HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Slater, J. A. Articles by DiCarlo, S. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Slater, J. A. Articles by DiCarlo, S. E.

HOW WE TEACH

Does gender influence learning style preferences of first-year medical students?

Department of Physiology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan

Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: S. E. DiCarlo, Dept. of Physiology, Wayne State Univ. School of Medicine, Detroit, MI 48201 (E-mail: sdicarlo{at}med.wayne.edu)

	Abstract

TOP Abstract Introduction METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION APPENDIX: THE VARK QUESTIONNAIRE REFERENCES

 
Students have specific learning style preferences, and these preferences may be different between male and female students. Understanding a student's learning style preference is an important consideration when designing classroom instruction. Therefore, we administered the visual, auditory, reading/writing, kinesthetic (VARK) learning preferences questionnaire to our first-year medical students; 38.8% (97 of 250 students) of the students returned the completed questionnaire. Both male (56.1%) and female (56.7%) students preferred multiple modes of information presentation, and the numbers and types of modality combinations were not significantly different between genders. Although not significantly different, the female student population tended to be more diverse than the male population, encompassing a broader range of sensory modality combinations within their preference profiles. Instructors need to be cognizant of these differences and broaden their range of presentation styles accordingly.

Key words: visual; auditory; reading/writing; kinesthetic; styles of learning; medical education

	Introduction

TOP Abstract Introduction METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION APPENDIX: THE VARK QUESTIONNAIRE REFERENCES

 
FACULTY MEMBERS must have content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and knowledge of the learner and his/her characteristics to be effective teachers (16). Most university faculty members have detailed content knowledge as a result of reading and studying avidly within their academic disciplines. Many have pedagogical knowledge from reading classic and contemporary literature on teaching and learning and from attending courses and workshops. However, obtaining knowledge of the learner and his/her characteristics is a vastly underutilized approach to improving classroom instruction.

To address this concern, faculty members should understand their students' learning style preferences. Learning style is defined as the manner in which and the conditions under which learners most efficiently and effectively perceive, process, store, and recall what they are attempting to learn (19). The field of learning styles is complex, with over 70 different learning style models identified in a recent review (6). These models represent numerous assumptions (such as learning styles are fixed, flexibly stable, contextually determined, or even nonexistent) and focus on different aspects of the learner (cognitive personality style, information processing style, or instructional preferences). Gender is among a number of factors that has been found to influence student learning style [others include age, academic achievement, brain processing, culture, and creative thinking (17)].

One of the many characteristics that make up a student's learning style is the sensory modality by which the student prefers to take in new information. Three major sensory modalities have been defined: visual (V), aural (A), and kinesthetic (K), collectively known as VAK. VAK categorizes student learning based on the neural system that is preferred when receiving information. This classification system was recently expanded by Fleming to VARK to further differentiate the visual category into two categories: those who prefer graphical or pictorial representations of their incoming information (V) and those who prefer textual representations [reading/writing (R)] (11).

We were interested in developing teaching approaches to address the learning needs of all of our medical students, male and female. To better understand our learners and their learning style characteristics, and to assist in the development of teaching strategies that will maximize motivation and learning for students of both genders, we administered Fleming's VARK questionnaire for assessing sensory modality preference to our first-year medical students (12).

	METHODS

TOP Abstract Introduction METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION APPENDIX: THE VARK QUESTIONNAIRE REFERENCES

 
Population and sample.
Participants in this study consisted of first-year medical students at Wayne State University School of Medicine. A total of 97 students from a population of 250 completed the questionnaire (38.8%; 53 females, 41 males, and 3 unspecified). This study was reviewed and approved by the Human Investigation Committee of the Institutional Review Board of Wayne State University.

Instrumentation.
The VARK questionnaire developed by Fleming (12) was used to identify one facet of student learning styles: the sensory modality by which they prefer to take in information. The VARK questionnaire is a 13-item, self-reported, multiple-choice questionnaire that can be completed in 10–15 min (see the APPENDIX). The newest version of the VARK questionnaire consists of 16 questions and can be accessed at http://www.vark-learn.com/english/page.asp?p=questionnaire (12).

We administered the VARK questionnaire to our first-year medical students during the respiratory component of their physiology course. A hard copy was included with the class packet for the course, and students returned the completed questionnaire at the end of the respiratory section of the course.

Analysis.
Students were allowed to choose multiple answers per item to adequately describe their preferred response(s) to the situations presented. The total number of student responses was tallied for each of the four sensory modalities (V, A, R, and K) and for all possible combinations of the modalities (e.g., VA, VRK, etc.). The scoring algorithm on the VARK website was then applied to identify each student's modality preferences.

The number of students who preferred each mode of information presentation was divided by the total number of student responses to determine the percentage of students in each category. A ²-analysis was performed to determine if significant gender differences exist for each of the following situations: 1) multimodality and unimodality preferences between males and females (Fig. 1); 2) quad-, tri-, and bimodality preferences between males and females (Fig. 2); and 3) unimodial preferences between males and females (Fig. 3).

View larger version (24K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. A: percentages of male and female students who preferred visual (V; 2.4% vs. 7.5%), auditory (A; 4.9% vs. 5.6%), reading/writing (R; 9.8% vs. 11.3%), kinesthetic (K; 26.8% vs. 18.9), and multiple modes (56.1% vs. 56.6%) of information presentation, respectively. Only 44% of the students preferred a single mode of information presentation (either V, A, R, or K). B: contingency table used to determine the relationship between gender (male and female) and learning preferences (multimodal, single V, single A, single R, and single K).

View larger version (27K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2. A: percentages of male and female students who preferred two, three, or four modes of information presentation. Of the students who preferred multiple modes of information presentation, some students preferred two modes (bimodal; 13.0% male vs. 33.3% female), some students preferred three modes (trimodal; 30.4% male vs. 26.7% female), and some students preferred four modes (quadmodal; 56.5% male vs. 40.0% female). B: contingency table used to determine the relationship between gender (male and female) and multimodal learning preferences (quadmodal, trimodal, and bimodal).

View larger version (28K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 3. A: percentages of male and female students who preferred specific multimodal combinations. Of the male and female students who preferred three modes of information presentation, some students preferred V, R, and K (21.7% male vs. 6.7% female), some students preferred V, A, and R (4.3% male vs. 6.7% female), some students preferred V, A, and K (4.3% male vs. 3.3% female), and some students preferred A, R, and K (0% males vs. 10.0% female). Of the students who preferred two modes of information presentation, some students preferred V and K (8.7% male vs. 3.3% female), some students preferred V and A (4.3% male vs. 0% female), some students preferred R and K (0% male vs. 16.7% female), some students preferred V and R (0% male vs. 6.7% female), some students preferred A and R (0% male vs. 3.3% female), and some students preferred A and K (0% male vs. 3.3% female). Of the male and female students who preferred four modes of information presentation, all students preferred V, A, R, and K (56.5% male vs. 40.0% female), respectively. B: contingency table used to determine the relationship between gender (male and female) and specific multimodal learning preferences (VARK, VAR, VAK, VRK, ARK, VA, VR, VK, AR, AK, and RK).

	RESULTS

TOP Abstract Introduction METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION APPENDIX: THE VARK QUESTIONNAIRE REFERENCES

Figure 2A shows the percentages of male and female students who preferred two, three, or four modes of information presentation. Some students preferred two modes (bimodal, 13.0% male vs. 33.3% female), some students preferred three modes (trimodal, 30.4% male vs. 26.7% female), and some students preferred four modes (quadmodal, 56.5% male vs. 40.0% female). There were no gender differences in the percentages of males and female students who preferred bi-, tri-, or quadmodal styles of information presentation (Fig. 2B; P = 0.223).

Figure 3A shows the breakdown of bi-, tri-, and quadmodal preferences by gender. Of the male and female students who showed a preference for two modes of information processing, some students preferred the combination of modes V and K (8.7% males vs. 3.3% females), some students preferred V and A (4.3% males vs. 0% females), some students preferred R and K (0% males vs. 16.7% females), some students preferred V and R (0% males vs. 6.7% females), some students preferred A and R (0% males vs. 3.3% females), and some students preferred A and K (0% males vs. 3.3% females). Of the male and female students who preferred three modes of information processing, some students preferred the combination of modes V, R, and K (21.7% males vs 6.7% females), some students preferred V, A, and R (4.3% males vs. 6.7% females), some students preferred V, A, and K (4.3% males vs. 3.3% females), and some students preferred A, R, and K (0% males vs. 10.0% females). A number of male and female students were quadmodal, preferring all four modes of information processing (V, A, R, and K: 56.5% males vs. 40.0% females). There were no gender differences in the specific multimodal preferences between males and females (Fig. 3B; P = 0.159).

Although there were no gender differences in any of the specific preferences tested, it was interesting to note that of the six possible bimodal combinations (VA, VR, VK, AR, AK, and RK), five were represented in the female student population (VR, VK, AR, AK, and RK), but only two were represented in the male population (VA and VK). Of the four possible trimodal combinations (VAR, VAK, VRK, and ARK), all four were represented in the female student population, but only three were represented in the male population (VAR, VAK, and VRK). Furthermore, 40% of female multimodal learners reported a preference for using all four sensory modalities (VARK). This is in contrast to the male population, in which well over half (56.5%) of multimodal male learners reported using all four sensory modalities as their preference (VARK).

Of all male learners, the percentage whose learning style preference contained V somewhere in their profile (whether it was their unimodal choice or contained within one of the male multimodal combinations, such as VA, VK, VAK, VAR, VRK, or VARK) was 58.5%. In contrast, 45.3% of females preferred V in their modality mix. Similar percentages of males and females preferred A in their modality mix (43.9% v. 43.4%, respectively), either as a unimodal preference or part of a multimodal combination. R was preferred by 56.1% of males to 62.3% of females in their modality mix; and K was preferred by 78.0% of males to 66.0% of females in their modality mix. Although none of these differences reached statistical significance, these differences merit further investigation.

	DISCUSSION

TOP Abstract Introduction METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION APPENDIX: THE VARK QUESTIONNAIRE REFERENCES

 
Both males and females preferred multimodal learning.
In this study, we administered the VARK questionnaire of sensory modality preferences to first-year medical students to observe potential differences between the preferences of male and female students. Modality preference was similar between genders; both male (56.1%) and female (56.6%) students reported a preference for learning that utilizes multiple sensory modalities over unimodal learning. This is not surprising; it should be noted that in the general sense, all physically unimpaired students are multimodal, using all their senses to take in information at any given time. This preference for multimodal learning is in agreement with studies of first-year medical (3, 23) and dental students (28).

The multimodal preference of the majority of male and female medical students contrasts, however, with our previous study (38) of undergraduate physiology students. In this study (38), male undergraduate students had multimodal preferences, but female undergraduate students preferred unimodal styles. It is possible that multimodal learners have stronger learning outcomes that better qualify them for admission to medical or dental school (and/or that these schools inadvertently select for multimodal learners). However, further studies of the undergraduate student population are required to understand these results.

Male and female multimodal learners.
Although both males and females preferred multimodal learning to a similar degree, nonsignificant variations between the genders were revealed upon further classification based on the possible combinations of sensory modalities. Specifically, female styles may be more diverse, with 10 of the 11 possible combinations represented in this population. Male styles, in contrast, were concentrated in a smaller subset, with only 6 of the 11 possible combinations represented. For example, female multimodal styles included three auditory combinations (AK, AR, and ARK), which were entirely missing from the male multimodal profile in this study. This supports the findings of Philibin (30), who, with the use of the Kolb Learning Style Inventory, found that males identified with a small subset of learning styles, whereas females distributed more broadly across the learning style spectrum.

The tendency toward greater diversity among the female population extends to other educationally pertinent areas besides learning style. Female adolescents reported a preference for variety in the social context of their learning, including opportunities to work independently, in pairs, with peers, in larger groups, and with teachers (34). Males did not express this preference. Additionally, Jorge (20) found that while male students primarily preferred to use tactile resources to learn new information, female students preferred to have more variety in their educational resources. These observations are of special note due to the fact that the majority of medical school faculty members are male (2). Without conscious attention to varying presentation style, the social context of learning, and the resources available to students, a predominantly male faculty may inadvertently aim its instruction at a subset of students.

Male and female unimodal learners.
Those students that are classified by the VARK algorithm as being unimodal learners express a stronger preference for taking in information by a single sensory modality. For example, a student whose VARK scores were V = 7, A = 2, R = 3, and K = 3 would be categorized as having a unimodal preference for visual modes of information intake, although that student did not exclude use of the other modalities. The visual preference would lead these students to use learning strategies associated with that preference when the context allowed it. There were no gender differences in the percentages of students who preferred unimodal styles of information presentation (43.9% of male students and 43.3% of female students reporting a preference for a single modality).

Using the VARK tool.
The VARK questionnaire was selected for its ease of use (a simple 13-item survey), its free availability online, and the ease with which students and instructors can utilize its results to learn more about student learning styles. There is substantial evidence for the existence of modality-specific strengths and weaknesses (e.g., visual, auditory, or kinesthetic processing) in people with various types of learning difficulty (35). Furthermore, whether tasks or activities are presented to appeal to auditory, visual, tactile, or kinesthetic senses (modality preference) is an important consideration for educators (4).

The creators of the VARK tool suggest that it is most appropriately used as a catalyst for reflection and discussion and that students should use the information to adjust study habits to correspond to their individual learning strengths. Data suggests that merely being knowledgeable about learning styles can improve student learning outcomes (13). To that end, instructors could administer the VARK questionnaire to students to raise students' awareness level of their preferred learning modality, to give students and instructors a common language for discussing learning, and to help empower students to adjust their learning behaviors to take advantage of their strengths and preferences. This type of knowledge may increase students' ability to actively cope with the rigorous academic demands of medical school. Use of active coping skills has been found to decrease anxiety and depression and to increase motivation among medical students (37).

Instructors can also use the self-reported VARK results from each individual class to become aware of the distribution of information intake preferences among each class and to adjust their method of information delivery to correspond with these preferences. These adjustments would benefit both male and female learners. For example, V-type learners can be targeted by the presence of models and demonstrations (5). A-type learners can be reached through discussion during peer instruction (8, 32), collaborative testing (9, 31), debate (36), games (1, 7, 18, 25, 27, 29), and answering questions (10). Manipulating models (5) and role playing (22) can satisfy K-type learners. Furthermore, investigators have reported an increase in students' achievement with the use of simulations and games, and students usually expressed positive feelings about the experiences (39). Awareness of an individual class' learning preferences allows for effective teaching that will reach students learning via different modalities.

When instruction in undergraduate courses matched students' learning style preferences, students achieved higher scores than when mismatched (24). Rochford (33) found that using learning style responsive materials to instruct remedial writing students at an urban community college resulted in significantly higher achievement. Miller (26) found that both student examination scores and student's attitude toward learning scores were significantly higher when presentation was matched with student learning styles. Insight into the specific preferences of individual classes would help instructors tailor both their presentations and methods of assessment for each individual class. In addition, the present study suggests that females may have a broader range of learning preferences than males. Instructors need to be cognizant of these differences and broaden their range of presentation accordingly.

An opposing viewpoint that exists in the literature asks whether it is most advantageous to teach primarily using a mode that matches an individual's preferred learning style or whether a deliberate mismatch may actually produce stronger results for the learner. Grasha (14) argued that an environment in which delivery of the material is matched to the learner's preferred style would eventually bore the student, causing the learner to disengage. A deliberate mismatch could prevent boredom and stretch an individual to grow and learn. This was supported by research that showed that even individuals with strong learning style preferences preferred a variety of teaching approaches to avoid boredom (15). Kelly and Tangney (12) showed that students with "low levels of learning activity" actually learned more when presented first with their least preferred material and resources. It is important to note that the efficacy of mismatching as a primary strategy for improving student learning outcomes has not been shown (21). Mismatching is suggested as an occasional teaching strategy employed to stimulate interest, and not as an alternative or replacement for matching. In any case, whether the reasoning for using multiple styles of delivery is to match students' learning style preferences, or to offer a combination of preferred/mismatched styles to hold attention and stretch the student, an instructor who varies teaching approaches is more likely to meet student needs.

Limitations.
The VARK self-reported questionnaire has not been statistically validated, and this represents a limitation to this study. Educational investigators have not been able to find a satisfactory statistical method to validate the four-factor model that is the basis of VARK (12). Dr. Marilla Svinicki of the University of Texas at Austin suggests that the problem is due, in part, to the wording of some of the items, which confuse the perspective of the learner with the individual with whom the learner might be communicating, and the multiple options that an individual can choose in answering (12). These concerns have been addressed recently by the VARK creator, and a new 16-item questionnaire that consistently uses the first person was posted on the website in October 2006 (12). Nonetheless, since these data were obtained with an older version of the tool, they may not be generalizable without corroborating evidence, such as longitudinal evaluation of student preferences lasting throughout the students' medical school tenure (6).

Another limitation of this study, and any using the VARK questionnaire as designed, is that it does not account for confounding factors such as socioeconomic status, race, culture, etc. The relatively homogenous population surveyed in this study will tend to have less variety in these factors; however, it remains a drawback of this survey.

A strong point of the VARK questionnaire is that its questions and options are drawn from real-life situations and respondents identify with the results that they receive–they affirm the face validity of the tool. For example, 60% of respondents on the VARK website reported that their VARK results match what they perceive to be their learning preferences. Fewer than 5% reported that their results do not describe their preferred modalities. The remaining respondents say they do not know whether their results match their preferences. It is important to note, however, that although the number of samples is very large, self-reported data may be biased because all data are self-selected; there is no randomization or balanced selection. Furthermore, there are no controls for repeated sample entry, so an unknown number of data sets are in fact replicates. However, although self-perceptions are not always reliable, these data support the validity of the VARK questionnaire.

Conclusions.
This study revealed gender differences in preferred methods of information delivery and suggests that the female student population is more diverse than the male population, encompassing a broader range of sensory modality preferences. Instructors need to be cognizant of these differences and broaden their range of presentation styles accordingly to be an effective educator.

	APPENDIX: THE VARK QUESTIONNAIRE

TOP Abstract Introduction METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION APPENDIX: THE VARK QUESTIONNAIRE REFERENCES

 

1. You are about to give directions to a person who is standing with you. She is staying in a hotel in town and wants to visit your house later. She has a rental car. You would:
   1. draw a map on paper.
      
   2. tell her the directions.
      
   3. write down the directions (without a map).
      
   4. collect her from the hotel in my car.
      
   
   
2. You are not sure whether a word should be spelled "dependent" or "dependant." You would:
   1. look it up in the dictionary.
      
   2. see the word in my mind and choose by the way it looks.
      
   3. sound it out in my mind.
      
   4. write both versions down on paper and choose one.
      
   
   
3. You have just received a copy of your itinerary for a world trip. This is of interest to a friend. You would:
   1. phone her immediately and tell her about it.
      
   2. send her a copy of the printed itinerary.
      
   3. show her on a map of the world.
      
   4. share what I plan to do at each place I visit.
      
   
   
4. You are going to cook something as a special treat for your family. You would:
   1. cook something familiar without the need for instructions.
      
   2. thumb through the cookbook looking for ideas from the pictures.
      
   3. refer to a specific cookbook where there is a good recipe.
      
   
   
5. A group of tourists has been assigned to you to find out about wildlife reserves or parks. You would:
   1. drive them to a wildlife reserve or park.
      
   2. show them slides and photographs.
      
   3. give them pamphlets or a book on wildlife reserves or parks.
      
   4. give them a talk on wildlife reserves or parks.
      
   
   
6. You are about to purchase a new stereo. Other than price, what would most influence your decision?
   1. the salesperson telling you what you want to know.
      
   2. reading the details about it.
      
   3. playing with the controls and listening to it.
      
   4. it looks really smart and fashionable.
      
   
   
7. Recall a time in your life when you learned how to do something like playing a new board game. Try to avoid choosing a very physical skill, e.g., riding a bike. You learnt best by:
   1. visual clues–pictures, diagrams, charts.
      
   2. written instructions.
      
   3. listening to somebody explaining it.
      
   4. doing it or trying it.
      
   
   
8. You have an eye problem. You would prefer the doctor to:
   1. tell me what is wrong.
      
   2. show me a diagram of what is wrong.
      
   3. use a model to show me what is wrong.
      
   
   
9. You are about to learn to use a new program on a computer. You would:
   1. sit down at the keyboard and begin to experiment with the program's features.
      
   2. read the manual that comes with the program.
      
   3. telephone a friend and ask questions about it.
      
   
   
10. You are staying in a hotel and have a rental car. You would like to visit friends whose address/location you do not know. You would like them to:
    1. draw me a map on paper.
       
    2. tell me the directions.
       
    3. write down the directions (without a map).
       
    4. collect me from the hotel in their car.
       
    
    
11. Apart from the price, what would most influence your decision to buy a particular textbook?
    1. I have used a copy before.
       
    2. a friend talking about it.
       
    3. quickly reading parts of it.
       
    4. the way it looks is appealing.
       
    
    
12. A new movie has arrived in town. What would most influence your decision to go (or not go)?
    1. I heard a radio review about it.
       
    2. I read a review about it.
       
    3. I saw a preview of it.
       
    
    
13. Do you prefer a lecturer or teacher who likes to use:
    1. a textbook, handouts, readings.
       
    2. flow diagrams, charts, graphs.
       
    3. field trips, labs, practical sessions.
       
    4. discussion, guest speakers.
       
    
    

Received for publication February 12, 2007. Accepted for publication August 29, 2007.

	REFERENCES

TOP Abstract Introduction METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION APPENDIX: THE VARK QUESTIONNAIRE REFERENCES

 

1. Bailey CM, Hsu CT, DiCarlo SE. Educational puzzles for understanding gastrointestinal physiology. Adv Physiol Educ 21: 1–18, 1999.
2. Barzansky B, Etzel SI. Educational programs in US medical schools, 2004–2005. JAMA 294: 1068–1074, 2005.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3. Baykan Z, Nacar M. Learning styles of first-year medical students attending Erciyes University in Kayseri, Turkey. Adv Physiol Educ 31: 158–160, 2007.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
4. Carbo M. Research in reading and learning style: implications for exceptional children. Exceptional Children 49: 486–493, 1983.[ISI][Medline]
5. Chan V, Pisegna JM, Rosian Rl, DiCarlo SE. Construction of a model demonstrating neural pathways and reflex arcs. Adv Physiol Educ 16: 14–42, 1996.
6. Coffield F, Moseley D, Hall E, Ecclestone K. Learning Styles and Pedagogy in Post-16 Learning: a Systematic and Critical Review. London: Learning Skills and Research Centre, 2004.
7. Collins HL, Rodenbaugh DW, Murphy TP, Kulics JM, Bailey CM, DiCarlo SE. An inquiry-based teaching tool for understanding arterial blood pressure regulation and cardiovascular function. Adv Physiol Educ 22: 15–28, 1999.
8. Cortright RN, Collins HL, DiCarlo SE. Peer instruction enhanced meaningful learning: ability to solve novel problems. Adv Physiol Educ 29: 107–111, 2005.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Cortright RN, Collins HL, Rodenbaugh DW, DiCarlo SE. Student retention of course content is improved by collaborative-group testing. Adv Physiol Educ 27: 102–108, 2003.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10. DiCarlo SE, Collins HL. Colored letters: a tool to increase class participation in a large classroom. Adv Physiol Educ 25: 143, 2001.
11. Fleming ND. I'm different; not dumb: modes of presentation (VARK) in the tertiary classroom. In: Research and Developlement in Higher Education, edited by Zelmer A. Canberra, Australia: Proceedings of the 1995 Annual Conference of the Higher Education and Research Development Society of Australia, 1995, p. 303–318.
12. Fleming ND. VARK: a Guide to Learning Styles (online). http://www.vark-learn.com/english/page.asp?p=questionnaire [6 September 2007].
13. Garcia-Otero M, Teddlie C. The effect of knowledge of learning styles on anxiety and clinical performance of nurse anesthesiology students. AANA J 60: 257–60, 1992.[Medline]
14. Grasha A. Learning styles: the journey from Greenwich Observatory (1769) to the college classroom (1984). Impr College Univ Teach 32: 46–53, 1984.
15. Gregorc A. Style as a symptom: a phenomenological perspective. Theory Practice 23: 51–55, 1984.
16. Gudmundsdottir S, Shulman L. Pedagogical content knowledge in social studies. Scand J Educ Res. 31: 59–70, 1987.[CrossRef]
17. Honigsfeld AM. A comparative analysis of the learning styles of adolescents from diverse nations by age, gender, academic achievement level and nationalilty (Doctoral dissertation). Dissert Abstr Int 62: 969, 2001.
18. Howard MG, Collins HL, DiCarlo SE. "Survivor" torches "Who Wants to be a Physician?" in the educational games ratings war. Adv Physiol Educ 26: 30–37, 2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
19. James W, Gardner D. Learning styles: implication for distance learning. New Dir Adult Contin Educ 67: 19–32, 1995.
20. Jorge F. A comparison of learning style preferences between seventh- and eighth grade students (Doctoral dissertation). Dissert Abstr Int 51: 3365A, 1990.
21. Kelly D, Tangney B. Matching and Mismatching Learning Characteristics With Multiple Intelligence Based Content. Amsterdam: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on the Artificial Intelligence in Education, 2005, p. 354–361.
22. Kuipers JC, Clemens DL. Do I dare? Using role-play as a teaching strategy. J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv 36: 12–17, 1998.[Medline]
23. Lujan HL, DiCarlo SE. First-year medical students prefer multiple learning styles. Adv Physiol Educ 30: 13–16, 2006.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
24. Mangino C, Griggs S. Learning styles in higher education. In: Synthesis of the Dunn and Dunn Learning Styles Model Research: Who, What, When, Where and So What–the Dunn and Dunn Learning Styles Model and Its Theoretical Cornerstone, edited by Dunn R, Griggs S. New York, St. John's University. 2003.
25. Mierson S. Skits and games to enhance students' learning of physiology. Adv Physiol Educ 22: 283–284, 1999.
26. Miller JA. Enhancement of achievement and attitudes through individualized learning-style presentations of two allied health courses. J Allied Health 27: 150–6, 1998.[Medline]
27. Moy JR, Rodenbaugh DW, Collins HL, DiCarlo SE. Who wants to be a physician? An educational tool for reviewing pulmonary physiology. Adv Physiol Educ 24: 30–37, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
28. Murphy RJ, Gray SA, Straja SR, Bogert MC. Student learning preferences and teaching implications. J Dent Educ 68: 859–66, 2004.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
29. Odenweller C, Hsu C, DiCarlo S. Educational card games for understanding gastrointestinal physiology. Adv Physiol Educ 20: 78–84, 1998.
30. Philbin M, Meier E, Huffman S, Boverie P. A survey of gender and learning styles. Sex Roles J Res 32: 485–495, 1995.[CrossRef]
31. Rao SP, Collins HL, DiCarlo SE. Collaborative testing enhances student learning. Adv Physiol Educ 26: 37–41, 2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
32. Rao SP, DiCarlo SE. Peer instruction improves performance on quizzes. Adv Physiol Educ 24: 51–55, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
33. Rochford R. Improving academic performance and retention among remedial students. Community College Enterpr 10: 23–36, 2004.
34. Rochford R, Mangino C. Are you teaching the way your students learn? Rad Pedagogy 8: 1–22, 2006.
35. Rourke BP, Ahmad SA, Collins DW, Hayman-Abello BA, Hayman-Abello SE, Warriner EM. Child clinical/pediatric neuropsychology: some recent advances. Annu Rev Psychol 53: 309–339, 2002.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
36. Scannapieco FA. Formal debate: an active learning strategy. J Dent Educ 61: 955–961, 1997.[Medline]
37. Stewart SM, Betson C, Lam TH, Marshall IB, Lee PW, Wong CM. Predicting stress in first year medical students: a longitudinal study. Med Educ 31: 163–168, 1997.[ISI][Medline]
38. Wehrwein EA, Lujan HL, DiCarlo SE. Gender differences in learning style preferences among undergraduate physiology students. Adv Physiol Educ 31: 153–157, 2007.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
39. Wolfe J. The teaching effectiveness of games in collegiate business courses. Simul Games 16: 251–258, 1985.[CrossRef]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. E. DiCarlo Teaching alveolar ventilation with simple, inexpensive models Advan Physiol Educ, September 1, 2008; 32(3): 185 - 191. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Slater, J. A. Articles by DiCarlo, S. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Slater, J. A. Articles by DiCarlo, S. E.