How Learning Styles Characterize Medical Students, Surgical Residents, Medical Staff, and General Surgery Teachers While Learning Surgery: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.010 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".