How Learning Styles Characterize Medical Students, Surgical Residents, Medical Staff, and General Surgery Teachers While Learning Surgery: Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Learning style is a biologically and developmentally imposed configuration of personal characteristics that makes the same teaching method effective for some and ineffective for others. Studies support a relationship between learning style and career choice, resulting in learning style patterns observed in distinct types of residency programs, which can also be applied to general surgery, from medical school to the latest stages of training. The methodologies, populations, and contexts of the few studies pertinent to the matter are very different from one another, and a scoping review on this theme will unequivocally enhance and organize what is already known. Objective: The goal of this study is to identify and map out data from studies that report on learning styles in medical students, surgical residents, medical staff, and surgical teachers. Methods: The search strategy was performed on September 25, 2023, by a librarian and digital search strategy expert, through the descriptors "learning, style" and "surgery." The databases consulted were Embase, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PubMed through descriptors and their synonyms, according to MeSH (Medical Subject Headings). Of the 213 articles found, 135 articles remained after the exclusion of duplicates. The remaining 78 articles were analyzed by 3 of the researchers independently. A total of 27 articles were selected, and 2 articles were excluded because the full article was not found. Results: A total of 25 articles were included in the review. A total of 96% (n=24) of the articles used cognitive theories as their theoretical basis. Regarding learning style instruments, 36% (n=9) articles used the visual, aural, read, and kinesthetic learning method instrument, and 40% (n=10) articles chose Kolb's learning style inventory. The papers concentrate especially on the 2010s, and most of them are from North America (16/25, 64%) or Europe (6/25, 24%). The smallest study had 15 participants and the biggest had 1549 participants. The included studies primarily focused on surgical residents (21/25, 84%), with fewer targeting faculty and staff (9/25, 36%). The primary objectives of the studies were to investigate the relationship between learning styles and performance (15/25, 60%), gender differences (7/25, 28%), changes over time (4/25, 16%), and motivation (3/25, 12%). Conclusions: This scoping review reveals a limited and geographically concentrated body of research on learning styles in surgery education, primarily focusing on surgical residents and using Kolb's learning style inventory and visual, aural, read, and kinesthetic learning method instruments. Considerable gaps exist regarding geographical diversity and the study of medical staff and faculty. These findings underscore the need for future research with a broader scope to better inform educational strategies in surgery.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,065 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,024 | 0,023 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».