The Relationship between Kolb Learning Style and Academic Performances in Orthopedic Residents

Le résumé fourni par la source

Objective: The assimilating and converging Kolb learning style were reported to have positive correlation with critical thinking ability in Orthopedic resident. However, the relationship between Kolb learning styles and academic performance remained controversy. The objective of this study is to report the relationship between Kolb learning style and academic performance in Orthopedic residents. Materials and Methods: The causal comparative cross-sectional study on 48 Orthopedic residents of academic year 2020 was conducted. The demographic characteristics of the participants were reviewed. The scores from the multiple choices question (MCQ) in-training examination, the objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) and the global performance rating scale were collected to represent academic performances of each Miller’s pyramid of assessment level. The Kolb learning style inventory were allocated. The statistical analysis was performed and p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant difference. Results: The response rate was 100%. There was no statistically significant difference of MCQ in-training examination, OSCE and global performance rating scale among each learning style as p=0.789, 0.493 and 0.407, respectively. The assimilating and converging styles were the 2 learning styles which had the academic performance scores above the average scores in all assessments. Conclusion: This study could not demonstrate the significant difference of academic performances among Kolb learning style in Orthopedic residents. However, the assimilating and converging style had the consistent scores above average scores in all domains. The Orthopedic learning experience should focus on the development of reflective observation, abstract conceptualization and active experimentation to facilitate effective improvement in academic performance of the residents.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.