Learning styles and outcomes in clinical laboratory science.

Vicki Freeman, L. L. Fell, P. Muellenberg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare two learning styles--reflective observation versus active experimentation--in terms of learning outcomes. DESIGN: The independent variable, student learning styles, was generally defined as styles determined by use of the Kolb's Learning Style Inventory. The styles were identified as either active experimentation or reflective observation. The dependent variables were learning outcomes that were determined by two methods: the average score on eight posttests scheduled at periodic intervals and a national certification examination score. SETTING: Clinical laboratory science education program at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha and at six clinical sites in other cities across Nebraska. PARTICIPANTS: Forty senior clinical laboratory science students enrolled in a baccalaureate degree program. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data analysis consisted of descriptive statistics, two-way analysis of variance, two-way analysis of covariance, and repeated measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: Results showed no significant difference between the students' examination scores based on learning styles. There was no significant difference in the pattern of the examination scores over the semester of learners who were active experimenters versus reflective observers. CONCLUSION: Results of the study generally did not support the conclusions of the earlier research; students' learning styles did not affect their examination scores. No pattern in the examination scored exists in the learning style groups.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)287-290
Number of pages4
JournalClinical laboratory science : journal of the American Society for Medical Technology
Volume11
Issue number5
StatePublished - Sep 1998

Fingerprint

Medical Laboratory Science
Clinical laboratories
Learning
Students
Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
Analysis of Variance
Education
Observation
Statistics
Certification
Equipment and Supplies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)

Cite this

Learning styles and outcomes in clinical laboratory science. / Freeman, Vicki; Fell, L. L.; Muellenberg, P.

In: Clinical laboratory science : journal of the American Society for Medical Technology, Vol. 11, No. 5, 09.1998, p. 287-290.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{18a0b66c3af443728ca6e7aab234c98e,
title = "Learning styles and outcomes in clinical laboratory science.",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To compare two learning styles--reflective observation versus active experimentation--in terms of learning outcomes. DESIGN: The independent variable, student learning styles, was generally defined as styles determined by use of the Kolb's Learning Style Inventory. The styles were identified as either active experimentation or reflective observation. The dependent variables were learning outcomes that were determined by two methods: the average score on eight posttests scheduled at periodic intervals and a national certification examination score. SETTING: Clinical laboratory science education program at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha and at six clinical sites in other cities across Nebraska. PARTICIPANTS: Forty senior clinical laboratory science students enrolled in a baccalaureate degree program. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data analysis consisted of descriptive statistics, two-way analysis of variance, two-way analysis of covariance, and repeated measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: Results showed no significant difference between the students' examination scores based on learning styles. There was no significant difference in the pattern of the examination scores over the semester of learners who were active experimenters versus reflective observers. CONCLUSION: Results of the study generally did not support the conclusions of the earlier research; students' learning styles did not affect their examination scores. No pattern in the examination scored exists in the learning style groups.",
author = "Vicki Freeman and Fell, {L. L.} and P. Muellenberg",
year = "1998",
month = "9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "11",
pages = "287--290",
journal = "Journal of Medical Technology",
issn = "0894-959X",
publisher = "American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Learning styles and outcomes in clinical laboratory science.

AU - Freeman, Vicki

AU - Fell, L. L.

AU - Muellenberg, P.

PY - 1998/9

Y1 - 1998/9

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To compare two learning styles--reflective observation versus active experimentation--in terms of learning outcomes. DESIGN: The independent variable, student learning styles, was generally defined as styles determined by use of the Kolb's Learning Style Inventory. The styles were identified as either active experimentation or reflective observation. The dependent variables were learning outcomes that were determined by two methods: the average score on eight posttests scheduled at periodic intervals and a national certification examination score. SETTING: Clinical laboratory science education program at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha and at six clinical sites in other cities across Nebraska. PARTICIPANTS: Forty senior clinical laboratory science students enrolled in a baccalaureate degree program. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data analysis consisted of descriptive statistics, two-way analysis of variance, two-way analysis of covariance, and repeated measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: Results showed no significant difference between the students' examination scores based on learning styles. There was no significant difference in the pattern of the examination scores over the semester of learners who were active experimenters versus reflective observers. CONCLUSION: Results of the study generally did not support the conclusions of the earlier research; students' learning styles did not affect their examination scores. No pattern in the examination scored exists in the learning style groups.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To compare two learning styles--reflective observation versus active experimentation--in terms of learning outcomes. DESIGN: The independent variable, student learning styles, was generally defined as styles determined by use of the Kolb's Learning Style Inventory. The styles were identified as either active experimentation or reflective observation. The dependent variables were learning outcomes that were determined by two methods: the average score on eight posttests scheduled at periodic intervals and a national certification examination score. SETTING: Clinical laboratory science education program at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha and at six clinical sites in other cities across Nebraska. PARTICIPANTS: Forty senior clinical laboratory science students enrolled in a baccalaureate degree program. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data analysis consisted of descriptive statistics, two-way analysis of variance, two-way analysis of covariance, and repeated measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: Results showed no significant difference between the students' examination scores based on learning styles. There was no significant difference in the pattern of the examination scores over the semester of learners who were active experimenters versus reflective observers. CONCLUSION: Results of the study generally did not support the conclusions of the earlier research; students' learning styles did not affect their examination scores. No pattern in the examination scored exists in the learning style groups.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032159564&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0032159564&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 11

SP - 287

EP - 290

JO - Journal of Medical Technology

JF - Journal of Medical Technology

SN - 0894-959X

IS - 5

ER -