A Comparison of Teaching Methods Based on Kolb Learning Styles in a Nurse Anesthesia Program

Abstract

Purpose: In 2010, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching published a call for the radical transformation of nursing education. A challenge was made to nursing educators to shift from a focus on decontextualized knowledge to an emphasis on teaching for a sense of salience, situated cognition and action in particular situations, as well as the development of lifelong learners. Team-based learning (TBL), a type of active learning, has been used in many health science programs to address these needs. The purpose of this capstone project was twofold: first, to evaluate student satisfaction, accountability and preference for team-based learning, and secondly to determine if a correlation exists between student satisfaction, accountability and preference for team-based learning and learning style as defined by Kolb. Methods: Team-based learning was used during the first semester of a nurse anesthesia program to teach 4 sessions in the module entitled 'Anesthesia for Specific Populations and Procedures' . A traditional lecture format was used to teach the remaining 5 topics in that module. Students were given a Kolb Learning Style Inventory (LSI) as well as a Team-Based Learning Student Assessment questionnaire (TBLSA) at the conclusion of the course. The LSI categorized the students into one of four learning types: converging, accommodating, diverging or assimilating and examined each student for their preference of learning method in Kolb's learning spiral. The TBLSA evaluated the students' perception of accountability (defined as student preparation before class and contribution to the team), preference for lecture or TBL, student satisfaction with the TBL method and overall experience with TBL. Results: Sixty percent of nurse anesthesia students in this study had a positive experience with team-based learning when used in a foundational nurse anesthesia class. There were significant differences between accountability (t (19)= 9.82, p<.OOl), satisfaction (t (18)= 3.18, p=.005), overall experience (t (18)= 4.77, p<. 001) and the neutral scores within each category, indicating that the experience with TBL was generally well received by the students. A correlation between the three subscales of TBL (accountability, satisfaction and preference) and learning styles could not be determined due to the limited number of students, however Pearson's correlation demonstrated a positive correlation between the use of concrete experimentation to grasp knowledge and student satisfaction (r (17)= .56, p=.012), overall experience with TBL (r (17)= .50, p=.029). A negative correlation was identified between the use of reflective observation and accountability (r (18)= -.52, p=.019), preference for TBL (r (18)= -.58, p=.008), student satisfaction (r (17)= -.51, p=.026) and overall experience (r (18)= -.60, p=.007). Conclusions: Students in this study were generally satisfied with TBL. They were more accountable for their education as a result of the implementation of the TBL method. They felt satisfied with team-based learning, but were neutral regarding preference for TBL over lecture. Students who had a preference for learning by applying knowledge to practical applications (concrete experimentation) felt more accountable and were more satisfied with TBL than those with a preference for reflective observation, active experimentation or abstract conceptualization. Students with a preference for reflective observation as a mode of learning were not satisfied with TBL and felt it negatively affected their accountability. This study adds to the literature examining the use of TBL in the health science professions and suggests that those with a preference for learning by concrete experimentation may better accept TBL, than those with a preference for learning with reflective observation.