academic performance (Mcallister, 2015).

Unfortunately, most teachers, according to Hallin and Hallin (2016) do not take cognizance of student learning styles preference thereby using one or few teaching methods to the detriment of some students. The content of educational program that caters for a single learning style would fail to meet the expectations of many of their learners in that such learners would suffer from poor comprehension, poor retention and frustration which ultimately would lead to poor academic performance and can negatively affect lifelong learning (Mikol, 2006; Rassool and Rawaf, 2008; Rutz, 2003; Salehi, 2007). Assessment of undergraduate nursing student learning styles preference can help in designing and developing proper lesson plans based on students’ preferred ways of learning. This can greatly increase their participation (student-centered) in teaching learning process thereby increasing their understanding of the subject matter. Also, identification of students learning style can help in determining faculty instructional methods and development of lessons that relate to the student’s preferred learning style. Similarly, knowledge of nursing students preferred learning styles can help in designing a nursing curriculum that would promote learning which will translate to confidence, competence and the adequate understanding of learning materials (AlKhasawneh, 2013; Molsbee, 2011).

Researchers (Coffield et al, 2004; AlKhasawneh, 2013; Hallin, 2014; Rassool and Rawaf, 2008) have identified many tools for assessing students' learning styles. However, Kolb’s Learning Styles Inventory (K-LSI) was adopted in this study because the inventory is based on experiential learning theory which is particularly relevant to the apprenticeship model of nursing training. Based on this theory, learning is regarded as a cyclic process, which involves four interdependent modes: concrete experience (CE), reflective observation (RO), abstract conceptualization (AC), and active experimentation (AE). The theory suggests that individual uses each of the learning modes while preferring certain modes to the others. Also, these modes of learning combine in such a way to create four fundamental learning styles: diverger, assimilator, converger and accommodator (Smith and Kolb, 1986; Kolb, 2005). Divergers perceive information concretely (CE) and process it Reflectively (RO). They draw upon their imaginative aptitude and their ability to view complex situations from many perspectives. They prefer to watch rather than do. Assimilators perceive information abstractly (AC) and process it Reflectively (RO). They are rational and logical thinkers. They follow directions well and like to thoroughly understand concepts before they act while Convergers perceive reality through abstract conceptualization (AC) and process it through active experimentation (AE). They organize information through hypothetical-deductive reasoning. They prefer technical tasks and are less concerned with people and interpersonal aspects. The Accommodators, on the other hand, perceive reality through concrete experience (CE) and process it through active experimentation (AE). They learn by concrete information from their senses (feelings) and from doing. They use intuition and trial-and-error situations (Figure 1) (Kolb, 2005).

In an ideal learning process, the learner would cycle through all the learning quadrants in response to situational demands. However, influenced by personality type, culture, and the task at hand, the learner comes to prefer one or two learning styles (Kolb, 1984; Kolb, 2005).

Researchers in many educational settings have sought to identify dominant learning styles among student population though with varied models. However, Studies (AlQahlani and AlGahtani, 2014; Bitran et al, 2012; Caglayan, 2011; D’Amore, James and Mitchell, 2012; Massey, Kim and Michell 2011; Smith, 2010; Williams, Brown and Winship, 2013) reveal that Kolb's learning style Inventory is one of the most frequently used scales for determining the learning styles of healthcare professionals. Additionally, various conclusions of these studies that used Kolb’s Learning Style Model suggest the existence of dominant learning styles among the student population, although the dominance is not consistent. For instance, Engels and de Gara (2010) used Kolb’s learning style inventory (LSI) to study the medical students (a general surgery resident and general surgeon in Alberta) and they concluded that assimilating learning style was dominant among medical students while converging and accommodative were dominant in general surgery resident and general surgeon respectively. In contrast, AlQahlani and AlGahtani, (2014) identified divergers learning style as the dominant learning styles of Saudi Dental students. Furthermore, Williams, Brown, and Winship, (2013) used Kolb’s learning style inventory and showed that the student’s dominant learning styles of the paramedic's students in Australia were divergers and accommodators.

In nursing education, results of dominant learning style preferences were similar to those identified in general education. For example, AlKhasawneh (2013) used the visual, aural, read/write, or kinesthetic (VARK) assessment to determine the learning styles of 197 nursing students at a public university in Jordan across three levels of the nursing program. The result from the study revealed that 55% of the students were dominant multimodal, and about 60% of these multimodal students have kinesthetic learning preference. 45% of students that were unimodal also had 60% of them the kinesthetic as the dominant preference. D’Amore, James and Mitchell (2012) studied first-year undergraduate nursing and midwifery students of Austrian University using KLSI and they documented that the dominant learning style of the students were divergers and assimilators whereas Hallin (2014), using Productive Environmental Preference Survey (PEPS), identified majority of university students in Sweden as flexible. In the UK, Rassool and Rawaf (2008) used Honey and Mumford learning style inventory, reflector learning style was identified as the most dominant.

As seen from the studies, dominant learning styles exist among nursing student; though with differing instruments. Moreover, while some studies (Bahar and Sulun 2011 and Metin et al. 2011) found no significant relationship between the learning styles of undergraduates and their gender and age. Others (Cavas 2010 and Okur et al. 2011) did find such relationships. Additionally, Dunn and Griggs (2007) reported significant and increased achievement in the professional examination when students study by their learning styles preferences. However, there is limited study on learning style preference of nursing students in Nigeria. Hence, little or nothing is known particularly about the learning styles preferences of undergraduate nursing students of the University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus and the relationship of their learning styles to some demographic variables.

2. METHODS:

2.1 Study Design:

A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted with Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory among undergraduate nursing students across their four class levels (2^nd – 5^thyear). The study was carried out during the 2013-2014 academic year.

2.2 Participants and Setting:

Convenience sampling was used, and a total of 310 undergraduate nursing students of University of Nigeria Enugu Campus participated in the study. The percentage of the students who participated from across their year of study include 84 (27.1%) in their second year, 87 (28.1%) in the third year, 57 (18.4%) in the fourth year and 82 (26%.5) in their final years. All the students who were interested in participating were given an explanation on the study, advised on their rights and assured on the confidentiality of data collected.

2.3 Instrument:

Two data collection instruments were used in this paper: (1) demographic data form was designed by the author. It gathers information such as age, gender, year of study and mode of study (2) Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory version 3 (Kolb, 1985). It is a self-report questionnaire used to assess the learning mode and style of nursing students. The K-LSI includes 12 questions that describe various learning contexts. Each question has four responses, and participants were asked to rank these from the response that best describes their learning style to the response which least describes them. The value for each response (ranked from 1-4) is placed into one of four equations; CE, RO, AC and or AE. A total for each equation is then derived, which equates to a numerical value for each of the four learning modes: CE, RO value AC and AE. The value obtained for CE was subtracted from the value obtained for AC; this yields the y-coordinate. The value derived for RO was subtracted from AE to yield the x-coordinate. The x and y values are then plotted on Kolb's Learning Style Grid (Figure 1), resulting in a preferred learning style: Diverger (CE and RO), Assimilator (AC and RO), Converger (AC and AE), and Accommodator (CE and AE). The psychometric properties of the K-LSI have been established. The tool is reliable, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficient scores for internal consistency ranging from 0.43 up to 0.79 and the test-retest reliability for the four learning styles ranging from 0.91 to 0.97 (Veres, Sims and Locklear, 1991). Its validity has been supported in many cross-cultural studies in many countries (Kirkpatrick and Feeney 2001).

2.4 Procedure for Data Collection:

The university institutional review board approved the study for the protection of participants. The questionnaire was administered during the regularly scheduled classes with the help of research assistants and the class prefect. All students who signed the consent form were given K-LSI and the demographic data form to fill. The data collection period was between June - July 2014.

2.5 Method of Data Analysis:

Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze data using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), version 23.0. The K-LSI scores were summarized using descriptive statistics such as mean, standard deviation, frequency, and percentages while the relationships among variables were cross-tabulated and chi-square statistics calculated. The level of significance was set at p<0.05.

3. RESULTS:

3.1. Response rate demographics:

310 nursing students participated in the study. There were 84 (27.1%) second year, 87 (28.1%) third year, 57 (18.4%) fourth year and 82 (26%.5) final year nursing students. Personal data are shown in Table 1. The participants contained more females (n=268) than males (n=42) showing that the majority of students enrolled in the nursing sciences department are female. The mean age of the students was 24.3 ± 4.39. The proportion of students that responded from each class was about the same except the 4^th year which was lower by 20%. More than half of the students 268 (69.7%) were admitted into Bachelor of Nursing Science (BNSC) program through the generic mode of admission, and the rest of the students were admitted through direct mode of admission.

Table 1: Profile of nursing students/respondents n =310

Variable

No of Respondents

Percentages (%)

Gender

Male

Female

Age

16 – 20

21 – 25

26 – 30

31 – 35

Above 35

Year of Study

2^nd year

3^rd year

4^th year

5^th year

Mode of Entry

Generic

Direct

268

191

216

13.5

86.5

12.6

61.6

16.5

5.8

3.5

27.1

28.1

18.4

26.5

30.3

69.7

Mean Age = 24.3 ± 4.39

3.2. Learning Style Preference of Undergraduate Nursing Students:

Table 2 showed the preferred learning style of the students. It shows that the “Diverger” type of learning style was most preferred by the students (29%), followed by the “assimilator” (27.4%) and “converger” (25.8%) learning styles with “Accommodator” learning style to be the least preferred, little over 1/6 of the respondents (17.7%).

Table 2: Learning style preferences of undergraduate nursing students n = 310

S/N	Learning Style	Frequency	Percentages
1	Diverging	90	29.0
2	Assimilating	85	27.4
3	Converging	80	25.8
4	Accommodating	55	17.7
	Total	310	100

3.3. Learning Styles Compared to Personal Characteristics:

3.3.1. Learning styles and mode of admission/year of study:

The Chi-square test results concerning the mode of admission, year of study and the learning styles are shown in Tables 3 and 4. The results indicated that the variables mode of admission (X² (3) = 9.814; P < 0.05) and year of study (X² (9) = 58.548; P < 0.05) have significant relationship. (Table-3 and 4).

Table 3: Chi-Square Test for learning styles across the undergraduates nursing students’ mode of admission

S N	Learning Styles	Mode of Entry X²			P value
		Direct UME n=94 n=216

1	Diverging	31(33.0%)	59(27.3%)
2	Assimilating	31(33.0%)	54(25.0%)
3	Converging	22(23.4%)	58(26.9%)	9.814	0.020
4	Accommodating	10(10.6%)	45(20.8%)

X²= 9.814, df = 3, P = 0.020, p< 0.05

4. DISCUSSIONS:

This study identified the dominant learning style of undergraduate nursing students in a tertiary institution in Nigeria and explored the associations of the learning styles preferences with some personal characteristics. The results of the study suggest that there is a wide range of learning style preferences among undergraduate nursing students, with a relatively even spread learning style preference across all four learning styles. However, two learning styles were dominant. Most studies found that all the four learning styles are evenly represented even though there may be a variation of the dominant learning styles (AlQahlani and AlGahtani, 2014; Brown and Winship, 2013; D’Amore, James and Mitchell 2012; Massey, Kim and Michell 2011; Caglayan, 2011; Smith, 2010). The two dominant learning styles of undergraduate nursing students were Diverger (29%) and assimilator (27.4%) learning styles.

Divergers approach learning through concrete experience and transform it using reflective observation. The divergers are known to be imaginative and creative. People who prefer this learning style excel in the ability to view concrete situations from many perspectives and generate many ideas (Brown and Winship, 2013; Nilson, 2010)). The students who prefer diverging learning styles learn better by watching rather than doing, they are interested in people, gather information on situations and use their imagination to solve problems. This tends to suggest that undergraduate nursing students prefer to work in a group and are open-minded. This trait is particularly important for dealing with patients and medical staff, and it makes for better nursing care. The other dominant learning style is Assimilators (27.4%) who perceive information abstractly (AC) and process it Reflectively (RO). Assimilators are rational and logical thinkers. They follow directions well and like to understand concepts before they act thoroughly. Their greatest strength is the ability to create theoretical models, understand and synthesize information in a concise and logical manner.

Observational skills is one of the hallmarks of polyvalent nurses, Learning activities for these students should, therefore, be tailored to include interactive and creative methods such as large and small group discussion, brainstorming, problem-solving, self-learning, debate-based learning and problem based learning to increase the level of learning among these students (Tabrizi, Alizadeh and Koshavar, 2013).

Additionally, the relatively even spread of the four learning styles amongst undergraduate nursing students in this study suggests that learning styles are multidimensional. The educators should attempt to accommodate the varying learning styles of undergraduate nursing students and should attempt to introduce a variety of different teaching approaches and methods to enable learning to occur for all undergraduate nursing students regardless of their learning style. This study is not suggesting that the other styles of learning should be ignored or neglected. Ideally, educators of undergraduate nursing students should attempt to introduce a variety of different teaching approaches and methods or strategies to make learning easy for all undergraduate nursing students regardless of their learning style. Effort should be made to accommodate all learning styles of undergraduate nursing students not just those of a particular learning style.

The findings of the present study are similar to other studies (D’Amore et al, 2012; AlQahlani and AlGahtani, 2014; Brown and Winship, 2013) who reported that the dominant learning style of the students they studied were divergers (29.5%) and assimilators (28.8%). The finding is also consistent with Kolb’s suggestion that the professional career is one of the forces that shape a person’s learning style. It could also be that people with similar learning styles were drawn to the same career as shown in other studies.

Interestingly, the result from Table 3 revealed that there is a significant relationship between students' nursing learning style and mode of entry. The significant relationship may be attributed to a variety of factors including but not limited to a mix of students and prior nursing academic knowledge of direct entry nursing students. It is interesting to note that students in the higher level class (year 4 and 5) prefer mostly converging learning style. Converging learning style according to Kolb (2005) is associated with solving problems, making decisions, putting the ideas into practice, analyzing the ideas and making a systematic plan. This is consistent with the stage of learning of the nursing student because at this level, they go to the hospital more often than the previous years and encounter patient more frequently.

Moreover, at this stage, students learn by thinking or analyzing problems which show that their ability to interpret has developed. These students learn to utilize critical thinking skills in assessing and caring for patients. The study by Russsia (2005) supports these results. This is perhaps due to the similarity of the study discipline or personality characteristics of nursing students. Upper-level coursework should incorporate a style of teaching that focuses on critical thinking skills.

The analysis of these data also showed no difference between the gender of students and learning style preference. This finding supports Kolb (2005; 1984) who never reported a difference of learning style preferences between genders. Some studies (Bahar and Sulun 2011; Metin et al., 2011 and Caglayan, 2011) found no gender difference but others (Shuaibu, 2010; Slater, Lujan and Dicarlo, 2011) did. Furthermore, in this study (Table 6), we found that there is no significant difference between the undergraduate students’ learning styles and their age, that is, their learning styles were not related to their age. According to this result, we can confirm (Caglayan, 2011; Bahar and Sulun 2011; Metin et al, 2011; Li, Chen and Tsai, 2008) that the preferred learning style among all the age groups is the same and also that the undergraduate nursing students’ learning styles did not change according to the subject of their age. This could, likely, be as a result of being in the same profession.

5. IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS:

A well-designed teaching/learning process should address varied learning preferences for the promotion of individual learning. The use of several teaching methods that address different learning can optimize students’ learning which in turn would increase success in both internal and professional examination. Nurse educators can utilize the information given in this study to enhance the classroom setting and provide an effective learning environment for all types of learners with a variety of different teaching methodologies.

6. LIMITATION OF THE FINDINGS:

While the results do represent the population with no more than a 5% margin of error with 95% confidence, the findings of this study are limited in a sense because: (a) they are not generalizable outside the target population; and (b) the instrumentation format was self-reporting in nature and could have been incorrectly reported by participants. Thus, the results can be viewed as a tool to assist in better understanding of the Learning Style preferences of undergraduate nursing students in the University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus.

7. CONCLUSION:

This study identified the learning style preferences of undergraduate nursing students in University of Nigeria, a Southeastern part of Nigeria. Although there was relatively even spread of the four learning styles (Diverger, Assimilator, Converger, and Accommodator) preference among the undergraduate nursing students, yet diverging and assimilating learning style were the most predominant learning style among the students. The divergence of learning styles provided more evidence that a variety of modes of teaching should be used in meeting the learning needs of students. It can be concluded that understanding the learning style preferences of students can enhance learning for those who are under-performing in their academic studies and those who are ‘at risk’ may be provided with individual tutorials where tailor-made supplementary learning programs can be devised and initiated.

8. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:

The authors are very grateful to Hay Group for permitting us to use the Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory 3.1 test in this study. We are also grateful to all the students who participated in the study.

9. REFERENCES:

1. Amerson, R. (2006). Energizing the nursing lecture: Application of the theory of multiple intelligence learning. Nursing Education Perspectives, 27(4), 194-196.

2. AlKhasawneh, E. (2013). Using VARK to assess changes in learning preferences of nursing students at a public university in Jordan: Implications for teaching. Nurse Education Today. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2012.12.017

3. ALQahtani D. A., and Al-Gahtani S. M. (2014). Assessing learning styles of Saudi dental students using Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory. Journal of Dental Education, 78(6): 927-933.

4. Bitran, M., Zúñiga, D., Pedrals, N., Padilla, O., and Mena, B. (2012). Medical students’ change in learning styles during the course of the undergraduate program: from ‘thinking and watching’to ‘thinking and doing’. Canadian medical education journal, 3(2), 86-97.

5. Bahar HH, Sulun A 2011. Fen bilgisi ogretmen adaylari- nin ogrenme stilleri, cinsiyet ogrenme stili iliskisi ve ogrenme stiline göre akademik basari (Learning styles of science teacher candidates; the link between gender and learning styles, and academic success according to learning styles). Kastamonu Egitim Dergisi, 19(2): 379-386.

6. Caglayan, H.S. (2011). The investigation of academicians' learning styles in the school of physical education and sports in Turkey. Educational Research and Reviews 6(3), 326-333. Retrieved from http://www.academicjournals.org/ERR

7. Cavas B 2010. A study on pre-service, class and mathematics teachers' learning styles in Turkey. Science Education International, 21(1): 47-61

8. Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., and Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: a systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre.

9. D’Amore, A., James, S., and (2010) Learning styles of medical students, general surgery residents, and general surgeons: implications for surgical education. BMC Medical Education 10, 51 Retrieved from doi:10.1186/1472-6920-10-51. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/10/51

10. Engels P. T. and de Gara, C. (Akbulut Y, Cardak CS 2012. Adaptive educational hypermedia accommodating learning styles: A content analysis of publications from 2000 to 2011. Computers and Education, 58(2): 835-842

11. Fleming, N. D. (2010). VARK. Retrieved from http://www.vark-learn.com/english/index.asp

12. Gurpinar, E., Bati, H. and Tetik, C. (2011) Learning Styles of Medical Students Change in Relation to Time. Advances in Physiology Education, 35, 307-311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/advan.00047.2011OALibJ

13. Hallin, K., and Hallin, K. (2016). Nursing students at a university — A study about learning style preferences style preferences. Nurse Education Today, 34(12), 1443–1449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2014.04.001

14. Institute of Medicine. (2011). The future of nursing: Focus on education [Issue Brief]. Retrieved from https:// www.iom.ed

15. Keene, M. (1993, May). Preferred learning styles and study strategies in a linguistically diverse baccalaureate nursing student population. Journal of Nursing Education, 32(5), 214-221

16. Khanal, L., Shah, S., and Koirala, S. (2014). Exploration of preferred learning styles in medical education using VARK modal. Russian Open Medical Journal,3(3),1-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.15275/rusomj.2014.0305

17. Kolb, A. Y., and Kolb, D. A. (2005). The Kolb learning style inventory - version 3.1: Technical Specifications. Boston, MA: Hay Resources Direct.

18. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as a source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall Inc.

19. Kolb, D.A. (2005). The Kolb learning style inventory-version 3.1: Self-scoring and interpretation booklet. Boston, M.A. Hay Direct Resources.

20. Li Y. Chen P. and Tsai S. (2008). A comparison of the learning styles among different nursing programs in Taiwan: implications for nursing education. Nurs. Educ. Today, 28, 70–76.

21. Marek, G. I. (2013). Impact of learning style assessment on self-reported skills of students in an associate degree nursing program. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 8, 43-39

22. Massey, M.G. Kim, S.H. Mitchell, C. (2011). A study of the learning styles of undergraduate social work students. J. Evid Based Soc Work. 8(3), 294-303. Retrieved from doi: 10.1080/15433714.2011.557977.

23. Metin M, Yilmaz GK, Birisci S, Coskun S 2011. The investigating pre-service teachers’ learning styles with respect to gender and grade level variables. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15: 2728- 2732.

24. Mikol, C. (2005). Teaching nursing without lecturing: Critical pedagogy as a communicative dialogue. Nursing Education Perspectives, 26(2), 86–89.

25. Mitchell, E. K. L. (2012). Learning styles of first-year undergraduate nursing and midwifery students: A cross-sectional survey utilizing the Kolb Learning Style Inventory. Nurse Education Today, 32(5), 506–515

26. Molsbee, C. (2011). Identifying learning styles in nursing students (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest. (UMI 3450518)

27. Mcallister, B. (2015). Nursing Student Preferred Learning Styles and Predicted Success on the NCLEX. Nursing Student Preferred Learning Styles and Predicted NCLEX® Success, DISSERTATION.

28. National League for Nursing. (2012). The scope of practice for academic nurse educators. New York, NY: National League for Nursing.

29. Nilson, L. B. (2010). Teaching at its best: A research-based resource for college instructors. John Wiley and Sons.

30. Okur M, Bahar HH, Akgun L, Bekdemir M 2011. Matem- atik bolumu ogrencilerinin ogrenme stilleri ile surekli kaygi ve akademik basari durumlari (Department of mathematics students’ learning styles, trait anxiety and academic success). Turkiye Sosyal Arastirmalar Dergisi, 15(3): 123-134

31. Pashler, Nursing and Midwifery Council of Nigeria (2003) Curriculum of the Nursing and Midwifery Council of Nigeria – Revised in 2003.

32. Polit, D. F. and Beck C.T. (2010). Nursing Research, Appraising Evidence for nursing Practice. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams andWilkins.

33. Rutz, E. (2003). Learning styles and educational performance: Implications for professional development programs. Retrieved May 2012 from <\http://fie.engrng.pitt.edu/ciec2003/papers/9003.pdf>.

34. Salehi Sh, S. (2007). Nursing Students ’ Preferred Learning Styles. Medical Education, 11(3), 85–89.

35. Shuaibu S.S (2010) Effects Of Learning Styles On Career Preferences Of Senior Secondary School Students In Jigawa State, Nigeria. Edo. Journal of Counselling (1)13.

36. Slater, J.A., Lujan, H.L and DiCarlo, S.E (2011). Does gender influence the learning style preferences of first-year medical students? Educational Research and Reviews 6(3), 326-333.

37. Smith A. (2010). Learning styles of registered nurses enrolled in an online nursing program. Journal of Professional Nursing. 26(1), 49-53. Retrieved from PMid:20129593 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.

38. Tabrizi, J. S., Alizadeh, O., and Koshavar, H. (2013). Identifying Students‟ learning Styles as a Way to Promote Learning Quality. Res Dev Med Educ, 2(1), 35-39.

39. Williams, B. Brown, T. and Winship, C. (2013). Learning style preferences of undergraduate paramedic students: A pilot study. Retrieved from March, 12th 2013. DOI: 10.5430/jnep.v3n1p51 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/jnep.v3n1p51.

Received on 06.11.2018 Modified on 04.12.2018

Asian J. Nursing Education and Research. 2019; 9(2):177-184.

DOI: 10.5958/2349-2996.2019.00037.5

		Year of Study X² P-value
S/N		(200L) n= 84	(300L) n = 87	(400L) n = 57	(500L) n = 82
1	Diverging	30(35.7%)	35(40.5%)	11(19.3%)	14(17.1%)
2	Assimilating	34(40.5%)	31(35.6%)	10(17.5%)	10(12.2%)
3	Converging	15(17.9%)	15(17.2%)	22(38.6%)	28(24.1%)
4	Accommodating	5(6.0%)	6(6.9%)	14(24.6%)	30(36.6%)	58.548	0.000

S/N	Learning Styles	Gender X² P-value
		Male Female n=42 n = 268

1	Diverging	13(31.0%)	77 (28.7%)
2	Assimilating	8(19.0%)	77 (28.7%)
3	Converging	15(35.7%)	65(24.3%)
4	Accommodation	6(14.3%)	49 (18.3%)	3.083	0.379

			n=310
			Age Groups
	16-20	21-25	26-30	31-35	Above 35	X²	P-value
Learning Styles	n=39	n=191	n=51	n=18	n=11

Diverging	13(33.3%)	57(29.8%)	13(25.5%)	7(38.9%)	0(0%)

Assimilating	11(28.2%)	50(26.2%)	14(27.5%)	6(33.3%)	4(36.4%)
						13.013	0.368
Converging	9(23.1%)	52(27.2%)	13(25.5%)	4(22.2%)	2(18.2%)

Accommodating	6(15.4%)	32(16.8%)	11(21.6%)	1(5.6%)	5(45.5%)