Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Descriptive study reveals gender differences and correlations between learning styles and emotional intelligence in students across dentistry, medicine, and pharmacy.
This descriptive and correlational study investigates the learning styles (LS) and emotional intelligence (EI) of students enrolled in medicine, dentistry, and pharmacy degree programmes. The study examines gender and programme-related differences and analyses the correlation between LS and EI. A total of 247 students (57 men and 190 women) participated, completing the Honey-Alonso Learning Styles and the Trait Meta-Mood Scale (TMMS-24) questionnaires to assess perceived EI. Data were collected via the Qualtrics XM platform from January to September 2023. Results indicated significant differences among the four learning styles (F(3, 738) = 66.511, p < 0.001), with the highest scores in the reflector and theorist styles, and no gender differences observed. Across all three degree programmes, the highest scores were also found in the reflector and theorist styles, though significant differences were noted in reflector-style scores among the programmes (F(2, 244) = 3.097, p = 0.047): dentistry students scored the lowest (M = 7.97) compared to medicine (M = 9.50) and pharmacy (M = 9.09). All four learning styles showed positive and significant correlations with emotional clarity (r ranging from 0.145 to 0.182); students with a better understanding of their emotional states scored higher in all learning styles. Additionally, the activist style was positively correlated with emotional repair (r = 0.136). Reflector and theorist styles were predominant among the students, with no gender differences. The association between LS and the emotional clarity component of EI may inform the design of teaching methodologies; though further exploration is required due to the study's sample limitations. Tailored educational programmes focusing on LS and EI could enhance skill acquisition.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gómez‐Polo et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: