Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 294

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Learning styles, preferences and needs of generation Z healthcare students: Scoping review

Shorey, Shefaly, Chan, Valerie, Rajendran, Priyadharshni, Ang, Emily·2021·Nurse Education in Practice

Abstract

AIM This scoping review aimed to consolidate evidence of the learning styles, preferences and needs of Generation (Gen) Z healthcare students. BACKGROUND It is essential to update the educational framework and pedagogy to meet each generation's distinct learning styles and preferences. DESIGN A scoping review of published and unpublished data. METHODS Six electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ProQuest and Scopus) were searched for studies written in English from June 2016 to July 2021. The Arksey and O'Malley (2005) five-stage framework was adopted to guide this review: (1) identifying the research question; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) study selection; (4) charting the data; and (5) collating, summarising and reporting the results using a thematic analysis. RESULTS Seventeen studies were included and based on the thematic analysis, four themes were identified: (1) attributes of Gen Z healthcare students; (2) learning styles of Gen Z healthcare students; (3) learning preferences and needs of Gen Z healthcare students; and (4) teaching the Gen Z healthcare students: future directions and recommendations for educators. The findings implied more culturally diverse studies that adopt the mixed-methods or qualitative design are needed to capture deeper insights about Gen Z and in examining the effectiveness of technology integration and digital storytelling to boost students' learning and confidence in their future careers. CONCLUSIONS Technology, campus resources and self-care strategies must be carefully integrated and planned to ensure an optimal and a safe learning environment for the students. The specific preferences and needs of the unique healthcare disciplines and educational subjects could be examined. A theory-based framework could be considered in designing future pedagogy. These future directions could allow educators to initiate vital change agents in guiding, supporting and nurturing students across generations.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.nepr.2021.103247

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Shorey, S., Chan, V., Rajendran, P., & Ang, E.
Venue
Nurse Education in Practice
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-11
Volume
57
Pages
103247
ISSN
1471-5953 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3209807092
Cited by
294
References
7
FWCI
68.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.