首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education >Comparison of Learning Styles of Pharmacy Students and Faculty Members
【2h】

Comparison of Learning Styles of Pharmacy Students and Faculty Members

机译:药学生与教职工学习风格的比较

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

>Objectives. To compare dominant learning styles of pharmacy students and faculty members and between faculty members in different tracks.>Methods. Gregorc Style Delineator (GSD) and Zubin’s Pharmacists’ Inventory of Learning Styles (PILS) were administered to students and faculty members at an urban, Midwestern college of pharmacy.>Results. Based on responses from 299 students (classes of 2008, 2009, and 2010) and 59 faculty members, GSD styles were concrete sequential (48%), abstract sequential (18%), abstract random (13%), concrete random (13%), and multimodal (8%). With PILS, dominant styles were assimilator (47%) and converger (30%). There were no significant differences between faculty members and student learning styles nor across pharmacy student class years (p>0.05). Learning styles differed between men and women across both instruments (p<0.01), and between faculty members in tenure and clinical tracks for the GSD styles (p=0.01).>Conclusion. Learning styles differed among respondents based on gender and faculty track.
机译:>目标。比较药房学生和教职员工以及不同学科的教职员工之间的主导学习风格。>方法。 Gregorc Style Delineator(GSD)和Zubin的药剂师学习清单>结果。根据来自299名学生(2008年,2009年和2010年的班级)和59名教职员工的反馈,对中西部城市药学院的学生和教职员工进行了风格(PILS)管理。 GSD样式为具体顺序(48%),抽象顺序(18%),抽象随机(13%),具体随机(13%)和多模式(8%)。使用PILS时,主要风格是同化(47%)和会聚(30%)。教职员工与学生的学习方式之间以及药学专业的学生上课年份之间均无显着差异(p> 0.05)。男性和女性在两种工具上的学习风格都不同(p <0.01),终身制和临床研究人员在GSD风格上的学习风格也不同(p = 0.01)。>结论。在性别和教师方面。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号