Nurse Education in Practice 28 (2018) 280–284

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Nurse Education in Practice

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/nepr

Original research

Learning style preferences of Australian accelerated postgraduate pre- T

registration nursing students: A cross-sectional survey
Lisa McKennaa,b, Beverley Copnella,b, Ashleigh E. Butlerb, Rosalind Laub,∗
a
School of Nursing and Midwifery, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria 3086, Australia
b
School of Nursing & Midwifery, Monash University, Clayton Campus, Wellington Rd, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Graduate entry programs leading to registration are gaining momentum in nursing. These programs attract
Learning styles student cohorts with professional, cultural, gender and age diversity. As a consequence of this diversity, such
Experiential learning accelerated programs challenge traditional pedagogical methods used in nursing and require different ap-
Kolb Learning Style Inventory proaches. To date, however, there has been limited research on the learning styles of students undertaking these
VARK model
programs to inform academics involved in their delivery. Kolb's Experiential Learning model has been used
Master of Nursing Practice students
widely in a variety of educational settings because it is based on the theory of experiential learning. More
recently VARK (Visual, Aural, Read/write and Kinaesthetic) model has become popular. The aim of this study
was to investigate the learning styles of two cohorts of graduate entry nursing students undertaking an ac-
celerated masters-level program. This was a cross-sectional survey of two cohorts of Master of Nursing Practice
students enrolled at a large Australian university. The students were more inclined toward converging (practical)
and least toward concrete experience (experiencing) learning styles. The majority of students were more inclined
toward kinaesthetic and least toward aural learning style. Findings have implications for academics engaged in
teaching graduate entry nursing students.

1. Introduction information: Visual, Aural, Read/write and Kinaesthetic (Fleming,

Accelerated nursing programs provide fast-tracked pathways to
nursing practice for graduates from disciplines other than nursing. Such
programs are relatively new in Australia but in the United States of
America, they have been offered for over thirty years (Aktan et al.,
2009). The programs attract different students to those in traditional
nursing cohorts such as more males, previously highly educated, along
with very broad disciplinary and cultural diversity (McKenna and
Vanderheide, 2012; McKenna et al., 2016). Furthermore, accelerated
students have been shown to perform significantly better than tradi-
tional students in class test scores, laboratory skills and final course
grades (Korvick et al., 2008).
Given the very different and diverse nature of these students, it is
important to understand the ways in which they best learn in order to
ensure pedagogical approaches are appropriate and effective. However,
there has been a paucity of studies exploring the learning styles of
graduate nursing students. One of the most widely used models of
learning styles is Kolb's model of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984).
Recently, the VARK model has become popular. VARK is an acronym
for the four main sensory modalities used to experience new
1995). The aim of this study was to determine the learning style pre-
ferences of accelerated postgraduate nursing students using the Kolb's
Learning Style Inventory, K-LSI 3.1 (Kolb and Kolb, 2005) and the
VARK (Fleming, 2014).
2. Background
Learning styles refer to the way in which individuals approach
learning situations to process information (Cassidy, 2004; Zoghi et al.,
2010). Association between learning styles and learning achievement
outcomes remains contentious (Norman, 2009); however, it has been
generally accepted that individuals’ learning styles have an impact on
their performance and achievement of learning outcomes (Cassidy,
2004). Manolis et al. (2013) pointed out that educators need to know
the learning styles of students so that they can tailor their teaching style
and pedagogy to optimise student learning. This is consistent with the
view of (Fletcher et al. 2008 p.383), who stated that “an understanding
of the preferred learning style of an individual provides an insight into
the teaching methods that are likely to be effective for that individual.”
However, it is also recognised that learning styles are not fixed (Turesky

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: l.mckenna@latrobe.edu.au (L. McKenna), b.copnell@latrobe.edu.au (B. Copnell), Ashleigh.butler@monash.edu (A.E. Butler), r.lau@deakin.edu.au (R. Lau).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2017.10.011
Received 24 January 2017; Received in revised form 10 August 2017; Accepted 11 October 2017
1471-5953/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. McKenna et al.
and Gallagher, 2011).
There has been a large body of research on learning style models,
with a systematic review identifying 71 different models (Coffield et al.,
2004). In an attempt to reduce the confusion regarding learning style
constructs, Curry (1983) used the ‘onion ring model’ to describe the
learning style framework. This model is based on a hypothetical onion,
with each layer representing an aspect of learning style preference. The
innermost layer represents cognitive personality style, or the in-
dividual's approach to assimilating information, and is considered the
most stable dimension of learning. The middle layer is the individual's
information processing style, and explores the intellectual approach to
information assimilation. The outermost layer considers instructional
preference, or the choice of learning environment. This layer is the most
easily influenced and least stable aspect of learning style preference. A
fourth layer termed social interaction was later included, which de-
scribes an individual's preference for social interaction during learning.
One of the most widely used models of learning styles is Kolb's
model of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984), which falls into the middle
layer of Curry's ‘onion ring model’. According to Kolb, learning is “the
process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of
experience. Knowledge results from the combination of grasping ex-
perience and transforming it” (Kolb, 1984 p.41). Kolb (1984) developed
a model that describes four modes of learning: (1) concrete experience
(CE; feeling), which favours experiential learning; (2) reflective ob-
servation (RO; watching), where extensive consideration is given to the
task before action is taken; (3) abstract conceptualisation (AC;
thinking), where there is a preference for conceptual and analytical
thinking in order to achieve understanding; and (4) active experi-
mentation (AE; doing), where there is a preference for testing and
learning through trial and error.
From the combination of these learning modes, Kolb (1984) iden-
tified four learning styles that are associated with different approaches
to learning - diverging, assimilating, converging, and accommodating.
Divergers (CE and RO) are individuals who tend to consider situations
from different perspectives. They are imaginative and emotional, in-
terested in people, and have broad cultural interests (Kolb and Kolb,
2005). Assimilators (RO and AC) are individuals who are competent at
creating theoretical ideas. These individuals are less focused on people
and more interested in ideas and abstract concepts (Kolb and Kolb,
2005). Convergers (AC and AE) are individuals who have a strong
ability in finding practical uses for ideas and theories, problem solving,
and decision making through deductive reasoning (Kolb and Kolb,
2005). Accommodators (AE and CE) are individuals who prefer hands-
on experience and actively engaging in new experiences (Kolb and
Kolb, 2005).
Kolb's model has been widely used with healthcare to evaluate
students' learning styles because it is based on experiential learning
which incorporates growth and development and this aligns well with
clinical practice. The model has been used to evaluate nursing students
in several studies (D'Amore et al., 2012; Gyeong and Myung, 2008;
Suliman, 2010; Zoghi et al., 2010). Gyeong and Myung (2008) surveyed
724 nursing students in Korean universities from first year to fourth
year, of which the majority (29.6%) were in the second year of their
nursing program. They found the dominant learning style was diverging
(43.5% of participants), followed by accommodating (30.4%), with
relatively small percentages in the other categories. D'Amore et al.
(2012) surveyed students from first-year Bachelor of Nursing, Bachelor
of Midwifery and Bachelor of Nursing/Bachelor of Arts in one uni-
versity in Australia. While they also found divergers to be the largest
group, at 29.5%, all other learning styles were well represented, with
assimilators accounting for 28.8%, accommodators 23.9% and con-
vergers 17.9%. Similar diversity was found by Suliman (2010) among
nursing students in conventional undergraduate programs in Saudi
Arabia, with divergers as the dominant category, followed by accom-
modators and assimilators.
In contrast, Zoghi et al. (2010), in their Australian study, found
281
Nurse Education in Practice 28 (2018) 280–284
nursing students were predominantly convergers. In the same study,
data were also collected from health science students enrolled in other
disciplines (dietetics and nutrition, midwifery, occupational therapy,
paramedics, radiotherapy, radiation therapy, pharmacy, physiotherapy,
and social work) and found all student groups had the same preference
for the converger learning style. The response rate was only 26%,
however, and each of the nine disciplines had less than 10% of the total
sample size. A study of Australian physiotherapy and occupational
therapy students found that physiotherapy students equally preferred
converging and diverging styles, while occupational therapy students
preferred the assimilating style (Brown et al., 2009). The study had a
small sample size and was carried out from one university.
Only one study was found that evaluated graduate entry nursing
students’ learning styles using the Kolb model. Suliman (2010) com-
pared the learning styles of students in this program with that of stu-
dents in a conventional undergraduate program. All students were fe-
male and graduate entry students were predominantly biology and
chemistry graduates. The diverger style was more dominant among
graduate entry students than conventional students (45.8% vs 34%),
with assimilator as the second most frequently occurring (31%). The
sample size was small, however, with only 48 graduate entry partici-
pants.
Recently, the VARK model, which also falls into the middle layer of
Curry's ‘onion ring model’, has become popular. VARK is an acronym
for the four main sensory modalities used to experience new informa-
tion: Visual, Aural, Read/write and Kinaesthetic (Fleming, 1995). Vi-
sual learners tend to have a preference for information presented in a
visual way, such as through graphs, diagrams and charts. Aural learners
prefer to hear information presented to them. Read/write learners fa-
vour information presented as words in textbooks and handouts. Ki-
naesthetic learners prefer to learn through simulation and real life ex-
periences (Fleming, 1995).
Since the development of the VARK tool, studies have used it to
examine learning styles of students in traditional undergraduate nur-
sing programs. Several studies have identified such nursing students as
multimodal learners, with strong preference towards kinaesthetic
learning modes (AlKhasawneh, 2013; James et al., 2011). One study,
examining learning styles of nursing students in an accelerated nursing
program, also identified that most students were multimodal learners
(Koch et al., 2011). However in the same study, students showed a
preference for the Read/write learning style, instead of kinaesthetic
(Koch et al., 2011).
Traditionally, Australian undergraduate nursing programs are three
years in length (Australian Nursing Federation, 2009; Royal College of
Nursing, 2009). However, there are a growing number of shorter pro-
grams aimed at providing accelerated pathways to nursing practice.
These programs range from twelve to eighteen months and have been
predominantly offered at bachelor level (Cangelosi and Whitt, 2005).
However, similar programs have in recent times been offered at mas-
ter's level.
An accelerated program, Master of Nursing Practice (MNP), was
introduced at the authors' university in 2009. The course is a 24 months
accelerated pre-registration program for individuals holding a bachelor
degree in a discipline other than nursing. Despite the need for under-
standing the differences in this cohort, there has been a paucity of
studies exploring graduate entry nursing students' preferred learning
styles that could inform appropriate academic teaching practices. This
is in contrast to the large body of studies exploring the learning styles of
undergraduate nursing students. Hence, exploring the learning styles of
accelerated postgraduate pre-registration nursing students is a way
forward to help academics to review and structure their curriculum
appropriately to maximise these students’ learning.
3. Methods
This was a cross-sectional survey.
L. McKenna et al.
3.1. Setting and participants
The study was conducted at one Australian metropolitan university
School of Nursing and Midwifery with five cohorts of Master of Nursing
Practice students (n = 155) in the second semester of their course in
2010–2012.
3.2. Data collection and procedure
Ethical approval to conduct the study was obtained from the uni-
versity's human research ethics committee. At the end of a scheduled
lecture, all students (n = 128) present were invited to participate in the
study. They were provided with an explanation of the study and the
survey tool was distributed by a member of the research team not in-
volved in their teaching. Participation was voluntary and consent was
implied through the return of a completed survey.
3.3. Instruments
Two instruments were employed in this study as each measures
learning styles in slightly different ways. Kolb's learning style model is
operationalised in a standardised self-report questionnaire known as
the Kolb's Learning Style Inventory (K-LSI) (Kolb et al., 1971). The in-
itial instrument has been revised a number of times to improve its
psychometric properties (Kayes, 2005; Kolb and Kolb, 2005). The latest
version, K-LSI 3.1 is a 12-item, forced-choice ranking method that aims
to identify an individual's preferred modes of learning (AC, CE, AE and
RO) (Kolb and Kolb, 2005). The 12 items each contains a set of four
statements and the participant is asked to assign a score ranging from 4
(learn best) to 1 (learn least) for each statement in each item. The LSI
provides six scores: CE, RO, AC, AE and two combination scores: AC–CE
(preference for abstractness over concreteness) and AE–RO (preference
for action over reflection). The psychometric properties of the K-LSI 3.1
have been established. It has been shown to be both a reliable and valid
instrument, with Cronbach's alphas ranging from 0.77–0.84 and tes-
t–retest correlation coefficients ranging from moderate to excellent
(Kolb and Kolb, 2005).
The VARK survey tool assesses both preferences for information
presenting and processing through a series of 13 questions, with stu-
dents able to select one or more statements that best describe their
learning preference (Fleming, 2014). Preferences were ranked by cal-
culating the total number of each response (V (visual), A (Aural), R
(read/write), and K (kinaesthetic)). Students can then be described as
unimodal, if they have a singular strong preference, or multimodal,
which includes those students with two, three or four dominant
learning styles. The VARK instrument deals with only one aspect of a
complex package that makes up a person's ‘learning style’ (Fleming and
Baume, 2006). Although it is appropriate to use the instrument to assess
the learning styles of the students, it has to be used with caution be-
cause of the lack of validity testing (Fleming and Baume, 2006; Leite
et al., 2010).
3.4. Data analysis
All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 21.0
(SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Descriptive statistics (mean scores and
standard deviations (SD)) were calculated for CE, RO, AC, AE and
combination of CE-RO, RO-AC, AC-AE and AE-CE. K-LSI 3.1 scores were
calculated by summing the numerical scores. Descriptive statistics
(number and percentage) were calculated for the VARK tool. The VARK
scores were calculated by counting the number of each of the VARK
letters (V, A R, K) circled for each item to obtain the total score for each
VARK category.
282
Nurse Education in Practice 28 (2018) 280–284
4. Results
4.1. Demographics
Of the 128 questionnaires distributed, 100 were returned, giving a
response rate of 78.1%. Of the 100 who completed the survey, 59 were
females, 24 were males and 17 did not answer the question. The ma-
jority of the students (n = 32) were in the age group 21-25 years,
followed by 31–35 years (n = 20). Thirty-five students identified as
being from non-English speaking backgrounds. Thirty-seven students
gained a bachelor degree in science, 18 in business and 12 in arts while
others were scattered across 13 other discipline areas. For most
(n = 82) a bachelor degree was their highest previous education qua-
lification, while 8 had graduate diplomas, 13 had masters degrees and 3
had doctoral degrees.
4.2. K-LSI 3.1
The domain with the highest mean score was active experimenta-
tion (AE) and the lowest was concrete experience (CE). MNP students
were predominately convergers (AC-AE) and least divergers (CE and
RO). Full details of the results are presented in Table 1. The Cronbach
alpha internal reliability coefficients for the 12-item LSI3.1 in the cur-
rent study ranged between 0.74 and 0.80, with AE just falling below the
0.7 threshold; however, all other variables had values above 0.7.
4.3. VARK instrument
Analysis was performed on the 70 students who completed all
questions. A total of 24 students (34.3%) preferred the Kinaesthetic
learning style, followed by 19 (27.1%) who preferred Read/write. No
difference was found in the number of students preferring either aural
or visual learning styles. Full details of the results are presented in
Table 2. In total, 41 students (58.6%) had a single mode of learning
preference and 29 students (41.4%) preferred multiple learning styles.
Of the students who were multimodal, 16 (55.1%) preferred two
learning styles, 11 (38.0%) preferred three and two (6.9%) preferred
four learning styles.
5. Discussion
Kolb's Experiential Learning model has been used widely in a
variety of educational settings because it is based on the theory of ex-
periential learning, which embraces growth and development, rather
than on fixed learning traits (Turesky and Gallagher, 2011). This study
showed that these MNP students preferred an active experimentation
learning style and were predominately convergers. This is not a sur-
prising finding because over 50% of the students in this study came
from either science or business disciplines. Convergers prefer dealing
with technical tasks and solving problems (Kolb and Kolb, 2005). Zoghi
et al. (2010) found health science students enrolled in a range of
Table 1
Kolb preferred learning style.
Learning style Mean ± SD
CE 26.01 ± 6.48
RO 29.77 ± 6.71
AC 30.70 ± 7.10
AE 33.54 ± 5.76
CE-AC 56.84 ± 6.40
AE-RO 63.14 ± 6.41
CE: concrete experience, RO: reflective observation.
AC: abstract conceptualization, AE: active experimentation.
CE-AC: preference for abstractness over concreteness.
AE-RO: preference for action over reflection.
L. McKenna et al.
Table 2
VARK preferred learning style.
Learning style Number %
V 14 20.0
A 13 18.6
R 19 27.1
K 24 34.3
R = Read/write, K = Kinaesthetic, A = Aural, V = Visual.
courses preferred a converging learning style. These students would
respond best to teaching strategies that incorporate problem solving,
decision making and deductive reasoning.
The results from this study are consistent with those of Rassin et al.
(2015), who found nurses from a range of clinical settings (intensive
care, delivery room, emergency room, internal medicine, psychiatry
and geriatrics) used the converging learning style to promote their
professional knowledge and skills. This is in contrast to other studies
that found nursing students were mainly divergers (D'Amore et al.,
2012; Gyeong and Myung, 2008; Salehi and Shahnooshi, 2007) or ac-
commodators (Hauer et al., 2005; Smith, 2010). In particular, it is in
contrast to the findings of Suliman (2010) that graduate entry students
with similar scientific backgrounds to our students were predominantly
divergers. The reasons for this difference are unclear. Our sample in-
cluded a relatively high proportion of male students, who have been
shown previously to be less likely to be divergers (D'Amore et al.,
2012). It is possible that cultural differences may influence learning
style preferences; this does not appear to have been investigated pre-
viously and is worthy of further study.
In this study, the predominant learning style on the VARK tool was
the kinaesthetic. This finding is inconsistent with another Australian
study of accelerated graduate entry nursing students (Koch et al., 2011)
that found a majority of students preferred Read/write. However in the
same study (Koch et al., 2011), the second preference was aural, whilst
in our study the second preference was read/write. Our finding is
consistent with that reported among students in traditional nursing
courses. James et al. (2011) and Meehan-Andrews (2009) found first
year Australian nursing students preferred kinaesthetic learning.
AlKhasawneh (2013) also found a majority of Jordanian nursing stu-
dents in traditional courses preferred kinaesthetic learning. Our find-
ings suggest that teaching strategies that include hands-on experience
and activities will be the most successful.
In this study, nearly 60% of the students preferred a single mode of
learning style on the VARK tool. This is not consistent with another
Australian study of first year accelerated graduate entry nursing stu-
dents, where 62% of the students had more than a single mode of
learning preference (Koch et al., 2011). However, our findings are
consistent with an Australian study of first year students in traditional
nursing courses (Meehan-Andrews, 2009), but not in others. James
et al. (2011) found in an Australian study that students in traditional
nursing and midwifery courses were multimodal learners. In that study,
82% were undertaking the Bachelor of Nursing, 12% the Bachelor of
Midwifery and 5% a double degree in arts and nursing. AlKhasawneh
(2013) found almost 55% of Jordanian students, where the majority
were from the third year of traditional nursing courses, had a multi-
modal preference. Unimodal learners are less adaptable to teaching
strategies that do not suit their style preference; hence a variety of
strategies are required to ensure all students’ preferences are accom-
modated.
Taken together, the responses to the two instruments suggest that
for graduate entry nursing students in this study, dominant learning
styles favoured problem solving, practical activities and hands on ex-
perience. However, it is also evident that a variety of learning styles
existed, probably contributed to by the diversity of backgrounds.
Hence, single teaching approaches may not be effective for students,
283
Nurse Education in Practice 28 (2018) 280–284
and to accommodate a variety of learning styles, teaching styles need to
be multifaceted. Thus, it is critical for instructors to be aware of this
diversity, and to shape the course curricula and content aligned with
their students’ needs and learning styles. Findings from this study
suggest that traditional pedagogical approaches to nursing education
may not necessarily fit with the learning styles of graduate entry nur-
sing cohorts. These may need to be more individualised to meet the
needs of individuals from diverse backgrounds, with more opportu-
nities for self-directed and critical thinking applications. This aspect
warrants further exploration.
5.1. Limitations
This study was conducted at one university. Hence, it cannot be
generalised because it may not be a true representation of the popu-
lation. It is recommended that this study be replicated with a bigger
sample involving more than one university. It may also be beneficial to
compare this graduate entry program with other similar programs, both
locally and internationally. With a growing trend towards these ac-
celerated graduate entry education programs, more information is
needed about students and their educational needs in order to achieve
successful learning outcomes and optimise learning experiences. In
addition, more research is needed about needs of students from diverse
backgrounds. From a review, Koch et al. (2011) concluded that there is
a dearth of research on students from diverse backgrounds and the
impact of these backgrounds on clinical placement experience. Simi-
larly, there is insufficient knowledge about nursing student diversity
and pedagogical factors.
6. Conclusions
The K-LSI 3.1 showed that students were most inclined toward
converging and accommodating and least toward experiencing learning
styles. The VARK tool showed that a majority of students preferred
kinaesthetic and least toward aural learning style. Hence, MNP nursing
students may have different educational needs than traditional nursing
students. It is recommended that nursing educators consider the
learning styles of these students so that they can tailor their teaching
style and pedagogy to optimise student learning. Furthermore, there is a
need for further research around this student group to ensure their
unique learning needs can be addressed.
Conflict of interest
We have no conflict of interest to declare.
References
Aktan, N., Bareford, C., Bliss, J., Connolly, K., De Young, S., Lancellotti Sullivan, K.,
Tracy, J., 2009. Comparison of outcomes in a traditional versus accelerated nursing
curriculum. Int. J. Nurs. Educ. Scholarsh. 6 (1), 1–11.
AlKhasawneh, E., 2013. Using VARK to assess changes in learning preferences of nursing
students at a public university in Jordan: implications for teaching. Nurse Educ.
Today 33 (12), 1546–1549.
Australian Nursing Federation, 2009. Fact Sheet 2: a Snapshot of Nursing in Australia.
Australian Nursing Federation, Federal Office, Australia.
Brown, T., Cosgriff, T., French, G., 2009. Learning style preferences of occupational
therapy, physiotherapy and speech pathology students: a comparative study. Internet
J. Allied Health Sci. Pract 6 (3).
Cangelosi, P., Whitt, K., 2005. Accelerated nursing programs: what do we know? Nurs.
Educ. Perspect. 26 (2), 113–116.
Cassidy, S., 2004. Learning styles: an overview of theories, models and measures. Educ.
Psychol. 24, 419–444.
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., Ecclestone, K., 2004. Learning Styles and Pedagogy in
Post-16 Learning: a Systematic and Critical Review. Learning and Skills Research
Centre, London.
Curry, L., 1983. An organization of learning styles theory and constructs. In: 67th Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, (Montreal, Quebec).
D'Amore, A., James, S., Mitchell, E., 2012. Learning styles of first-year undergraduate
nursing and midwifery students: a cross-sectional survey utilising the Kolb Learning
Style Inventory. Nurse Educ. Today 32, 506–515.
L. McKenna et al.
Fleming, N., 1995. I'm different, not dumb. Modes of presentation (VARK) in the tertiary
classroom. In: Annual Conference of the Higher Education and Research
Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA), pp. 308–313.
Fleming, N., 2014. VARK: a Guide to Learning Styles. http://vark-learn.com.
Fleming, N., Baume, D., 2006. Learning Styles Again, VARKing up the Right Tree!
Education Developments, SEDA Ltd (7.4). pp. 4–7.
Fletcher, S., Potts, J., Ballinger, R., 2008. The pedagogy of integrated coastal manage-
ment. Geogr. J. 174 (4), 374–386.
Gyeong, J., Myung, S., 2008. Critical thinking and learning styles of nursing students at
the baccalaureate nursing program in Korea. Contemp. Nurse 29 (1), 100–109.
Hauer, P., Straub, C., Wolf, S., 2005. Learning styles of allied health students using Kolb's
LSI-IIa. J. Allied Health 34 (3), 177–182.
James, S., D'Amore, A., Thomas, T., 2011. Learning preferences of first year nursing and
midwifery students: utilising VARK. Nurse Educ. Today 31 (4), 417–423.
Kayes, C., 2005. Internal validity and reliability of Kolb's Learning Style Inventory Version
3, 1999. J. Bus. Psychol. 20 (2), 249–257.
Koch, J., Salamonson, Y., Rolley, J., Davidson, P., 2011. Learning preference as a pre-
dictor of academic performance in first year accelerated graduate entry nursing
students: a prospective follow-up study. Nurse Educ. Today 31, 611–616.
Kolb, A., Kolb, D., 2005. The Kolb Learning Style Inventory - Version 3.1 2005 Traditional
Specifications. Hay Group Holdings, Inc, Boston.
Kolb, D., 1984. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and develop-
ment. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kolb, D., Rubin, I., McIntyre, J., 1971. Organizational psychology: an experiential ap-
proach. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Korvick, L., Wisener, L., Loftis, L., William, M., 2008. Comparing the academic perfor-
mance of students in traditional and second-degree baccalaureate programs. J. Nurs.
Educ. 47 (3), 139–141.
Leite, W., Svinicki, M., Shi, Y., 2010. Attempted validation of the scores of the VARK:
learning styles inventory with multitrait-multimethod confirmatory factor analysis
284
Nurse Education in Practice 28 (2018) 280–284
models. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 70, 323–340.
Manolis, C., Burns, D., Assudani, R., Chinta, R., 2013. Assessing experiential learning
styles: a methodological reconstruction and validation of the Kolb Learning Style
Inventory. Learn. Individ. Differ. 23, 44–52.
McKenna, L., Vanderheide, R., 2012. Graduate entry to practice in nursing: exploring
demographic characteristics of commencing students. Aust. J. Adv. Nurs. 29 (3),
49–55.
McKenna, L., Vanderheide, R., Brooks, I., 2016. Is graduate entry education a solution to
increasing numbers of men in nursing? Nurse Educ. Pract. 17, 74–77.
Meehan-Andrews, T., 2009. Teaching mode efficiency and learning preferences of first
year nursing students. Nurse Educ. Today 29, 24–32.
Norman, G., 2009. When will learning style go out of style? Adv. Health Sci. Educ.
14, 1–4.
Rassin, M., Kurzweil, Y., Maoz, Y., 2015. Identification of the learning styles and “On-the-
Job” learning methods implemented by nurses for promoting their professional
knowledge and skills. Int. J. Nurs. Eduction Scholarsh. 12 (1), 75–81.
Royal College of Nursing, 2009. How to Become a Nurse or Midwife. Royal College of
Nursing, UK.
Salehi, S., Shahnooshi, E., 2007. Nursing student's preferred learning style. Iran. J. Nurs.
Midwifery Resarch 12 (4), 153–157.
Smith, A., 2010. Learning styles of registered nurses enrolled in an online nursing pro-
gram. J. Prof. Nurs. 26 (1), 49–53.
Suliman, W., 2010. The relationship between learning styles, emotional social in-
telligence, and academic success of undergraduate nursing students. J. Nurs. Res. 18
(2), 136–143.
Turesky, E., Gallagher, D., 2011. Know thyself: coaching for leadership using Kolb's ex-
periential learning theory. Coach. Psychol. 7 (1), 5–14.
Zoghi, M., Brown, T., Williams, B., Roller, L., Jaberzadeh, S., Palermo, C., et al., 2010.
Learning style preferences of Australian health science students. J. Allied Health 39
(2), 95–103.