ArticleBMC medical education2025
Relationship between the learning gains and learning style preferences among students from the school of medicine and health sciences.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Learning style analysis of traditional Chinese medicine residents in Taiwan: validation of the traditional Chinese version of the index of learning styles.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Enhancing learning gains through gamification and collaborative learning strategies.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe field of health sciences is constantly evolving, presenting significant challenges to student learning performance. Therefore, it is crucial to identify the factors influencing students' learning style preferences, as these relate to how they acquire, understand, interpret, organize, and process information from their courses. In this study, we evaluated whether there is a relationship between students' learning style preferences and their learning gains.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted between 2021 and 2022 using a convenience sampling approach with students of the School of Medicine and Health Sciences at the Mexico City Campus of Tecnológico de Monterrey. Students completed online questionnaires to assess normalized learning gains, as well as preference questionnaires from the VARK inventory (Visual, Auditory, Reading/Writing, and Kinesthetic types of learning preferences) and the Felder-Silverman learning style model, which is a framework that categorizes learners based on their preferences across several dimensions: active/reflective, sensing/intuitive, visual/verbal, and sequential/global. Descriptive statistics and Spearman's correlation were used to analyze the data.
resultsIn relation to the VARK inventory, students exhibited a tendency to prefer multimodal sensory learning, particularly favoring the kinesthetic style. The number of VARK styles and the preference for kinesthetic learning were significantly correlated with learning gains. The Felder-Silverman test indicated that students preferred sensing, visual, and sequential learning; however, the levels of preference for active, intuitive, and sequential learning were associated with higher learning gains. Reflective learning demonstrated an inverse correlation with learning gains.
conclusionOur results indicate the importance of incorporating experience and practical skills in the classroom. Additionally, it is recommended that students work collaboratively, share and discuss learning materials, foster innovation and abstract learning, and follow logical and sequential approaches to optimize their educational achievements. It is fundamental to find learning models that improve the academic performance of students with a reflective learning preference.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.