Population Sample

The characteristics of the population sample collectively demonstrated the characteristics of the cultural population being investigated, with regards to age range, gender and education (Burns and Grove 2005; Longley et al., 2007; RCN 2008). In line with principles of confidentiality and anonymity all participants were assigned a pseudonym (Silverman 2005; RCN 2009). All 12 participants contributed to the focus groups. One later withdrew prior to the first one-to-one interview on personal grounds and a further two withdrew prior to the final interview (see Table 4.1 below for an outline of nominal characteristics of the sample, including learning style).

Cohort Participant Age Learning Style 1 Notes 1 - FG1 Allan 21-30 Visual/Kinaesthetic 1 – FG1

Bob >41 Auditory/ Visual 1 – FG1 Kate 21-30 Visual/Auditory 1 - FG1 Mary 31-40 Visual 2 – FG2 Anna 21-30 Kinaesthetic/Auditory/ Visual Balanced LS - 1 point between each 2 – FG2

Beth 31-40 Visual Withdrew prior to final interview 2 – FG2 Jack 21-30 Visual/Kinaesthetic 2 – FG2

Jane 21-30 Visual/ Kinaesthetic 2 –

FG2

Jen 21-30 Kinaesthetic Withdrew prior to final interview

2 – FG2

Jill 31-40 Not known Withdrew after focus group

2 – FG2

Meg 31-40 Visual/ Kinaesthetic 2 –

FG2

Sue 31-40 Visual

Table 4.1: Nominal characteristics of the participants

During the course of the focus groups the issue of learning style (LS) emerged from the dialogues. On reflection, I decided to review the learning style of the students in my study to establish if there was a link between LS and learning in the SCE.

Large volumes of papers have been written about the range of learning styles (LS) (Barbe and Milone 1981; Felder and Silverman 1988; Felder and Soloman no date; Fleming 1995; Coffield et al., 2004; Tanner and Allen 2004; Kolb and Kolb 2005; Myers and Briggs 2009). Following consideration of the different types of LS inventories, I selected the VAK (Visual, Auditory, Kinaesthetic) LS inventory in order to identify the preferred learning styles of the students (Chislett and Chapman 2005). I opted for this particular one because as people receive knowledge through three basic modalites - visually, auditory and kinaesthetically – I believed it to be a suitable tool (Barbe and Milone 1981; Fleming 1995; Chislett and Chapman 2005).

1

I could also have used the VARK tool, which had the addition of Read/write but Fleming and Baume (2006:4) stated that it mattered little what learning style inventory was used because “it is not a set of scores…it is a description of preferences” believing that it’s use in is the fact that it gets learners thinking about how they learn. There is some non-research based criticism of modality based learning style inventories such as VAK and VARK, but they have been used quite extensively within the research based nursing and literature (Wehrwein et al., 2007; Alkhasawneh et al., 2008; Meehan-Andrews 2009; Koch et al., 2011). Other modality types have been used to test LS in relation to technology (Effken and Doyle 2001; Graf et al., 2011) and high-fidelity simulation (Fountain and Alfred 2009).

The VAK LS inventory, as introduced in Chapter 1 consisted of 30 standardised predetermined multiple-choice (3 stem) questions. It was user friendly, not lengthy and therefore not too time consuming to complete. I did not want the students to feel that it was too onerous a task and therefore not complete it. Response rate was 91% (n=11). However, as one student had dropped out by this time so did not complete the LSI, this was totally representative of the remaining 11 students. Questions in the LS inventory were framed to represent everyday tasks, such as ‘When I am choosing a holiday I usually…” “If I need directions for travel I usually…” ”I remember things best by…” Also, the categories within the inventory (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic) were specific enough to allow mapping to the context of learning within a SCE.

The literature revealed the most prevalent learning styles (LS) amongst student nurses’ were ones that favoured concrete experiences; active participation or similarly Kinaesthetic or Visual learning, depending on LS inventory used (Cavanagh et al., 1995; Suliman 2006; Rassool and Rawaf 2007; Alkhasawneh et al., 2008; Meehan-Andrews 2009). The majority of students in my study had a preference for Visual (n=10) either as a single dominant preference (n=3) or in combination with Auditory (n=2) or Kinaesthetic (n=4); whilst one student had a combination of all three styles of learning and one student had a sole preference for Kinaesthetic (as illustrated in Table 4.1 above).

Scores within 1 – 2 points of each other were classed as combination, whilst those with a dominant sole LS had no other LS within 4 points (Fleming 2005). This supports the assertion that most adults of college age and above are Visual learners (Barbe and Milone 1981; Felder and Silverman 1988). More recent studies also support this (Effken and Doyle 2001; Fleming et al., 2011). Visual learners prefer reading and writing and observing things such as pictures, diagrams, film clips and demonstrations, whilst kinaesthetic learners prefer hands on learning, experiments and concrete experiences. Mary (FG1) and Bob (FG1) for example felt they were able to fully engage with the simulation experience. Mary’s dominant LS was Visual, whilst Bob’s was Aural, suggesting that simulation as a teaching and learning approach could accommodate a variety of learning styles. The longitudinal nature of this study allowed this assumption to be reviewed throughout the students’ two-year journey and is discussed in Chapter 9.