Nursing Students’ Preferences for Learning Medical and Bioscience Subjects: A Qualitative Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Design
2.2. Recruitment of Participants
2.3. Data Collection
2.4. Data Analysis
2.5. Ethical Considerations
3. Results
3.1. Active and Varied Learning Methods
If you sit and are taught [by the lecturer] all the time, then it becomes boring, but if you draw a bit or gets out some sheets of paper…, you learn with all your senses, so it is about using different methods (B5).
But it’s when it is the physiological… what happens in the lungs, what happens in the kidneys, why the heart works that way, the chemical stuff. Then you may need to have it explained in different ways… it needs to mature, so you may have to listen to it several times (B1).
I prefer to work alone when I am reading. I think it’s very nice to have groups, and to sit and discuss, but when I’m really going to work, I have to be alone. I can’t concentrate if there’s noise. So we work in different ways (B1).
3.2. In-Depth Learning
…all the advanced diagnoses, we do not have to go through them during lectures. We can read about that ourselves… it is much better to know a lot about a little than a little about a lot when it comes to lectures. Then I think we could have left the classroom with a greater sense of mastery… (A4).
3.3. The Teacher as a Motivator for Students’ Learning
There was one thing we absolutely did not understand, and then we went to talk to the lecturer, and then he spent an hour getting our group of five people to understand this before the exam… it’s the lecturers who do such things who make me want to do well too (B4).
4. Discussion
4.1. Encourage Active Learning
4.2. Variation during Lectures Is Needed
4.3. Learning Together
4.4. Videos Should Be Combined with Other Learning Methods
4.5. Promoting In-Depth-Learning May Facilitate the Use of MBS Theory in Nursing Practice
4.6. A Supportive Learning Environment
5. Study Limitations
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Craft, J.; Hudson, P.; Plenderleith, M.; Wirihana, L.; Gordon, C. Commencing nursing students’ perceptions and anxiety of bioscience. Nurse Educ. Today 2013, 33, 1399–1405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Molesworth, M.; Lewitt, M. Preregistration nursing students’ perspectives on the learning, teaching and application of bioscience knowledge within practice. J. Clin. Nurs. 2016, 25, 725–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barton, M.J.; Bentley, S.; Craft, J.; Dupen, O.; Gordon, C.; Cayanan, E.A.; Kunst, E.; Connors, A.; Todorovic, M.; Johnston, A.N. Nursing students’ perceptions of clinical relevance and engagement with bioscience education: A cross-sectional study of undergraduate and postgraduate nursing students. Nurse Educ. Today 2021, 99, 104767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perkins, C. Enhanced bioscience content is urgently needed in UK pre-registration nursing curricula. Nurse Educ. Pract. 2019, 34, 7–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakon, S.; Craft, J.; Christensen, M.; Wirihana, L. Can active learning principles be applied to the bioscience assessments of nursing students? A review of the literature. Nurse Educ. Today 2016, 37, 123–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sægrov, S.; Kyte, L.; Kleiven, O.T.; Dahl, H.; Lindaas, I.; Valaker, I. Medisinsk og naturvitskapleg kunnskap som grunnlag for utøving av sjukepleie [Medical and bioscience knowledge as a basis for practicing nursing]. Nord. Sygeplejeforskning 2022, 12, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McVicar, A.; Andrew, S.; Kemble, R. The ‘bioscience problem’ for nursing students: An integrative review of published evaluations of Year 1 bioscience, and proposed directions for curriculum development. Nurse Educ. Today 2015, 35, 500–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jensen, K.T.; Knutstad, U.; Fawcett, T.N. The challenge of the biosciences in nurse education: A literature review. J. Clin. Nurs. 2018, 27, 1793–1802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haakens, M.; Karlsen, H.; Bråten, H. Resultater på Nasjonal Deleksamen i Anatomi, Fysiologi og Biokjemi: Gode Resultater Eller Gode Studieprogrammer? [Results on the National Exam in Anatomy, Physiology and Biochemistry: Good Students or Good Study Programs?]; NOKUT: Lysaker, Norway, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Evensen, A.E.; Brataas, H.V.; Cui, G. Bioscience learning in nursing: A cross-sectional survey of beginning nursing students in Norway. BMC Nurs. 2020, 19, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Johnston, A.N.; Hamill, J.; Barton, M.J.; Baldwin, S.; Percival, J.; Williams-Pritchard, G.; Salvage-Jones, J.; Todorovic, M. Student learning styles in anatomy and physiology courses: Meeting the needs of nursing students. Nurse Educ. Pract. 2015, 15, 415–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Joseph, M.A.; Roach, E.J.; Natarajan, J.; Karkada, S.; Cayaban, A.R.R. Flipped classroom improves Omani nursing students performance and satisfaction in anatomy and physiology. BMC Nurs. 2021, 20, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cui, G.; Laugsand, J.-B.; Zheng, W. A Survey of Norwegian Nursing Students’ Responses to Student-Centered Small Group Learning in the Study of Human Anatomy and Physiology. SAGE Open Nurs. 2021, 7, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malterud, K. Kvalitative Forskningsmetoder for Medisin og Helsefag. En Innføring [Qualitative Research Methods for Medicine and Health Sciences: An Introduction], 4th ed.; Universitetsforlaget: Oslo, Norway, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Kvale, S.; Brinkmann, S.; Anderssen, T.M.; Rygge, J. Det Kvalitative Forskningsintervju [The Qualitative Research Interview], 3rd ed.; Gyldendal Akademisk: Oslo, Norway, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Tong, A.; Sainsbury, P.; Craig, J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int. J. Qual. Health Care J. Int. Soc. Qual. Health Care ISQua 2007, 19, 349–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Brinkmann, S.; Kvale, S. InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing, 3rd ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Malterud, K. Systematic text condensation: A strategy for qualitative analysis. Scand. J. Public Health 2012, 40, 795–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Idsardi, R. Evidence-Based Practices for the Active Learning Classroom. In Active Learning in College Science. The Case for Evidence-Based Practice; Mintzes, J., Walter, E.M., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 13–25. [Google Scholar]
- Freeman, S.; Eddy, S.L.; McDonough, M.; Smith, M.K.; Okoroafor, N.; Jordt, H.; Wenderoth, M.P. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 8410–8415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Biggs, J.B. What the Student Does: Teaching for enhanced learning. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 1999, 18, 57–75. [Google Scholar]
- Amin, A. ‘Drawing’ to learn Anatomy: Exploring the theoretical underpinning and conditions favouring drawing based learning. J. Pak. Med. Assoc. 2020, 70, 2017–2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Noorafshan, A.; Hoseini, L.; Amini, M.; Dehghani, M.R.; Kojuri, J.; Bazrafkan, L. Simultaneous anatomical sketching as learning by doing method of teaching human anatomy. J. Educ. Health Promot. 2014, 3, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Borrelli, M.; Leung, B.; Morgan, M.; Saxena, S.; Hunter, A. Should drawing be incorporated into the teaching of anatomy? J. Contemp. Med. Educ. 2018, 6, 34–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernandes, M.A.; Wammes, J.D.; Meade, M.E. The Surprisingly Powerful Influence of Drawing on Memory. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2018, 27, 302–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, A.I.; Tahir, R. The effect of using Kahoot! for learning—A literature review. Comput. Educ. 2020, 149, 103818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holbrey, C.E. Kahoot! Using a game-based approach to blended learning to support effective learning environments and student engagement in traditional lecture theatres. Technol. Pedagog. Educ. 2020, 29, 191–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, M.K.; Knight, J.K. Clickers in the Biology Classroom: Strategies for Writing and Effectively Implementing Clicker Questions That Maximize Student Learning. In Active Learning in College Science; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 141–158. [Google Scholar]
- Onshuus, K.; Jacobsen, T.-I. Å snakke med andre om sykepleie gjør at det sitter bedre. Medstudentsamarbeid som motivasjon til å lære mer i sykepleiestudiet [Talking to others about nursing makes you remember it better. Co-student collaboration as motivation to learn more in nursing education]. Klin. Sygepleje 2020, 34, 110–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kobayashi, K. Learning by Preparing-to-Teach and Teaching: A Meta-Analysis. Jpn. Psychol. Res. 2018, 61, 192–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Scager, K.; Boonstra, J.; Peeters, T.; Vulperhorst, J.; Wiegant, F.; Knight, J. Collaborative Learning in Higher Education: Evoking Positive Interdependence. CBE—Life Sci. Educ. 2016, 15, ar69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Adesina, O.O.; Adesina, O.A.; Adelopo, I.; Afrifa, G.A. Managing group work: The impact of peer assessment on student engagement. Account. Educ. 2022, 32, 90–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lavy, S. Who benefits from group work in higher education? An attachment theory perspective. High. Educ. 2017, 73, 175–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poort, I.; Jansen, E.; Hofman, A. Does the group matter? Effects of trust, cultural diversity, and group formation on engagement in group work in higher education. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2022, 41, 511–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noetel, M.; Griffith, S.; Delaney, O.; Sanders, T.; Parker, P.; del Pozo Cruz, B.; Lonsdale, C. Video Improves Learning in Higher Education: A Systematic Review. Rev. Educ. Res. 2021, 91, 204–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Means, B.; Toyama, Y.; Murphy, R.; Baki, M. The Effectiveness of Online and Blended Learning: A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature. Teach. Coll. Rec. Voice Scholarsh. Educ. 2013, 115, 1–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skavern, H.; Høye, S.; Ødbehr, L.S. Hvordan lærer sykepleierstudenter med lave opptakskarakterer anatomi, fysiologi og biokjemi (AFB)? [How do nursing students with low admission grades acquire knowledge in anatomy, physiology and biochemistry (AFB)?]. Uniped 2020, 43, 33–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Damsgaard, H.L. Studielivskvalitet. Studenters Erfaringer Med og Opplevelse av Kvalitet i Høyere Utdanning [Quality of Study Life. Students’ Experiences with and Perception of Quality in Higher Education]; Universitetsforlaget: Oslo, Norway, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Takase, M.; Niitani, M.; Imai, T.; Okada, M. Students’ perceptions of teaching factors that demotivate their learning in lectures and laboratory-based skills practice. Int. J. Nurs. Sci. 2019, 6, 414–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chernikova, O.; Heitzmann, N.; Stadler, M.; Holzberger, D.; Seidel, T.; Fischer, F. Simulation-Based Learning in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 2020, 90, 499–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gibbs, G. Teacher engagement. Uniped 2016, 39, 184–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Madhuvu, A.; Gao, W.; Rogers, R.; O’Halloran, M.; Bennett, N.; Morphet, J. Horizontal integration of bioscience and nursing in first-year nursing curricula: A systematic review. Nurse Educ. Today 2022, 118, 105519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ayllon, S.; Alsina, A.; Colomer, J. Teachers’ involvement and students’ self-efficacy: Keys to achievement in higher education. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0216865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Campus | Participant and Gender (f/m) |
---|---|
A | 1 f |
2 f | |
3 m | |
4 m | |
5 f | |
B | 1 f |
2 f | |
3 f | |
4 f | |
5 f |
Examples of Meaning Units | Subgroups | Code Groups |
---|---|---|
“There has been a good variation in everything. Mostly, it has been teaching, but the fact that one… draws, shows drawings, some videos and then explanation again” (B5) “The seminars, I think these were useful, because then you have to kind of use both hemispheres of the brain” (A2) | Use of diverse learning methods | Active and varied learning methods |
“… we actively listened to the others, we discussed and changed a little bit and discussed, so it was certainly helpful.” (A3) | Collaborative learning | |
“Yes, because if they manage to link the material to stories and their own experiences…, then we get a little more insight into what awaits us in working life” (B1) | Learning by understanding connections | In-depth learning |
“… lecturers wanted to say as much as possible in the shortest possible time” (B1) | Knowledge must be manageable | |
“… it’s about showing commitment, … entering a classroom and wanting to teach [students] something” (B5) “A good lecturer for me is someone who doesn’t rush through what we’re going to learn in the curriculum, but actually takes time if there’s something you don’t understand to go through it a bit more, and include the students, not just stand and lecture, but actively actually ask.” (B4) | During organised learning activities | The lecturer as a motivator for students’ learning |
“the most important thing when it comes to the lecturer is that you have someone who cares… and say hello when you meet them in the hallway. It makes it much more personal, especially when it becomes more personal for my own learning” (A1) | Outside of organised learning activities |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kyte, L.; Lindaas, I.; Dahl, H.; Valaker, I.; Kleiven, O.T.; Sægrov, S. Nursing Students’ Preferences for Learning Medical and Bioscience Subjects: A Qualitative Study. Nurs. Rep. 2023, 13, 622-633. https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep13020055
Kyte L, Lindaas I, Dahl H, Valaker I, Kleiven OT, Sægrov S. Nursing Students’ Preferences for Learning Medical and Bioscience Subjects: A Qualitative Study. Nursing Reports. 2023; 13(2):622-633. https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep13020055
Chicago/Turabian StyleKyte, Lars, Ingrid Lindaas, Hellen Dahl, Irene Valaker, Ole T. Kleiven, and Solveig Sægrov. 2023. "Nursing Students’ Preferences for Learning Medical and Bioscience Subjects: A Qualitative Study" Nursing Reports 13, no. 2: 622-633. https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep13020055
APA StyleKyte, L., Lindaas, I., Dahl, H., Valaker, I., Kleiven, O. T., & Sægrov, S. (2023). Nursing Students’ Preferences for Learning Medical and Bioscience Subjects: A Qualitative Study. Nursing Reports, 13(2), 622-633. https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep13020055