| Literature DB >> 35715773 |
Mikaela Reynolds1, Cristina Bowers2, Holly Peters2, Mathilde Klein2, Zane Clayton2, David Hagger2, Ben McGarry2, Elise Pelzer2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bioscience is essential knowledge for nursing practice and is an important component of undergraduate nursing education, however students commonly feel anxious about studying the subject. The purpose of this study was to develop appropriately scoped contextually relevant bioscience lesson resources to enhance student engagement and performance and reduce attrition and unit failures over a sustained period.Entities:
Keywords: Anatomy and physiology; Cognitive load; Education; Nursing; Scaffolded learning
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35715773 PMCID: PMC9204984 DOI: 10.1186/s12909-022-03513-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Educ ISSN: 1472-6920 Impact factor: 3.263
Fig. 1Redevelopment of unit learning and teaching materials. Unit learning materials were progressively revised and developed from 2016 to 2018 to include multimodal resource delivery and increased signposting to support student success. Updated changes are listed in the figure for the year in which the resources/changes were first introduced as student learning materials
Student demographic data for teaching periods from 2014–2017
| S1 2014 | S1 2015 | S1 2016 | S1 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Domestic | 94% | 97% | 95% | 94% |
| International | 6% | 3% | 5% | 6% |
| Non school-leaver | 51% | 46% | 48% | 55% |
| Low-SES | 17% | 22% | 23% | 20% |
| Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander | 3% | 3% | 3% | 4% |
| Disability | 3% | 3% | 3% | 4% |
Student attrition rates for both campuses for teaching periods from 2014–2017
| Location | Intake | Admitted | % withdrawn | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WP campus | S1 2014 | 117 | 11.9 | |
| Central campus | S1 2014 | 368 | 12.7 | |
| WP campus | S1 2015 | 153 | 13.7 | |
| Central campus | S1 2015 | 386 | 11.1 | |
| WP campus | S1 2016 | 145 | 4.8 | |
| Central campus | S1 2016 | 392 | 3.5 | |
| WP campus | S1 2017 | 121 | 2.4 | |
| Central campus | S1 2017 | 389 | 3.3 |
Student failure rates for teaching periods from 2014–2017
| Location | Intake | Total Students | % Failed | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WP campus | S1 2014 | 94 | 27.6 | |
| Central campus | S1 2014 | 353 | 10.4 | |
| WP campus | S1 2015 | 117 | 26.5 | |
| Central campus | S1 2015 | 399 | 7.60 | |
| WP campus | S1 2016 | 116 | 12.0 | |
| Central campus | S1 2016 | 453 | 10.8 | |
| WP campus | S1 2017 | 115 | 7.2 | |
| Central campus | S1 2017 | 373 | 6.3 |
Distribution of grades for teaching periods from 2014–2017
| Location | Intake | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WP campus | S1 2014 | 3.4 | 8 | 11.5 | 39.1 | 21.8 | 9.2** | 6.9* |
| Central campus | S1 2014 | 2 | 2.3 | 4.6 | 20.7 | 21.3 | 29.7 | 19.3 |
| WP campus | S1 2015 | 4.3 | 4.3 | 17.9*** | 35.9 | 26.5 | 6.8** | 4.3 |
| Central campus | S1 2015 | 1.3 | 2.3 | 4 | 31.1 | 33.8 | 22.1 | 5.5 |
| WP campus | S1 2016 | 2.6 | 3.5 | 5.2 | 58.3 | 20.9 | 8.7 | 0.9 |
| Central campus | S1 2016 | 3.2 | 1.5 | 6.4 | 45.3 | 32.6 | 10.1 | 0.9 |
| WP campus | S1 2017 | 8.5 | 2.5 | 4.2 | 36.4 | 33.1 | 13.6*** | 1.7 |
| Central campus | S1 2017 | 4.5 | 1.6 | 2.9 | 31.6 | 32.4 | 22.6 | 4.3 |
| * | ||||||||
Student evaluation scores for teaching periods from 2015–2017
| Location | Intake | Score | Response Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| WP campus | S1 2014 | 4.4 | 21% |
| Central campus | S1 2014 | 4.4 | 28% |
| WP campus | S1 2015 | 3.8 | 28% |
| Central campus | S1 2015 | 4.3 | 25% |
| WP campus | S1 2016 | 4.6 | 30% |
| Central campus | S1 2016 | 4.3 | 31% |
| WP campus | S1 2017 | 4.5 | 34% |
| Central campus | S1 2017 | 4.4 | 28% |
Fig. 2Learning resources most utilised in the unit (from total respondents). Students were provided access to an online Google form to ordinally rank all learning opportunities (lectures, laboratory class activities) and learning and teaching resources (learning and teaching manual, lecture recordings, digital media model tutorials and animal tissue dissection) from most to least utilised. The top eight most utilised resources are presented in the figure. Y-axis represents the percentage of respondents who utilised each resource
Fig. 3The most valuable learning resources according to the respondents. Students were provided access to an online Google form to ordinally rank all learning opportunities (lectures, laboratory class activities) and learning and teaching resources (learning and teaching manual, lecture recordings, digital media model tutorials and animal tissue dissection) from most to least useful in supporting their learning of anatomy and physiology content. All respondents ranked six of the top eight most utilised resources as most valuable for learning support