Descriptive study assesses learning preferences in MBBS students, indicating tailored educational strategies might improve outcomes.
AbstractBackground: Understanding students’ learning preferences is essential for optimising teaching and learning methods in medical education. This study aimed to assess learning methods among second-year MBBS (2024 batch) students in core subjects across phase. Materials and Methods: After obtaining Institutional Ethics Committee approval, a descriptive study was conducted among 109 volunteer students. The study was carried out during the second year of MBBS at ESIC Medical College. Learning preferences were assessed using the Fleming and Mills-based VARK unimodal modified questionnaire (version 8.02), consisting of 33 multiple-choice questions, administered via Google Forms. Responses were collected and analysed using Open EPI software. Results: All Student responses were converted into percentages, and p-values were calculated. The distribution of learning preferences in all students are 39.47% for Visual(V), 41.32% for Auditory(A), 35.49 % for Read/write(R) and 5.8% for kinesthetic(K). Statistically significantly higher preferences (p < 0.05) were observed for Read/write in Biochemistry, Visual in Anatomy, and Auditory in Physiology when compared with other learning methods. High achievers (≥75% marks) also preferred predominantly Read/write for Biochemistry, Visual for Anatomy, and Auditory for Physiology. 50.33% of students preferred the kinesthetic method in practical learning. Conclusion: The study states that most of the MBBS students preferred Read or Write for Biochemistry, Visual for Anatomy, Auditory for Physiology and kinesthetic for all practical. This knowledge will be helpful for enhancing the comprehensive development of effective planning in teaching and learning methods. Keywords VARK, learning preference, academic performance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
M.UdayaSree, V. Sampath Kumar, D.Sudha Bala, D. Saranya, Prajakta Kishve, and Silvya Isac (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: