Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 414

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Gender differences in learning style preferences among undergraduate physiology students

Wehrwein, Erica A., Lujan, Heidi L., DiCarlo, Stephen E.·2007·Advances in Physiology Education

Abstract

Students have individual learning style preferences including visual (V; learning from graphs, charts, and flow diagrams), auditory (A; learning from speech), read-write (R; learning from reading and writing), and kinesthetic (K; learning from touch, hearing, smell, taste, and sight). These preferences can be assessed using the VARK questionnaire. We administered the VARK questionnaire to undergraduate physiology majors enrolled in a capstone physiology laboratory at Michigan State University; 48 of the 86 students (55.8%) who returned the completed questionnaire voluntarily offered gender information. The responses were tallied and assessed for gender difference in learning style preference; 54.2% of females and only 12.5% of males preferred a single mode of information presentation. Among the female students, 4.2% of the students preferred V, 0% of the students preferred A, 16.7% of the students preferred printed words (R), and 33.3% of the students preferred using all their senses (K). In contrast, male students were evenly distributed in preference, with 4.2% of the students preferring A, R, or K, respectively, while 0% of the students preferred V. Furthermore, 45.8% of female and 87.5% of male respondents preferred multiple modes [female: 2 modes (12.5%), 3 modes (12.5%), and 4 modes (20.8%); males: 2 modes (16.7%), 3 modes (12.5%), and 4 modes (58.3%)] of presentation. In summary, a majority of male students preferred multimodal instruction, specifically, four modes (VARK), whereas a majority of female students preferred single-mode instruction with a preference toward K. Thus, male and female students have significantly different learning styles. It is the responsibility of the instructor to address this diversity of learning styles and develop appropriate learning approaches.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1152/advan.00060.2006

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Metadata

Authors
Wehrwein, E. A., Lujan, H. L., & DiCarlo, S. E.
Venue
Advances in Physiology Education
Published
2007-06
Volume
31
Issue
2
Pages
153-157
ISSN
  • 1043-4046 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-1229
OpenAlex
W2122105694
Cited by
414
References
1
FWCI
21.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.