護理系學生之學習型態與學業成績之探究

The Relationship of Baccalaureate Nursing Students’ Learning Styles and Academic Scores

本研究目的主要探討二技與四技護理系學生之學習型態與學業成績之關係。藉由問卷調查，以便利取樣，且採用Kolb 之學習型態測量工具。針對屏東地區兩所技術學院共435 位護理系學生，四技91 位(20.9%)，日二技138 位(31.8%)，夜二技206 位(47.3%)之資料，以X2、One-way ANOVA 及LSD 事後比較檢定分析。研究結果發現：（1）三種不同學制之護理系學生其基本人口特徵之年齡、父親教育程度及母親教育程度有不同的差異。（2）三種學制的學生皆以具體觀察型 (diverger) (43.2%)最多，其次為具體操作型 (accommodator) (33.8%)。（3）除年齡外，年齡與學習型態之變異數分析(F=3.319*，p=.025)及LSD 之事後比較，得知在年齡上，具體操作型與概念觀察型、具體觀察型有顯著性差異，而具體操作型學生之平均年齡比概念觀察型、具體觀察型學生年齡大。（4）不同學制與學習型態有顯著性差異 (X2=20.63*，p=.002)。（5）學習型態與學業成績無顯著性差異 (F=2.486 , p=.061）。本研究建議，未來探討護理系學生之學習型態與學業成績之相關性時，其學業成績只採計護理專業核心科目取代全學期之成績以降低成績的差異性。

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship of students’ learning styles and academic scores for two-year senior and four-year nursing programs. Data were collected by convenience sampling and evaluated with Kolb’s Learning Style Instrument. 435 college nursing students from two technology institutes were taken as subjects in Pingtung. Among them, 91 (20.9%) are four-year college students, 138 (31.8%) are full time two-year senior students, and 206 (47.3%) are two-year part time senior students. Chi square, one-way ANOVA, and LSD tests were used for data analysis. The results showed: (1) Demographic backgrounds of students from these three different programs had different significant relationship of age, father’s education and mother’s education. (2) Students’ learning styles from these three kinds of programs had the largest proportion of diverger learning styles (43.2%), followed by the accommodator learning style (33.8%). (3) Students’ demographic backgrounds had no significant relationship to learning styles. Only age was significantly correlated with learning styles. One-way ANOVA revealed age and learning styles with significant relationships (F=3.319*, p=.025). And, the LSD test showed accommodator students’ average age were older than assimilator and diverger students. (4) Students from these three nursing programs showed significant differences of learning styles X2 =20.63*, p = .002). (5) Students’ academic scores showed no significant relationship to learning styles (F=2.486, p=.061). Recommendation for further research includes the testing of the relationship between professional nursing course academic scores (rather than whole semester final grades) and learning styles.