Indian Journal of Medical Biochemistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 25 , ISSUE 1 ( January-April, 2021 ) > List of Articles

REVIEW ARTICLE

Medical Education Teaching: A Review of Various Learning Style Tools and Its Characteristics

BKM Goud, Aruna Chanu Oinam, Dharmendra Sharma

Keywords : Active session, Education, Learners, Learning style

Citation Information : Goud B, Oinam AC, Sharma D. Medical Education Teaching: A Review of Various Learning Style Tools and Its Characteristics. Indian J Med Biochem 2021; 25 (1):19-23.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10054-0169

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 00-04-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

The learning style (LS) provides insights into the preferences of the student learning process. There are various tools used to assess the LS either alone or in combination. Many researchers concluded that the usefulness of knowing LS is to provide better education, such as by changing the pattern of teaching to suit all learners or the majority of learners in the classroom. This also allows to change the curriculum and bring required resources in the library to encourage the students to use their preferred LS to understand the content. The teachers can implement active sessions such as team-based learning, problem-based learning, case-based learning, group discussion, project works, interactive sessions, fieldwork, hands-on training, etc., to cater every learner LS in making them to understand the subjects. Finally, the main goal of knowing LS is to improve the quality of education.


PDF Share
  1. Bollinger L. The need for diversity in higher education. Acad Med 2003;78(5):431–436. DOI: 10.1097/00001888-200305000-00002.
  2. Coles CR. Undergraduate medical curricula and the learning they generate. Med Educ 1985;19:85.
  3. Newble D, Clark R. The approaches to learning of students in a traditional and in an innovative problem-based medical school. Med Educ 1986;20(4):267–273. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1986.tb01365.x.
  4. De Vita GD. Learning styles, culture and inclusive instruction in the multicultural classroom: a business and management perspective. Innovations Educ Teaching Int 2001;38(2):165–174. DOI: 10.1080/14703290110035437.
  5. Cook DA. The research we still are not doing: an agenda for the study of computer-based learning. Acad Med 2005;80(6):541–548. DOI: 10.1097/00001888-200506000-00005.
  6. Cook DA. Learning and cognitive styles in web-based learning: theory, evidence, and application. Acad Med 2005;80(3):266–278. DOI: 10.1097/00001888-200503000-00012.
  7. Curry L. Learning preferences in continuing medical education. Canadian Med Assoc J 1981;124(5):535–536.
  8. Dunn RS, Dunn KJ. The complete guide to the learning styles in service system. Allyn & Bacon 1999.
  9. Cook DA, Smith DJ. Validity of index of learning style scores: multi trait-multimethod comparison with three cognitive/learning style instruments. Med Educ 2006;40(9):900–907. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02542.x.
  10. Myers IB. Manual: The Myers Briggs type indicator. Consulting Psychologist Press; 1962.
  11. Coffield F, Moseley D, Hall E, et al. Learning styles and pedagogy in post16 learning. A systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre; 2004.
  12. Kolb DA. Learning style inventory: self-scoring inventory and interpretation booklet. Boston, MA: McBer and Co; 1985.
  13. Canfield A. Canfield learning styles inventory manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services; 1992.
  14. Felder RM, Silverman L. Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Eng Educ 1988;78:674–681.
  15. Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (Short version) http://www.ed.ac.uk/etl/questionnaires/ASSIST.
  16. Aaron S, Skakun E. Correlation of students’ characteristics with their learning styles as they begin medical school. Acad Med 1999;74(3):260–262. DOI: 10.1097/00001888-199903000-00016.
  17. McManus IC, Richards P, Winder BC, et al. Clinical experience, performance in final examinations, and learning style in medical students: prospective study. Br Med J 1998;316(7128):345–350. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.316.7128.345.
  18. Biggs JB. Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: ACER; 1987.
  19. Ramsden P. Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge; 1992.
  20. Laurillard D. Rethinking university teaching: a framework for the effective use of educational technology. London: Routledge; 1993.
  21. Ramsden P, Entwistle NJ. Effects of academic departments on students’ approaches to learning. Br J Educ Psychol 1981;51(3):368–383. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1981.tb02493.x.
  22. Kleijn WC, van der Ploeg HM, Topman RM. Cognition, study habits, test anxiety, and academic performance. Psychol Rep 1994;75(3 Pt 1):1219–1226. DOI: 10.2466/pr0.1994.75.3.1219.
  23. Biggs JB. Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education 1996;32(3):347–364. DOI: 10.1007/BF00138871.
  24. Boyle EA, Duffy T, Dunleavy K. Learning styles and academic outcomes: the validity and utility of Vermunt's inventory of learning styles in a British higher education setting. Br J Educ Psychol 2003;73(Pt 2):267–290. DOI: 10.1348/00070990360626976.
  25. Murphy RJ, Gray SA, Straja SR, et al. Student learning preferences and teaching implications. Educ Methodol J Dent Educ 2004;68(8):859–866. DOI: 10.1002/j.0022-0337.2004.68.8.tb03835.x.
  26. Drago WA, Wagner RJ. VARK preferred learning styles and online education. Manage Res News 2004;27(7):1–13. DOI: 10.1108/01409170410784211.
  27. Armstrong AM. Instructional design in the real world: a view from the trenches. United States: Information Science Publishing; 2004.
  28. Entwistle NJ, Tait H, McCune V. Patterns of response to an approaches to studying inventory across contrasting groups and contexts. Eur J Psychol Educ 2000;15(1):33–48. DOI: 10.1007/BF03173165.
  29. Warburton K. Deep learning and education for sustainability. Int J Sustainabil Higher Educ 2003;4(1):44–56. DOI: 10.1108/14676370310455332.
  30. Duffy TM, Jonassen DH, ed. Constructivism and the technology: A conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1992.
  31. Zeegers P. Approaches to learning in science: a longitudinal study. Br J Educ Psychol 2001;2(Pt 1):115–132. DOI: 10.1348/000709901158424.
  32. Sutherland T. New conversations about learning: insights from neuroscience and anthropology, cognitive science, and work-place studies: part II. Account Educ News 2002. 7–10.
  33. Fleming ND, Mills C. Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection. To Impr Acade 1992;11(1):137–144. DOI: 10.1002/j.2334-4822.1992.tb00213.x.
  34. Felder RM. Matters of style. ASEE Prism 1996(Issue 6):18–23.
  35. Temel A. Do you know your learning style? Educat Sci 2002;48:6–9. http://www.basariyolu.com/yazarlar.asp?id=132.
  36. Biggs J. Enhancing learning: a matter of style or approach? In: Perspectives on thinking, learning and cognitive styles Sternberg RJ, Zhang LF, ed., Mahwah, NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates; 2001. p. 276. ISBN: 0-8058-3431-1.
  37. Fidan N. Learning and teaching at school, concepts, principles, methods. Ankara: Kadıoğlu Publication; 1986. ISBN: 975-337-043-1.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.