For Web Full Book 44 Proceedings S.Z.M.C. Vol: 37(3): pp. 44-49, 2023. PSZMC-896-37-3-2023 Comparison Of Learning Styles Used By Clinical Faculty Of Hospital And General Practitioners For Their Professional Development Muhammad Atique, Department of Pathology, Pakistan Kidney & Liver Institute & Research Centre, Lahore. ABSTRACT Aims & Objectives: To compare the learning styles used by hospital clinical faculty and general practitioners for their professional development/ continued medical education. Place and Duration of Study: This was a Comparative cross-sectional study carried out at Pakistan Kidney and Liver institute and research canter Lahore from October 2019 to November 2020. Material & Methods: Total number of seventy-six medical professionals comprising thirty-eight members of clinical faculty and similar number of general practitioners were included in the study. Amongst these, 45 were males and 31 females’ Learning style questionnaire adopted from Honey and Mumford was distributed to all the participants. According to the learning styles they were grouped into Activists, reflectors, theorists and pragmatists with preference categorization of Very strong, strong, moderate, low and very low. Data was entered and analyzed usin SPSS version 22 Chi-square test was applied to see the significant difference in two groups and P value was calculated and value of less than 0.05 was considered significant. Results: There were 45 males and 31 females with ratio of 1.45:1 .In general practitioners the strongest learning style was reflector, followed by theorist, activist and pragmatists.While in the clinical faculty the strongest preference was again for reflectors, followed by activists then theorists and finally pragmatists, the significant difference statistically was only seen in the moderate preference in activist group which was 0.038. Conclusion: Reflector type of learning style based on pondering, experiencing and observing different perspectives was strongly observed in both genders of consultants and general practitioners. However, a moderate degree of activist type of learning style influenced by doing and feeling was also noted in the general practitioners. Further planning instructional strategy and assessment based on these learning styles could benefit the career growth of these two groups of health professionals. Keywords: learning style, general practitioners, clinical faculty, Health professionals INTRODUCTION Human beings have similar bio- psychological and social characteristics however their ability to grasp information and transferring it into logical meaning is different. This difference is termed learning style1. It is also defined as the characteristic cognitive, affective, and psycho- logical behaviors that serve as relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact with, an d respond to the learning environment2. It is also defined as a way of thinking comprehending and processing information3 and to Kolb it is a method of personal choice to perceive or process information4. Curry in 1987 proposed that overall learning depends on three factors and the model was stated as onion model. The central most part was personality variable, the middle one was of learning style and the outer most layer of onion depended upon instructional format preference5.There are about thirteen major ways that learning styles are classified6. However, the commonest ones are of four types one was by Flemings who classified as VAK-Visual 29%, Auditory34% and Kinesthetic 37%7. This style has been used to assess the achievements of medical professionals8.The second one was given by Kolb who classified as (accommodators), Divergers, assimilators and Convergers)8. Honey and Mumford classified as Activists, Reflectors, Theorists and Pragmatists. This classification was merged with that form Kolb as Activists (accommodators), Reflectors (Divergers), Theorists (Assimilator) and pragmatists (convergers)9. The Honey and Mumford learning styles 9are plotted around two axes (Fig 1). The horizontal axis is called the processing continuum and refers to how we approach a task, that is, preference to learn by watching or doing. Whereas the vertical axis is termed the perception continuum and refers to our emotional response to the task, or how we think and feel about it. Reflectors learn best when learning activity provides them opportunity to think and reflect. They want to understand things thoroughly before they try them 6 1Department of Public Health, Health Services Academy, Islamabad. 2Department of Management Sciences, Riphah Int University, Islamabad. 3Department of Medicine, IHITC, Islamabad. 4Department of Rheumatology, PIMS, Islamabad. 5Department of Medicine, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi. 70 1Department of Orthopedics, THQ, Khanewal 2Department of Orthopedics, LGH, Lahore 3Department of Orthopedics, THQ, Ferozwala 4Department of Orthopedics, CMH, Lahore 5Department of Hand & Upper Limb Surgery, CMH, Lahore 6Department of Orthopedics, Al-Rehmat Benevolent Trust 1 1Department of Anatomy, UCMD, University of Lahore, Lahore 2Department of Anatomy, Punjab Medical College, Faisalabad Medical University, Faisalabad 3Department of Medical Education, Pak Red Crescent Medical and Dental College, Lahore p 45 Comparison Of Learning Styles Used By Clinical Faculty Of Hospital And General Practitioners For….. out. The activist learns in an environment of new, varied and continued activity. They don’t want to hear what they should be doing; they want to dive in head-first and have a go. Fig-1: Honey and Mumford Learning Style. The theorist learns best when they have time to analyze and synthesize. Theorists like to understand how the new learning fits into their ‘framework’ and into previous theories. They’re likely to be uncomfortable with things that don’t fit with what they already know. The pragmatist learns through practical and concrete issues of learning. Pragmatists care about what works in the real world. They aren’t interested in abstract concepts; they just want to know if it works10.Many individuals may not use single learning style and work in a continuum using more than one type11. A learner must understand how to identify their learning goals integrate learning style apply a properskill and be self-regulated to achieve the best results from learning12. Multiple studies examining the learning styles of health professionals were noted during literature search. Some of the studies were comparative, whereby the comparison was done amongst various groups of health professionals a) Specialists of different medical fields i.e Surgeons and medical specialist 13. b) Residents and faculty members14, c) Undergraduate medical students with postgraduate medical students15, Medical students from various cities i.e. Islamabad, Gujranwala and from a particular university16,17. The other studies were confined to one type of professionals i.e. Pathologists17, Nurses and General Practitioners. However, in the literature search no study was found which compared learning styles of general practitioners and consultants. The progress in medical profession could be dependent on the learning styles and different medical professionals have particular learning styles19.The clinical faculty and general practitioner follow entirely different approaches towards career. The consultants after doing graduation enter a postgraduate programme, while the general practitioners go into practice usually without getting into a postgraduate degree/diploma program. The rationale of this present study was to see how the learning styles differ/or are similar among these two categories of medical professionals. If the two groups are following a particular learning style and are successful in their careers, then further planning instructional strategy and assessment would be easy and would benefit the growth of these two groups of health professionals. MATERIAL AND METHODS The study design was comparative cross-sectional. Settings and participants: All members of clinical faculty (thirty-eight) of different specialities from Pakistan Liver and Kidney Institute and Research Centre were included in the study excluding those on leave during datacollection. Similarly, thirty- eight general practitioners were inducted from various locations of Lahore. Data collection instrument: Quantitative data was collected through self-administered Honey and Mumford learning style questionnaire containing 80 questions. This was handed over to the participants and collected subsequently. The questionnaire comprised three sections, first section dealt with demographic data, second section -comprised 80 questions and the third section dealt with scoring and categorization. The scores were calculated according to question number which were assigned to a particular learning style and participants were categorized into Activists, theorist, pragmatist, and reflectors according to very strong, strong, moderate low and very low preferences. Basic demographic data was also collected including age, gender, experience and speciality. Completed form in all aspects were included and incomplete /poorly filled forms were excluded from the data. Statistical Analysis The data was analysed using SPSS version 22. Mode was calculated for the continuous variables like age. Frequency and percentage were calculated for the categorical variables like learning styles, gender and speciality. Chi square test was used to compare the frequency of different styles among the two categories. The P value of <0.05 was considered significant. 46 Comparison Of Learning Styles Used By Clinical Faculty Of Hospital And General Practitioners For….. RESULTS There were forty-five males and thirty-one females with ratio of 1.45:1. (Fig 2), the age range was between 25 and 75 years with mode of 25-35 years of age (Fig, 3). The results were compiled for two groups, clinical faculty and general practitioners according to the learning styles with the preference categorized as very strong, strong, moderate, low and very low. General Practitioners: In the general practitioner group, the very strong preferred learning style was reflector (11), followed by theorist (8), pragmatist (7) and activist (4) in the descending order. The females were also in the reflector group in the very strong and strong preferences (Table-1). Clinical Faculty (Consultants): In the consultants the most preferred learning style was reflector (8) followed by activist (5), pragmatists (4) and theorists (3) in descending order .The females also followed the same pattern with majority in reflector group (Table-2).Also seen in the comparative table of learning styles of consultants and general practitioners (Table-3). However, the statistical analysis showed the significant p value was obtained in Activists groups in moderate preference category (Table-4). In this category general practitioners are more than clinical faculty. Fig-2: Gender distribution of all participants in the study on learning style –n=76 Fig-3: Age distribution of all participants in the study on learning style –n=76 General Practitioners Total Category Gender Very Strong Strong Moderat Low Very Low Activist M 1(3%) 4(12%) 7(14 %) 4(16 %) 1(6%) 17 F 3(10%) 2(6%) 11(22 %) 4(16 %) 2(12%) 22 Reflector M 6(20%) 3(9%) 5(10 %) 2(8 %) 1(6%) 17 F 5(16%) 8(25%) 6(12 %) 2(8 %) 1(6%) 22 Theorist M 4(13%) 4(12%) 6(12 %) 1(4 %) 2(12%) 17 F 4(13%) 6(19%) 5(10 %) 4(16 %) 3(18%) 22 Prag- matist M 5(16%) 1(3%) 4(8%) 5(18 %) 2(12%) 17 F 2(6%) 3(9%) 7(14 %) 5(18 %) 5(30%) 22 Total 30 31 50 27 17 Table-1: Learning styles with preference category n=38 General practitioners.*+1GP data Clinical Faculty (Consultants) Total Category Gender Very Strong Strong Moderate Low Very Low Activist M 4(20%) 2(7 %) 7(16 %) 12(3 3%) 4(25%) 29 F 1(5%) 3(11 %) 2(4%) 3(8. 5%) 0 9 Reflector M 6(30%) 8(29 %) 9(19 %) 5(13 .5%) 1(6%) 29 F 2(10%) 3(11 %) 2(4%) 1(3 %) 1(6%) 9 Theorist M 3(15%) 5(18 %) 14(29 %) 7(19 %) 2(12.5% ) 31 F 0 3(11%) 2(4%) 1(3 %) 1(6%) 7 Prag- matist M 4(20%) 3(11 %) 6(12 %) 7(19 %) 6(37.5% ) 26 F 0 1(3%) 6(12 %) 1(3 %) 1(6%) 9 Total 20 28 48 37 16 Table-2: Learning style with preference category n=38Clinical faculty (consultants). 47 Comparison Of Learning Styles Used By Clinical Faculty Of Hospital And General Practitioners For….. Combined General Practitioners &Clinical Faculty (Consultants) Tota l % Categ ory Gende r Very Strong Stro ng Mode -rate Low Very Low Activis t M 5(10%) 6(10%) 14(13 %) 16(2 5%) 5(14%) 46 14 F 4-8% 5-8% 13- 12% 7- 10% 2-6% 31 10 Reflect or M 12-24% 11- 8% 14- 13% 7- 10% 2-6% 46 14 F 7-14% 11-8% 8-8% 3- 4% 2-6% 31 10 Theori st M 7-14% 9-15% 20- 19% 8- 12% 5-14% 49 15 F 4-8% 9-15% 9-9% 5- 7% 4-11% 31 10 Prag- matist M 9-18% 4-6% 10- 10% 12- 18% 8-22% 43 13 F 2-4% 4-6% 13- 12% 6- 9% 6-17% 31 10 Total 50 59 101 64 34 308 Table-3: Combined General Practitioners &Clinical Faculty (Consultants) Learning style n=76 Learning Style Clinical faculty G.P P-Value Very Strong Preference Activist 5 4 0.126 Reflector 8 11 0.426 Theorist 3 8 0.103 Pragmatist 4 7 0.328 Strong Preference Activist 5 6 0.744 Reflector 11 11 1 Theorist 8 10 0.589 Pragmatist 4 4 1 Moderate Preference Activist 9 18 0.03(Significant) Reflector 11 11 1 Theorist 18 11 0.098 Pragmatist 12 11 0.802 Low Preference Activist 19 11 0.06 Reflector 8 6 0.553 Theorist 12 10 0.255 Pragmatist 15 17 0.642 Very Low Preference Activist 4 3 0.307 Reflector 2 2 0.867 Theorist 4 5 0.872 Pragmatist 7 7 0.414 Table-4: Comparison of learning styles between clinical faculty and general practitioners- Pvalue n=76. DISCUSSION This study compared the learning styles of consultants and general practitioners. These two groups follow different approaches in their carrier progression. The consultants were from clinical faculty of a hospital which in this study was (PKLI&RC) Lahore. This hospital is a tertiary care hospital mostly dealing with liver/Kidney transplant and related surgeries along with their medical management. The general practitioners were selected on the basis that they did not follow any specialized training to be in a clinical faculty. These were recruited from the general practitioner group practicing in various localities of Lahore. On literature search, the learning style preference was variable in different groups of consultants. In the earlier studies medical specialists were found to be pragmatist13,14. However, in the later studies on full time consultants the learning style preference was for reflectors14,15, this was true for the postgraduate students also15 A study comparing learning styles of residents and faculty of internal medicine showed that both groups were mostly (theorist)20. In another study comparing learning styles among post graduate residents and full-time faculty showed consultants to be mostly reflector/ theorist14. The learning style also differed among postgraduate and undergraduate medical students. The postgraduate students were reflectors and undergraduate students were mostly activist14.In two other studies medical students were mostly found to be reflectors16,17. Among the Pathologists the dominating learning style was reflectors followed by theorists18. A study conducted in Amman comparing learning style of surgeons to their medical colleagues showed mostly a mixed pattern, with most having combination of two learning styles. Eighty to ninety percent of both surgeons and physicians showed combination of reflector and theorist learning styles21. Another study on implication of surgical education from Alberta school Canada showed that most of the medical students had a assimilating (theorist) learning style and the faculty was (pragmatist) converger22. The undergraduate and practitioner nurses were found to be reflectors23,24 .A comparative study from a Dentistry school in Latin America showed that both students and professors had a preference for reflector learning style followed by theorist25. Learning styles were assessed in the participants of continued medical education and found that the most preferred learning style was assimilating (Theorist ) followed by diverger (reflector)26. The preferred learning styles also shows variation over time as seen in the studies in a same set up two decades apart. Which has shown a change from theorist learning style in 1993 to reflectors learning style in 201026. Adult learners who were inducted for diploma course showed preference for three learning styles 48 Comparison Of Learning Styles Used By Clinical Faculty Of Hospital And General Practitioners For….. activists, reflector and theorists. The pragmatist style was missing in this group27,28 . In all of the previous studies in different categories of medical professionals around the world the preferred learning style was reflectors in most of the consultant groups, in post graduate residents, and in nursing groups. In our study also the most strongly preferred learning style was reflector among the clinical faculty, so this showed a similarity between most of the previous studies. Considering the characteristics of this learning style the clinical faculty like to collect data and think about it. They make use of a concrete experience in perceiving and reflective observation in organizing, their strength is creativity, understanding others and developing a large perspective. It is likely that if they follow this learning style would likely help in their professional development. General Practitioners: Different studies on the learning styles in general practitioners were also evaluated. In one study it was found that out of 274 general practitioners about 43.8% were theorists, followed by reflectors 21%, and then pragmatists 18 % and finally activists 16%29. In another study from Hong Kong a pre- assessment followed by post assessment showed that most of them were reflector in both assessments30. In another study on general practitioner registrar suggested that the most prevalent learning style was reflector/theorist31. In our study the general practitioners were mainly reflectors followed by theorists, and then activists followed by pragmatists. Although there was some difference in the results, however in the previous studies a significant percentage of general practitioners were reflectors. In both the groups under study the preferred learning style was reflector so they both may follow similar learning strategies in their professional development. They work as an integral part of health team as observers. They develop creative solutions, self-critique and analysis. The only statistically significant difference was seen in the moderate preference category of Activist learning style. That means that a significant number of general practitioners like to have new experiences. They like acting based on their feelings rather than mental analyses. Their strong point was practicality and they love to learn by doing. If activists follow the strategy of practical approach towards the professional development they are likely to succeed more. Best learning strategy for them would be case based discussion, and interactive learning. They must have a hands-on experience for producing best results15. CONCLUSION Reflector type of learning style based on pondering, experiencing and observing different perspectives was strongly observed in both genders of consultants and general practitioners. However a moderate degree of activist type of learning style nfluenced by doing and feeling was also noted in the general practitioners. Continued medical education (CME), instructional strategy and assessment based on these learning styles could enhance further academic career growth of these two groups of health professionals. REFERENCES 1. Shuell, T. J. Cognitive conceptions of learning. Review of Educational Research 1986, 56, 411-436. 2. Mil D, Milosevic and al .Adaptiveleaning by using SCOS metadata .Inter disciplinary journal of knowledge and learning objects2007 ,vol 3,163- 1744-3-Jensen, E. . 3. -Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3),105–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539- 6053.2009.01038.x 4. Kolb, D. A. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development.. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall; 1984 5. Curry, L. Integrating concepts of cognitive or learning style: A review with attention to psychometric standards. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian College of Health Service Executives.1987 6. Alaya NB. Elferchichi A, Towards the elaboration of a meta model unifying learning styles .Conference FLIC 2007; Sausse Tunisia 7. Fleming ND. Teaching and learning styles: VARK strategiesN.D. Fleming, Christchurch, New Zealand (2001) 8. Mozaffari, HR, Janatolmakan M, Sharifi R, Ghandinejad,F Andayeshgar B & Alireza Khatony A.. The Relationship Between the VARK Learning Styles and Academic Achievement in Dental Students,: Advances in Medical Education and Practice,2020: 11:, 15-19, DOI: 10.2147/AMEP.S235002 9. Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R., &Mainemelis, C. (2001). Experiential learning theory: Previous research & new directions. In R. Sternberg, & L. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on cognitive learning & thinking styles (2001) (pp. 228-247). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 10. Honey P, Mumford A. The manual of learning styles .Peter Honey Publications, Maidenhead, England (1992) 49 Comparison Of Learning Styles Used By Clinical Faculty Of Hospital And General Practitioners For….. 11. Ehrman, M. Second language learning difficulties: Looking beneath the surface. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.1996. 12. Paris, S. G., &Winograd, P. Promoting metacognition & motivation of exceptional children. Remedial & Special Education.1990 11, 7-15 13. Plovnick, M. S. Primary care career choices and medical student learning styles. Journal of Medical Education1975 50(9), 849-855. 14. Mansoor SN, Yousaf O, Rahman SS. Comparison of learning styles among post graduate residents and full timespeciality clinicians pursuing higher education degree. Pak Armed Forces Med J2019; 69(4):887-93 15. Shukr I, Zainab R, Rana MH. Learning styles of postgraduate and under graduate medical students .JCPSP.2013,Vol23(1):25-30 16. Fatima SH, Hussain A, Naseem S, FatimaSR.different and dominant preferences of learning styles among undergraduate medical students from Islamabad and Gujranwala cities, Pakistan.2022.GJMS;20:4,172-177 17. Guraya SS, Guraya SY, Habib FA, Khoshhal KI. Learning styles of medical students at Taibah University: Trends and implications. J Res Med Sci. 2014 Dec; 19(12):1155-62. doi: 10.4103/1735- 1995.150455. PMID: 25709657; PMCID: PMC4333524. 18. Ahmed A, Wojcik EM, AnanthanarayananV, Mulder L ,Mirza KM. Learning style in pathology :A comparative Analysis and implications of Learner centred Education .Academic pathology;6:2019 19. Gokalp M-The effect of student’s learning styles to their academic success-Success creative education 2013; 46:728-737 20. AdesunloyeBA , Aladesanm Oi, Henriques M- Forsythe, Ivonye C The preferred learning style among residents and faculty members of an internal medicine residency program J Natl Med Assoc.2008 Feb;100(2):172-5. 21. Uraiqat A, Rubeihat H, Alsudi M, Amireh A. Surgeons ‘Learning style in comparison to their Medical colleagues .JRMS December2015 ;22(4):24- 30. 22. Engels PT, Gara CD. Learning styles of medical students, general surgeryResidents and general surgeons:Implication for surgical education .BMCMedical education 2010,10:15. 23. Rasool GH, Rawaf S, .Learning style preferences of under graduate nursing students .Nursing standard 2007 ;24:21(32) . 24. Austin F, Clos SJ, Hughes N. The self-reported leaning style preferences of females, Macmillan clinical nurse specialist .Nurse Edu Today 2006;26(6):475-8319. 25. Ardila CM, Goméz-Restrepo AM, Echeverri- Restrepo C. Learning Styles of Students and Professors of a Dental School in Latin America: A Cross-Sectional Study. Global Journal of Health Science. 2019 Nov 20; 11(13):104 26. Scott Collins S, Nanda S, Brian A. Palmer, Arya B. Mohabbat, Cathy D. Schleck, Jayawant N. Mandrekar, Saswati Mahapatra, Thomas J. Beckman & Christopher M. Wittich (2019) A cross-sectional study of learning styles among continuing medical education participants, Medical Teacher, 41:3, 318- 324, DOI: 10.1080/0142159X.2018.1464134. 27. Amponsah, S. Exploring the dominant learning styles of adult learners in higher education. Int Rev Educ 66, 531–550 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-020-09845-yEubank TF, Pitts J.A comparison of Learning styles across the decades .Optometric education 2011.Vol 36.2/winter/spring 28. Eubank TF, Pitts J.A comparison of Learning styles across the decades .Optometric education 2011.Vol 36.2/winter/springLewis AP, Bolden KJ. General practitioners and their learning styles. Journal of Royal College of general practitioners, 1989, 39:187- 189. 29. Lewis AP, Bolden KJ. General practitioners and their learning styles. Journal of Royal College of general practitioners, 1989, 39:187-189.McCall L, Klien B, Piterman L, Lam TP. Learning style preferences for HongKong GPs recruited in distance learning course.HK Pract2005;27 :261-267. 30. McCall L, Klien B, Piterman L, Lam TP. Learning style preferences for Hong Kong GPs recruited in distance learning course.HK Pract2005;27 :261-31. 31. .Lesmes-Anel J, Robinson G Moody S Learning preferences and learning styles: a study of Wessex general practice registrars. British Journal of GeneralPractice 2001; 51 (468): 559-564. Corresponding Author: Prof (Brig R). Dr. Muhammad AtiqueSI(M), Chairman /Professor of Pathology, Department of Pathology, Pakistan Kidney & Liver Institute & Research Centre (PKLI), Lahore. Email: muhammad.atique@pkli.org.pk