2012; 34: S14–S19

Effect of students’ learning styles on classroomperformance in problem-based learning

ABDULLAH A. ALGHASHAM

Qassim University, Saudi Arabia

Abstract

Introduction: Since problem-based learning (PBL) sessions require a combination of active discussion, group interaction, and

inductive and reflective thinking, students with different learning styles can be expected to perform differently in the PBL sessions.

Methodology: Using ‘‘Learning Style Inventory Questionnaire,’’ students were divided into separate active and reflective learner

groups. Tutors were asked to observe and assess the students’ behavioral performance during the PBL sessions for a period of

5 weeks. A questionnaire of 24 items was developed to assess students’ behavioral performance in PBL sessions.

Results: Active students tended to use multiple activities to obtain the needed information were more adjusted to the group norms

and regulation and more skillful in using reasoning and problem-solving skills and in participation in discussion. On the other

hand, reflective students used independent study more, listened actively and carefully to others and used previously acquired

information in the discussion more frequently. Formative assessment quizzes did not indicate better performance of either group.

There were no significant gender differences in PBL behavioral performance or quizzes’ scores.

Conclusion: Active and reflective learners differ in PBL class behavioral performance but not in the formative assessment.

We recommend that students should be informed about their learning style and that they should learn strategies to compensate for

any lacks in PBL sessions through self-study. Also, educational planners should ensure an adequate mix of students with different

learning styles in the PBL groups to achieve PBL desired objectives.

Introduction

Researchers in medical education are becoming increasingly

aware that using a variety of teaching methods may ultimately

improve the retention, use, accessibility and coherence of

knowledge, as well as enhance students’ adaptability in

problem-solving situations (Brown 1998; Vaughn & Baker

2001; Cassidy 2004). In addition, recent studies suggest that

understanding a student’s leaning style is helpful in providing a

successful learning experience, no matter what teaching

method is utilized (Pungente et al. 2002; Baker et al. 2007;

Thain et al. 2011).

Problem-based learning (PBL) has been introduced into

medical schools curricula as an adjunct and/or alternative to a

traditional didactic, classroom-based model of teaching (Wood

2003; Romero et al. 2004; Azer 2011). The student’s role in PBL

is transformed from passive to active, enhancing their

communication skills, independent responsibility for learning,

and ability to work in a team (Wood 2003; Hartling et al. 2010;

Azer 2011).

During the learning process in PBL sessions, students are

found to use various combinations of learning styles and

activities, and the quality of performance and behavior

depends to a considerable extent upon their learning style

(Van der Veken et al. 2008; Hosford & Siders 2010; Thain et al.

2011). Therefore, different types of learners can be expected to

gain different effective learning outcomes (Baker et al. 2007;

Hur & Kim 2007).

The term learning style was defined as ‘‘the ways in which

individuals characteristically approach different learning tasks

(Vermunt & Vermettn 2004).’’ Brown (2003) described learning

style as ‘‘a particular set of behaviors and attitudes related to

learning context.’’ There are a variety of definitions, theories,

and models that measure the concept of ‘‘learning styles.’’

Felder’s (1993) classification of learning style was selected for

this study. He suggested four pairs of learning styles that

showed different methods of processing and organizing

information. These are ‘‘active–reflective,’’ ‘‘sensing–intuitive,’’

‘‘visual–verbal,’’ and ‘‘sequential–global.’’ The aim of this study

is to show the differences in PBL class behavioral performance

between the active and reflective students.

Research question

Does students’ behavioral performance in PBL sessions differ

between students with active and reflective learning styles?

Methodology

This study was performed at Qassim College of Medicine in

2009/2010. Participants consisted of the first-year medical

students, who came from a traditional system of education

with no previous experience of PBL. All students of this

academic year were invited to participate. Prior to the study,

each student’s learning style was identified. The purpose of

Correspondence: A. Alghasham, Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, College of Medicine, Qassim University, P.O. Box 6655, Buraidah

51452, Saudi Arabia. Tel: þ966 6 3800916; fax: þ966 6 3800870; email: ghasham@qumed.edu.sa

S14 ISSN 0142–159X print/ISSN 1466–187X online/12/S10014–6 � 2012 Informa UK Ltd.

DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.656744

Med

Tea

ch D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le U

pon

Tyn

e on

12/

20/1

4Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

study was explained to them verbally in PBL classes without

informing them about their identified learning styles to avoid

any potential bias. This study was reviewed and approved by

the Research and Ethical Committee of Qassim College of

Medicine and was funded by the Deanship of Research at

Qassim University.

Identification of students’ learning style

We used Felder’s Learning Style Inventory questionnaire

(Felder & Solomon). This questionnaire offers both students

and instructors a method to enhance student learning by better

understanding the preferred modes of information transfer.

The questionnaire was administered anonymously as a hard

copy. It consisted of 44 questions with 11 questions looking at

each of the 4 specific pairs of learning styles. The scale of each

learning style is between �11 and þ11, with þ11 being the

maximum score and �11 the minimum score. We selected the

scores for ‘‘active–reflective’’ learning styles because this style

is more related to the desired objectives of PBL

All the students were instructed to respond to the

questionnaire and to return it completed to the author.

Participation was voluntary, but students were encouraged to

participate in the study by explaining its impact on the

educational process in their college.

Distribution of students

Based upon the Learning Style Inventory questionnaire, each

student was assigned to active learner or reflective learner

group. Tutors were asked to observe and assess the student’s

performance during the PBL sessions for a period of 5 weeks.

A separate health problem was used for each week, and for

each problem two sessions were conducted. In the first

session, the student identified the problem and the phenom-

ena that needed explanation. Students elaborated on their

discussion and generated all possible hypotheses that explain

the problem and its associated phenomena. They tested the

hypotheses and drew a concept map to formulate a logical

sequence of events. At the end of the first session, they

developed educational objectives to fill the gaps in their

knowledge.

During the second session, which came after a self-directed

learning period, students discussed the gathered information

and applied it to understand and/or solve the problem of the

week. Each PBL session lasted for about 2 h. Tutors observed

the students’ performance during the first and second sessions

and assessed each student individually using a PBL assessment

questionnaire developed by the author. Tutors were not aware

of the students’ learning style. Each tutor worked with the

same students’ group throughout the study period and all

groups of students received the same problem. Since each of

the five PBL sessions dealt with a different health problem,

analysis was done collectively for all sessions. There were a

total of nine PBL groups, four of which comprised students

having active learning style and the rest belonged to the

reflective learning style.

Assessment of student performance in PBL sessions

A PBL assessment questionnaire was developed by the author.

A comprehensive review of literature was done to investigate

the available tools to examine student’s performance in a PBL

session (Barrows 1985; Walton & Matthews 1989; Taylor &

Miflin 2008). Opinions of medical teachers in the college,

education specialists, and tutors were also sought. The

competencies to be analyzed were closely linked to those

involved in PBL sessions. These competencies were divided

into four categories: independent study, group interaction,

reasoning/problem-solving skills, and active participation.

These categories were used as frame of reference for selecting

the items to be included in the questionnaire. All items in the

questionnaire described the behaviors which could be

observed by the tutor during PBL sessions. Items were stated

in positive terms and in non-ambiguous language and

belonged to only one category. Face validation of the

questionnaire was done by faculty members and experts in

the medical education unit. They were asked to assign each

item to a category according to its content. Some items were

rephrased, whereas other items were removed.

Finally, a questionnaire of 24 items was developed to rate

the student’s behavior on a six-point scale that ranged between

never (0) and always (5). Zero score indicated that the

behavior was not observed by the tutor. Scores from one to

five indicated the degree by which the behavior was

performed as perceived by the tutor.

Training and orientation of tutors

All tutors received an orientation session about the purpose of

the study and were trained on their role in the study and in the

use of the questionnaire.

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS (version 11.5). Descriptive

statistics were used to describe learning styles of the partic-

ipants. Assessment of the students’ performance during PBL

session was analyzed. Questions were classified into catego-

ries that address different aspects of PBL performance. Total

score for each category is based on summation of responses to

all questions in the category. Differences in PBL performance

between active and reflective students were made using

student’s t-test; the level of significance was set at 0.05.

Results

All students agreed to participate in the study and attended

PBL tutorials for 5 weeks. Six male and three female tutors

participated in this study and evaluated the first-year students

in nine tutorial groups (4 active, 5 reflective). The study

included 27 female and 48 male students. The number in each

tutorial was 8–9 students. The mean age of students was 18.4

years. All nine tutors returned the fully completed question-

naires for all students and for all tutorials.

Results indicating learning styles of students are shown in

Table 1. Students with active learning style constituted 40% of

all students. Students with sensual, visual, and global learning

Learning style and problem-based learning

S15

Med

Tea

ch D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le U

pon

Tyn

e on

12/

20/1

4Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

styles were proportionally more than students with intuitive,

verbal, and sequential styles, respectively. There is no signif-

icant difference in the distribution of learning styles between

groups or between male and female students.

Table 2 displays the students’ performance in PBL classes,

assessed by their tutors. Active and reflective students

performed differently in certain areas while in some other

areas they did not show any significant variation in class

performance.

Independent ‘‘Self-directed’’ study

This category included questions that demonstrated how PBL

involves student’s use of different resources, covering of

information deficiencies, presentation of information relevant

to problem, use of multiple activities to achieve learning

objectives, accomplishment of tasks, and motivation to

know more.

Active students tended to use multiple activities to gain the

needed information significantly more frequently than the

reflective students. They consulted faculty during office hours

and use different methods of data presentation more fre-

quently than reflective students, such as lab activities, pictures,

and diagrams. On the other hand, reflective students relied

more on using multiple reading materials including books and

handouts, they also showed more motivation to self-directed

learning and to studying alone.

Team work

In this topic, questions explored how the student adjusted to

the group norms and roles, showed respect to his/her peers,

accepted decisions and suggestions made by others, and

listened actively to other members of the group.

Active students adjusted to the group norms and regula-

tions more readily than the reflective students. They demon-

strated less passive or dominating attitude during PBL sessions.

They also showed better communication skills during PBL

sessions. On the other hand, reflective learners listened more

actively and carefully to others. Both groups of students paid

high and equal respect to peers and easily accepted the

decisions and suggestions made by other members of the

group.

Reasoning/problem-solving skills

This topic was developed about questions that explored the

student ability to formulate and examine hypotheses, analyze

and link components of the problem, use previously acquired

Table 2. Mean scores of PBL class performance for students with active and reflective learning styles.

Mean score (maximum score¼5)

Item Active group Reflect. group t-Test (p-value)

Independent study

Uses different resources to obtain information 3.5 4.3 3.6 (0.015)*

Uses multiple activities to achieve objectives 4.3 3.6 3.5 (0.023)*

Covers information deficiencies 4.2 4.1 1.8 (0.09)

Presents information relevant to problem 4.4 4.5 1.7 (0.11)

Is motivated 3.8 4.4 2.6 (0.046)*

Team work/group interaction

Adjusts to group roles (not passive/not dominating) 4.3 3.1 3.9 (0.012)*

Shows respect to peers 4.6 4.5 1.8 (0.13)

Accepts decisions/suggestions of others 4.3 4.1 2.1 (0.08)

Listen actively to other group members 3.2 4.5 3.5 (0.021)*

Reasoning/problem-solving skills

Formulates and examines hypotheses 4.1 3.6 2.9 (0.031)*

Analyzes and links components of problem 4.3 3.5 3.4 (0.022)*

Uses previously acquired information 3.8 4.5 3.1 (0.038)*

Ask relevant/intelligent questions 3.5 3.6 1.7 (0.07)

Identifies learning needs 4.6 4.7 2.0 (0.08)

Active participation

Helps his peers to clarify ideas 4.5 3.2 3.4 (0.021)*

Participates actively 4.6 3.5 3.3 (0.023)*

Shares knowledge with the group 4.3 3.8 2.1 (0.041)*

Support discussion with diagram, animation, etc. 4.7 3.9 2.6 (0.031)*

Note: *Denotes statistical significant difference (p5 0.05).

Table 1. Learning styles of first-year students using Felder’sclassification.

Learning style Male No. (%) Female No. (%) Total No. (%)

Active–reflective

Active 19 (39.6) 11 (40.7) 30 (40.0)

Reflective 29 (60.4) 16 (59.3) 45 (60.0)

Sensual–intuitive

Sensual 33 (68.8) 20 (74.1) 53 (70.7)

Intuitive 15 (31.2) 7 (25.9) 22 (29.3)

Visual–Verbal

Visual 35 (72.9) 21 (77.8) 56 (74.7)

Verbal 13 (27.1) 6 (22.2) 19 (25.3)

Sequential–Global

Sequential 22 (45.8) 12 (44.4) 34 (45.3)

Global 26 (54.2) 15 (55.6) 41 (54.7)

A. A. Alghasham

S16

Med

Tea

ch D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le U

pon

Tyn

e on

12/

20/1

4Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

information, ask relevant and intelligent questions, and identify

learning needs.

The active students were significantly more skillful in using

the reasoning and problem-solving skills. Active students

formulated and examined hypothesis, analyzed and linked the

components of the problem more efficiently than reflective

students. On the other hand, reflective students used previ-

ously acquired information more frequently than active

students in the discussion of the current problem. Both

groups of students were similar in asking relevant and

intelligent questions and in identifying their learning needs.

Active participation

This group of questions investigated student’s help to his peer

to clarify ideas, active participation, sharing knowledge with

the group, and support of discussion with different educational

media like pictures, animation, diagrams, etc.

Active students in this study significantly demonstrated

more active participation during the discussion in their PBL

sessions than reflective students and were involved in all the

activities that describe active participation. They were more

helpful to their peers, discussed actively, shared knowledge

with others, and supported the discussion with materials such

as diagrams and animations to explain their ideas. They were

also more helpful to others in simplifying ideas and clarifying

difficult concepts.

Scores of formative assessment

Formative assessment quizzes were given to the students after

the second session of each PBL tutorial. They consisted of 10

questions in a multiple choice format. Active students demon-

strated significantly higher performance in two out of the five

tutorials and the reflective students demonstrated significantly

higher performance in other two tutorials. The quiz scores of

the fifth tutorial showed no significant difference between

active and reflective students. Table 3 presents the mean

scores of formative assessment for male and female students.

There are no significant gender differences regarding PBL

performance.

Discussion

The implementation of PBL makes it essential to develop

instruments to evaluate the process and outcome of this

innovative education method. This study developed a ques-

tionnaire that could be used by PBL tutors to monitor students’

behavioral performance in PBL sessions. This questionnaire

includes four factors reflecting essential components of PBL.

These factors are independent study, group interaction,

reasoning skills, and active participation (Vaughn & Baker

2001; Romero et al. 2004; Sandmire & Boyee 2004). The

questionnaire will enable tutors to assess students during the

process of PBL and to assess the PBL components. This

questionnaire can also be used to track the evolution of PBL

skills during the sessions, to serve as a tool for providing useful

feedback for students, and to evaluate overall tutorial

performance.

This study used Felder’s questionnaire to identify learning

styles of the students. A strong point of the Felder’s question-

naire is that its questions are drawn from real-learning

situations. Most students (85%) affirm the face validity of the

questionnaire when they were asked to identify the results of

the questionnaire and whether the results match what they

perceive to be their learning preference. Data from many

published analysis suggest that the current version of the

instrument is considered reliable, valid, and suitable. Studies

also demonstrated that this questionnaire may help instructors

achieve balanced course instructions and to help students to

understand their learning strengths and areas for improvement

(as opposed to being used to predict students’ grades or

dictate their course and curriculum choices) (Livesay et al.

2002; Zywno 2003; Felder & Spurlin 2005). The knowledge of

student preferred learning styles is vital if the educators are to

provide tailored strategies for individual students (Sandmire &

Boyee 2004). Knowing student’s learning style also helps to

overcome the predisposition of many teachers to treat all

students in a similar way as well as motivate teachers to move

from their preferred mode to using others. There is a clear

trend in university education to instruct all students in the same

way, most commonly the straight lecture format. Teachers use

lecture format because of the relative ease of information

transfer, the need to cover the content, a long history of

traditional teaching, and perhaps due to their own preference

of learning. Results of this study demonstrate that students with

different learning styles performed differently in PBL sessions;

therefore, teachers should encourage multiple modes of

learning experience and information presentation in the PBL

session and should allow for a balance between time for

discussion and problem-solving activities and time for thinking

Table 3. Mean scores of the formative assessment for students with active and reflective learning styles.

Active Reflective

Males Females Total Males Females Total t-Test (p-value)

Tutorial 1 8.3 7.9 8.1 6.2 6.3 6.2 2.1 (0.04)*

Tutorial 2 5.9 6.1 6.0 7.8 7.6 7.7 1.99 (0.04)*

Tutorial 3 5.4 5.8 5.7 7.4 7.7 7.5 2.36 (0.03)*

Tutorial 4 8.6 8.5 8.6 6.5 6.8 6.6 3.1 (0.013)*

Tutorial 5 7.7 7.6 7.7 7.5 7.3 7.4 1.87 (0.07)

Notes: Maximum score¼ 10.

*Denotes that there is statistical significant difference.

Learning style and problem-based learning

S17

Med

Tea

ch D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le U

pon

Tyn

e on

12/

20/1

4Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

about new information and encouraging reflective students to

ask questions and suggest applications. This will positively

affect learning by reaching more students because of the better

match between learning experience and the learning styles.

There is a large body of literature on gender differences in

learning. It has been reported that males have a preference for

rational evaluation and logic, whereas females use elaborative

processing in which they tend to seek personal relevance or

individual connections with the material being taught (Lie et al.

2004). In addition, males tend to be more achievement

oriented, whereas females are more socially and performance

oriented (Chang 2004). The genders also differ in their beliefs

about what is important to student learning, with females

ranking social interaction with other students and self-

confidence as higher than males. Furthermore, males are

likely to attribute their success in the classroom to external

factors such as teaching, whereas females generally see their

success are being directly related to their efforts in the

classroom (Grollino & Velayo 1996; Wehrwein et al. 2007).

This suggests that males tend to be more externally focused,

but females tend to be more introspective and self-critical. In

our study, there was no significant difference in the learning

styles preferences between males and females. The question-

naire used may not be a suitable tool to detect any gender

differences in learning styles or it may not include questions

related to the areas of differences. Also, students’ – both males

and females – long experience with traditional education

where didactic method of teaching is dominating may

suppress any gender differences.

Results of this study show that there are significant

differences in the PBL class performance when students are

divided into groups according to the learning styles.

PBL was basically designed to promote self-directed

learning. In this study, active learners tended to use multiple

activities such as faculty consultation and lab activities to

achieve objectives. This demonstrates that learning resources

that included active participation of students were favored by

active learners. On the other hand, reflective learner tended to

use multiple resources that required deep and cognitive

thinking such as electronic learning resources and the library.

Reflective learners showed also higher motivation for self-

directed learning where they can work alone.

In PBL, team work is very important. In this study, active

learners showed more adjustment with the group roles and

norms, while reflective learners demonstrated more careful and

active listening to other members of the group. Other activities

that described team work did not show significant difference.

This shows that there is no clear advantage of any learning style

over the other in activities describing team work. If the

educational planner wishes to enhance students’ teamwork,

grouping of students with mixed learning styles is preferred.

Reasoning and problem-solving skills are the main focus of

PBL. Active students demonstrated higher ability of formulat-

ing and examining the hypothesis and in analyzing and linking

different components of the problem. Reflective learners on

the other hand were more efficient in using the previously

acquired information.

Active students performed better in all activities describing

active participation. PBL is an instructional method that

promotes active student participation in the learning process.

If the main focus of the educational planner is to enhance

student active participation, more students with active learning

preferences should be included in the PBL groups.

PBL is an active learning experience. Studies (Lujan &

DiCarlo 2006a, b) have shown that students learn better using

active learning strategies, because active learning strategies

reach all types of learners. Active learning strategies promote

thinking through reasoning and improve problem-solving and

decision-making skills. In large classes, active learning strate-

gies can also be applied. Discussion in class, cooperative

learning exercises, role play, simulations, and debates are

active learning strategies that can be used in large classes.

These activities can also promote group work and generate

high level of motivation and enthusiasm (Hur & Kim 2007). For

medical students who will always be working in team

environments, these learning experiences are invaluable.

Quiz scores showed significant differences in four out of

the five PBL sessions. Active and reflective learners performed

differently in different sessions. The reasons for this finding are

not clear. It might be due to the difference in problems that

students were required to discuss. Some problems needed

more student’s discussion and participation which are pre-

ferred by active learners. Other problems needed cognitive

thinking favored by reflective learners. Also, tutor’s effect on

students’ performance was not studied and it may be a

possible reason for concealing any difference in the quiz

scores between groups.

A limitation of this study is that it was carried out with only

first-year students who are fresh to PBL with no prior

experience. It would be more informative to continue the

study with different batches of students with varying levels of

PBL experience.

Another limitation of this study, and any other study using

the Felder’s Learning Style Inventory questionnaire as designed,

is that it does not account for confounding factors such as

socioeconomic status, race, and culture. Students surveyed in

this study were relatively homogenous in these confounding

factors which minimized the effect of this limitation.

Tutor’s effect was not examined. The same tutor worked

with the same students group for the whole study period. We

assumed that tutors’ long experience with PBL and their prior

orientation and training about the purpose of the study,

questionnaire design and items, and their role in the study will

minimize the effect of this limitation.

Suggestion for further studies includes examining the effect

of learning styles on students’ performance to various instruc-

tional methods other than PBL sessions. Since learning styles of

students can be changed through learning experience, an

inspection of students’ learning styles in different educational

stages including premedical students would be also suggested.

The study can also be extended to compare between other

learning styles preferences of students.

Conclusion

Active and reflective learners differ in PBL class performance.

Active students performed better in some activities, while

reflective students were more efficient in some other activities.

A. A. Alghasham

S18

Med

Tea

ch D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le U

pon

Tyn

e on

12/

20/1

4Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

Therefore, students should be informed about their preferred

learning style and the degree of this preference whether

strong, moderate, or mild. So, if students are in a class that

allows little or no class time for active or reflective activities,

they should learn strategies to compensate for these lacks

when they study. Also, educational planner should ensure

adequate mix of students with different learning styles in each

PBL class to achieve PBL desired objectives.

The publication of this supplement has been made possible

with the generous financial support of the Dr Hamza Alkholi

Chair for Developing Medical Education in KSA.

Declaration of interest: The author reports no declaration

of interest.

References

Azer SA. 2011. Problem-based learning: Where are we now? Guide

supplement 36.1 - viewpoint. Med Teach 33(3):e121–e122.

Baker CM, Pesut DJ, McDaniel AM, Fisher ML. 2007. Evaluating the impact

of problem-based learning on learning styles of master’s students in

nursing administration. J Prof Nurs 23(4):214–219.

Barrows HS. 1985. How to design a problem-based curriculum for the pre-

clinical years. New York, NY: Springer.

Brown BL. 1998. Learning styles and vocational education practice.

Columbus, OH: Center on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education,

the Ohio State University College of Education.

Brown B. 2003. Myths and realities no. 26: Teaching styles vs. Learning

style. Colombus, OH: Educational Resources Information Center.

Cassidy S. 2004. Learning styles an overview of theories, models, and

measures. Educ Psychol 24:419–444.

Chang WC. 2004. Learning goals and styles by gender - a study of NUS

students. CDTL Brief 7:4–5.

Felder RM. 1993. Reaching the second tier: Learning and teaching style in

college science education. J Coll Sci Teaching 23:286–290.

Felder RM, Spurlin J. 2005. Applications, reliability and validity of the index

of learning styles. Int J Eng Educ 21(1):103–112.

Grollino E, Velayo RS. 1996. Gender differences in the attribution of

internal success among college students. Philadelphia, PA: Annual

Convention of the Eastern Psychological Association. pp 1–12.

Hartling L, Spooner C, Tjosvold L, Oswald A. 2010. Problem-based learning

in pre-clinical medical education: 22 years of outcome research. Med

Teach 32(1):28–35.

Hosford CC, Siders WA. 2010. Felder-Soloman’s index of learning styles:

Internal consistency, temporal stability, and factor structure. Teach

Learn Med 22(4):298–303.

Hur Y, Kim S. 2007. Different outcomes of active and reflective students in

problem based learning. Med Teach 29(1):e18–e21.

Lie LY, Angelique L, Cheong E. 2004. How do male and female students

approach learning at NUS? CDTL Brief 7:1–3.

Livesay G, Dee K, Felder R, Hites L, Nauman E, O’Neal E. Statistical

evaluation of the index of learning styles, session 2430. In: Proceedings

of the 2002 ASEE annual conference and exposition, 2002 June 16–19,

Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Lujan LH, DiCarlo SE. 2006a. First-year medical students prefer multiple

learning styles. Adv Physiol Educ 30:13–16.

Lujan LH, DiCarlo SE. 2006b. Too much teaching, not enough learning:

What is the solution? Adv Physiol Educ 30:17–22.

Pungente MD, Wasan KM, Moffett C. 2002. Using learning styles to evaluate

first-year pharmacy student’s preferences toward different activities

associated with the problem-based learning approach. Am J Pharm

Educ 66:119–124.

Romero RM, Eriksen SP, Haworth IS. 2004. A decade of teaching

pharmaceutics using case studies and problem-based learning. Am J

Pharm Educ 68:Article 31.

Sandmire DA, Boyee PF. 2004. Pairing of opposite learning styles among

allied health students: Effects on collaborative performance. J Allied

Health 33:156–163.

Taylor D, Miflin B. 2008. Problem-based learning: Where are we now? Med

Teach 30(8):742–763.

Thain S, Ang SB, Ti LK. 2011. Medical students’ preferred style of learning

patient safety. BMJ Qual Saf 20(2):201.

Van der Veken J, Valcke M, Muijtjens A, De Maeseneer J, Derese A. 2008.

The potential of the inventory of learning styles to study

students’ learning patterns in three types of medical curricula. Med

Teach 30(9–10):863–869.

Vaughn L, Baker R. 2001. Teaching in the medical setting: Balancing

teaching styles, learning styles and teaching methods. Med Teach

23:610–612.

Vermunt JD, Vermetten YJ. 2004. Patterns in student learning: Relationships

between learning strategies, conceptions of learning and learning

orientations. Educ Psychol Rev 16:359–384.

Walton HJ, Matthews MB. 1989. Essentials of problem based learning. Med

Educ 23:452–458.

Wehrwein EA, Lujan HL, DiCarlo SE. 2007. Gender differences in learning

styles preferences among undergraduate physiology students. Adv

Physiol Educ 31(2):153–157.

Wood DF. 2003. ABC of learning and teaching in medicine: Problem based

learning. BMJ 326:328–330.

Zywno MS. A contribution to validation of score meaning for Felder-

Soloman’s index of learning styles. In: Proceedings of the 2003

American Society for Engineering Education annual conference &

exposition, 2003 June 22–25. Nashville, TN.

Learning style and problem-based learning

S19

Med

Tea

ch D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le U

pon

Tyn

e on

12/

20/1

4Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.