Learning styles of medical students, general surgery residents, and general surgeons: implications for surgical education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical education is evolving under the dual pressures of an enlarging body of knowledge required during residency and mounting work-hour restrictions. Changes in surgical residency training need to be based on available educational models and research to ensure successful training of surgeons. Experiential learning theory, developed by David Kolb, demonstrates the importance of individual learning styles in improving learning. This study helps elucidate the way in which medical students, surgical residents, and surgical faculty learn. METHODS: The Kolb Learning Style Inventory, which divides individual learning styles into Accommodating, Diverging, Converging, and Assimilating categories, was administered to the second year undergraduate medical students, general surgery resident body, and general surgery faculty at the University of Alberta. RESULTS: A total of 241 faculty, residents, and students were surveyed with an overall response rate of 73%. The predominant learning style of the medical students was assimilating and this was statistically significant (p < 0.03) from the converging learning style found in the residents and faculty. The predominant learning styles of the residents and faculty were convergent and accommodative, with no statistically significant differences between the residents and the faculty. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that medical students have a significantly different learning style from general surgical trainees and general surgeons. This has important implications in the education of general surgery residents.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".