GENDER DIFFERENCES IN LEARNING STYLE

PREFERENCES OF FIRST YEAR MEDICAL

STUDENTS

INTRODUCTION :-
Do men and women learn differently or have different preferred
ways of learning ? Are there male and female preferences in learning
styles rooted in evolutionary biology or overwhelming social differences ?
Why should we ask these questions any way ? We ask these questions
because the answer may dramatically alter the ways in which we teach ?
Faculty members must have content knowledge, pedagogical
knowledge, and knowledge of the learner and his/her characteristics to be
effective teachers*. Most university faculty members have detailed
knowledge of subject. However, obtaining knowledge of the learner & his/
her characteristics is a vastly underutilized approach to improving
classroom instruction.
To address this concern, faculty members should understand their
student’s 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 style is quite complex. More
than 70 different learning styles models has been identified in a review (6).
Gender is among a number of factors that affects students learning style.
(Others include age, academic achievement, brain processing, culture &
creative thinking).
Normally students perceive the information by sensory modality.
Major sensory modalities have been defined : Visual (V), Aural (A) and
Kinesthetic (k), Write/ Reading ® collectively known as VARK. VARK
categorizes student learning based on the neural system that is preferred
when receiving information (11).
We are interested in developing teaching approaches to address
the learning needs of all of our medical students, male & female. To better
understand our learners and their learning style characteristics, we
administered Flaming’s VARK questionnaire for assessing sensory
modality.
MATERIAL & METHOD :
Sample : Participants in this study consisted of first year medical students
at Govt. Medical College, Kota. A total of 155 students completed the
questionnaire (59 female & 57 males).
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 information. The VARK questionnaire
is a 16 item self reported, multiple choice questionnaire that can be
completed in ~10-15 min. The VARK questionnaire can be accessed at
http://www.vark-learn.com/ english/ page asp?p = questionnaire (12). We
administered the questionnaire as a hard copy that was completed in
class, however the VARK questionnaire is free ware that can be
completed on line.
ANALYSIS :
Students were allowed to choose multiple answers per item to adequately
describe their preferred response(s) to the situation presented. The total
number of student responses was tallied for each of the four sensory
modalities (V, A, R & K) and for all possible combinations of modalities
(e.g. VA, VRK etc.). The scoring algorithm on the VARK west site 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 x2 analysis was
performed to determine if significant gender differences exist for each of
following situation : (i) multimodality and unimodelity preferences between
males & females (fig.1) : (ii) Quad, -tri and bimodality preferences between
males & females. (fig. 2) and (iii) Unimodal preferences between males &
females.
RESULT :
Fig. 1A shows the percentage of male & female students who preferred
multimodal and unimodal styles of information presentation. Males
(92.98%) & females (76.27%) preferred information to reach them via
multiple sensory modalities. In addition only 15.52% of all the students. (M
6.25%, F 23.75%) preferred using a single sensory modality for
information intake. Of the students who preferred unimodal presentation of
information (either A, R, or K) some students preferred simple A (1.75%
male V.s 6.78% females). Single R (3.50% males v/s 1.69%females) or
single K (1.75% Male Vs 15.25% females) modalities. There was a
significant gender differences in the percentages of males & females
students who preferred multimodal or unimodal styles of information
presentation (P-9.14, P<0.05) Fig. 1B.
Fig. 2A. shows the percentage of male & female students, who
preferred two, three or four modes of information presentation. Some
students preferred two modes (biomodal; 32.07% male Vs 26.66%
females), some students preferred three modes (trimodal 47.16% male vs
40% female) and some students preferred four modes (quad modal 20.75
male vs 33.33% female).
There were no gender differences in the percentage of males and
female students who preferred bi-, tri-, or quadmodal styles of information
presentation [P>0.05 (P=1.97)] Fig 2B.
Fig. 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 A and R (3.77% male v/s 6.66%
female). Some students preferred R and K (3.77% male vs 6.66% female)
& some students preferred V and K (0% male & 2.22% female). Of the
male & female students who preferred three modes of information
processing, some students preferred the combination modes, A, R, & K
(26.41% male vs 17.77% females) some students preferred V, A and R
(5.66% male vs 2.22% female). A number of male and female students
were quad modal, preferring all four modes of information processing. (V,
A, R and K : 20.75% male vs 33.33% female).
There were no significant gender differences in the specific
multimodal preferences. (fig. 3B) (P>0.05) (P=10.64).
Of all the male learners, the percentage whose learning style
preference contained V some where in their profile (whether it was their
unimodal choice or contained within one of the male multimodal
combination. Such as VA, VK, VAK, VAR, VRK or VARK) was 50.88%. In
contrast 44.07% of females preferred V in their modality mix. Similarly
percentage of males and females preferred A in their modality mix
 (54.39% V 71.19%), either as a unimodal preference or part of a
multimodal combination . R was preferred by 71.92% of male of 57.63% of
females in their modality mix; and K was preferred by 85.96% of males to
84.75% of females in their modality mix. Although none of these
differences reached statistical significance, these differences needs further
investigations.
DISCUSSION :
The purpose of the study was to assess gender differences in
learning style preferences among undergraduate physiology students of
medical college Kota. The responses were tallied and assessed for gender
differences in learning style preferences. Importantly 92.98% males only
75.27% of females preferred multiple modes of presentation. Thus in
contrast of females, the majority of males preferred multiple modes of
information presentation. Male students may adjust to different teaching
styles faced in a day or they may opt in and out of alternative strategies.
Such as being visual in Cardiovascular physiology and reading / writing in
respiratory physiology, for example (11)*.
On comparing single mode of information males prefers 7% to
females 23.72%. So as compared to males-females learners preferred
information to be presented in a single mode. It shows a significant
variation between – gender. (P<0.05).
Although both males & females preferred multimodal learning but in
different degree. Significant variation between the genders were revealed.
(P<0.05).
The knowledge of student preferred learning style is vital if we as
educators are to provide tailored strategies for individual students (11).
Knowing students preferred learning style also helps to overcome the
predisposition of many educators to treat all students in a similar way as
well as motivate teachers to move from their preferred modes to using
others.
For example, there is a trend in University teaching to instruct all
students in the same way (i.e. a straight lecture format). Educators use
this lecture format because of the relative ease of information passing, the
need to cover the content, a long history of traditional lecturing & perhaps
due to their own preferences in learning. The results of the VARK
questionnaire should convince teachers to use multiple modes of
information presentation. This may require instructors to stray from their
own preferred modes of teaching and learn to using a variety of styles,
which will positively affect learning. By using a variety of teaching
approaches, teachers will reach more students because of the better
match between teacher and learner styles.
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 adjustment would
benefit both male and female learner. For example, V-type learner can be
targeted by the presence of models & demonstrations(5). A-type learner
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) & role playing (22) can
satisfy K-type learners.
When instruction is undergraduate courses matched student’s
learning style preferences, students achieved higher scores than when
mismatched (24). Rochfored (35) found that using learning style
responsive material to instruct remedial writing students at an urban
community college resulted in significantly higher achievement. Miller (26)
found that both student examination scores & students attitude toward
learning scores were significantly higher when presentation was matched
with student learning styles.
An opposing view that exist 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 produce
stronger result’s 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 foredoom and structure 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 Tangley (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 know that the efficacy of mismatching as a
primary strategy for improving student learning outcomes has not been
shown (12). Mismatching is suggested as an occasional teaching strategy
employed to stimulate interest, and not as an alternative for matching.
A very extensive literature is present on the topic of gender
differences in learning. Males & females are unique as far as their learning
style preference is concerned. Males have preference for rational
evaluation & logic, while female use elaborative processing in which they
try to seek personal relevance or individual connection with the material
being taught (19)*. In addition, males are more achievement oriented,
while females are more socially & performance oriented (7)*. The genders
also differs in their beliefs about what is most important to student learning
with females ranking social interaction with other students (3)*. Further
more, males are likely to attribute their success in the classroom to
external causes, such as teaching, whereas females generally see their
success are being directly related to their efforts in the classroom (15)*.
This suggest that males tends to be more externally focused, while
females are introspective & self critical.
CONCLUSION :
Students learning style preferences can be determined by the use
of the VARK questionnaire, which assist both the learner & educator.
There is a significant difference in learning styles preferences of male &
females. As such it is the responsibility of the instructor & the students to
be aware of student learning style preferences to improve learning. As
teachers, we need to assess and understand how to reach all students by
understanding how to present the information in multiple mode. We can
help students more effectively; both in and out of the classroom. If we are
aware of their learning style and can help them in determining their
preferences. As a student, it is vital to be self aware of preferences to
adjust study techniques to best fit each student, even when the information
& instruction provided does not match the preferred style.
It is important to note that the result’s donot suggest that there is an
innate difference in aptitude between genders, not is it promoting
separation of genders in the learning process (i.e. separate science
classes for male & females). This study asserts that male & females have
difference preferences in learning style. As suggested by Lie et al (19)*
this actually supports mixed gender classrooms & study groups to allow
both genders to learn from each other.
REFERENCES:-

1 James W. Gardner D. Learning styles: implication of distance

learning. New Dir Adult Conti Educ 67:19-32,1995

2 Coffield F, Moseley D, Hall E, Ecclestone K. Learning Styles and

Pedagogy in Post-16 Learning: a systematic and Critcal Review
.London: Learning Skills and Research Center,2004

3 Fleming ND. I’m different :not dumb :modes of presentation

(VARK)in the tertiary class room. In: Research and Development 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

4 Fleming ND.VARK:a guide to learning styles (online)

.http://www.vark-learn.com/english/page.asp?p=questionnaire.

5 Chan V, Pisegna JM, Rosian RI, Dicarlo SE. Constuction of a

model demonstrating neural pathways and reflex arcs. Adv Physiol
Educ.16:14-42,1996

6 Cortright RN, Collins HL, Dicarlo SE. . Peer instruction enhanced

meaning learning: ability to solve novel problems .Adv Physiol
Educ.29:107-111,2005

7 Rao SP, Dicarlo SE. Peer instruction improve performance on

quizzes. Adv Physiol Educ.24:51-55,2000

8 Cortright RN, Collins HL, Rodenbangh DW, Decarlo SE. Student

retention of course content is improved by collaborative -group
testing Adv Physiol Educ 27: 37-41,2002

9 Rao SP, Collins HL, Dicalo SE. Collaborative testing enhances

student learning . Adv Physiol Educ 16:37-41,2002

10 Scannapico FA. Formal debat: an active learning strategy. J

Dent Educ 61:955-961,1997

11 Howard MG, Collins HL, Dicarlo SE. “Survivor” torches “Who

Wants to be a Physician?”in educational games ratings war. Adv
Physiol Educ 26:30-37.2002
12 Bailey CM, Hsu CT,Diarlo SE. in Educational puzzles for
understanding gastrointestinal physiology.Adv Physiol Educ 21: 1-
18,1999

13 Dicarlo SE, Collins HL. Colored letters: a tool to increase class

participation in a large classroom. Adv Physiol Educ 25:143,2001

14 Kuipers JC. Clemens DL. Do I dare ? Using role play as a

teaching strategy. J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv 36:12-
17,1998

15 Mangino C. Griggs S. Learning Styles Model Research: Who,

What, When, Where and So What the Dunn and Dunn Learning
Styles Model and It’s Theoritical corner stone. Edited by Dunn R,
Griggs S. New York, St. John’s University.2003

16 Rochford R. Improving academic performance and retention

among remedial students. Community College Enterpr 10: 23-
36,2004

17 Miller JA. Enhancement of achievement and attitudes through

individual learning-style presentations of two allied health courses.
J Allied Health 27: 150-6.1998

18 Grasha A. Learning styles: the journey from Greenwich

Observatory(1769) to the college classroom (1984). Impr College
Teach32: 46-53,1984

19 Gregorc A. Style as a symptom : a phenomenological

perspective. Theory Practice 23: 51-55,1984

20 Kelly D, Tangney B. Matching & Mismatching Learning

Characterstics With Multipal Intelligence Based Content .
Amsterdam: Proceedings of the 12th International conference on the
artificial Intelligence in Education.2005 p 354-361

21 Lie LY, Angelique L, Cheone E. How do male and female

students approach learning at NUS? CDTL Brief 7:1-3, 2004

22 Chang WC. Learning goals and styles by gender a style of nus

students. CDTL Brief 7: 4-5, 2004

23 Brassasd C. Are learning patterns different on Mars and Venus?

CDTL Brief 7: 5-6.2004

24 Grollino E, Velayo RS. Gender Differences in the Attributation of

Internal Success Among College Students. Philadelphia, PA:
Annual Convention of the Eastern Psycholodical Association,1996,
p 1-12

25 Lie LY, Angelique L, Cheon E. How do male and female

students approach learning at NUS? CDTL Brief 7: 1-3, 2004
 LEARNING PREFERENCES OF MALE & FEMALE STUDENTS

A.
MALE FEMALE

Single R Single K
4% 2% Single K
15%
Single A
2% Single R
2%

Single A
7%

Multimodal
Multimodal 76%
92%

FEMALE

B. Contingency table used for the Chi. Square Analysis : (P<0.05) 9.14
Gender Multimodal Single A Single R Single K Total
Male 53 1 2 1 57
Female 45 4 1 9 59
Total 98 5 3 10 116
Fig. 1 A : Percentage of male and female students who preferred auditory (A; 2% Vs 7%)
reading/writing (R; 4% Vs 2%), Kinesthetic (K; 2% Vs 15%) and multiple modes (92% Vs 76%) of
information presentation, respectively, only 15.52% of the students preferred a single mode of
information presentation (either, A, R, or K). B : Contingency table used to determine the
relationship between gender (male & female) and learning preferences (multimodal, Single R,
Single K, Single A) (P<0.05)
 GENERAL MULTI-MODAL LEARNING PREFERENCES AMONG MALE &
FEMALE STUDENTS
A.
MALE FEMALE

Quad. Model
Bi-Modal
21% 27%
Bi-Modal Quad. Model
33%
32%

Tri-Model
Tri-Model 40%
47%

FEMALE
B. CONTIGENCY TABLE USED FOR THE CHI. SQUARE ANALYSIS : P=1.97,
P>0.05
Gender Quad. Model Tri-Model Bi-Modal Total
Male 11 25 17 53
Female 15 18 12 45
Total 26 43 29 98
Fig. 2 : A : Percentage of male & female students who preferred two, three or four modes of
information presentation, of the students who preferred multiple mode of information presentation,
some students preferred two modes (bimodal; 32% male vs 27% female), some students
preferred three modes (trimodal; 47% male vs 40% female) B: Contingency table used to
determine the relationship between gender (male & female) and multimodal learning preferences
(quadmodal, trimodal and bimodal).
 SPECIFIC MULTIMODAL PREFERENCES AMONG MALE & FEMALE STUDENTS

A.
MALE FEMALE

VK
0% RK VK
RK 2%
VARK 7%
4%
21% AK
AK 11% VARK
25% 33%
VAR
6% AR
7%
VAK
AR 2%
4%
VRK VAR
ARK
13% 2%
18%
ARK VAK
25%
VRK
13%
7%

FEMALE

B. Contingency Table used for the Chi Square Analysis :

Gender VARK VAR VAK VRK ARK AR AK RK VK Total
Male 11 3 1 7 14 2 13 2 0 53
Female 15 1 6 3 8 3 5 3 1 45
Total 26 4 7 10 22 5 18 5 1 98
Fig. 3 : A : Percentage of male & female students who preferred specific multi-modal
combinations. Of the male and female students who preferred three modes of information
presentation, some students preferred, A, R, and K (26% male Vs 18% female), some students
preferred V, R and K (13% male Vs. 7% female). some students preferred V, A and R (6% male
Vs 2% female), and some students preferred V, A and K (2% male vs 13% female) of the
students who preferred two modes of information presentation, some students preferred A and K
(25% male Vs 11% female), some students preferred A and R (8% male vs 7% female), some
students preferred R and K (4% male Vs 7% female) & some students preferred V and K (0% and
2% female). Of the male & female students who preferred four modes of information presentation,
all students preferred V, A, R and K (21% male Vs 33% female) B : Contingency table used to
determine the relationship between gender (male & female) and specific multimodal learning
preferences.