A Comparative Study to Assess the Learning Styles and Approaches among Male and Female Students of Selected Colleges in Mangalore

Jayamohan P S¹, Mr. Shivakumara J²

¹2^nd Year MSc Nursing, Department of Mental Health Nursing, Laxmi Memorial College of Nursing, Mangalore

²Associate Professor, Department of Mental Health Nursing, Laxmi Memorial College of Nursing, Mangalore

*Corresponding Author Email:

ABSTRACT:

Background: One of the most important characteristic of human being is their capacity to learn. Each one adopts a different style and approach in their learning. Gender differences also play an important role in the way people think and approaches learning.

Objectives: To determine learning styles among male and female students of selected colleges. To determine the learning approaches among male and female students of selected colleges. To compare learning styles and approaches between male and female students of selected colleges. To find the association between learning styles of male and female students and selected demographic variables. To find the association between learning approaches of male and female students and selected demographic variables.

Methodology: A Descriptive Research Design with comparative approach was used in the study.Sample consisted of 200 students (above the age of 18,) pursuing BSc Nursing and BPT in selected colleges at Mangalore of which 100 are males and 100 females. Multi Stage Dis-Proportionate Stratified Random Sampling Technique was used to collect the sample. The data collection tools were Demographic Proforma, Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students, and The Kolb Learning Style Inventory Version 3.1 (KLSI 3.1). The data was analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics.

Results: Majority of the sample (both male and female) were above the age group “21 and above”, were Christians and were interested in studies. More number of males used Divergent style (57%) as their learning Style and Deep approach (45%) as their learning approach where as in females, Divergent learning style (56%) and Strategic approach (50%). A significant difference was found in the learning approach (p=0.037%) of male and female students and significant association between learning approaches with Age (p=0.012) and Level of Interest (p=0.045) of male students was also found.

Conclusion: The result revealed that, there is a significant difference between the learning approach of male and female students.

KEY WORDS: Learning Style, Learning Approach, Deep Approach, Surface Apathetic Approach, Strategic Approach, Accommodating, Diverging, Assimilating, Converging.

INTRODUCTION:

During the last century we have moved from the ‘Industrial Age’ through the ‘Information Age’ to the ‘Knowledge Age’.

The ability to obtain, assimilate and apply the right knowledge effectively will still become a key in the next century. There are a whole range of factors that can help or hinder us in learning. They include factors within each of us - such as our motivation and our preferred learning styles - as well as external factors - such as the opportunities that exist for us to learn and the other demands that life makes on our time and resources. ¹ One of the most important characteristic of human being is their capacity to learn. An individual starts learning immediately after his birth or even earlier, in the womb of the mother. Our personality, habits, attitude interest, and character is largely the result of learning.¹

The challenge of imparting a large amount of knowledge within a limited time period in a way it is retained, remembered and effectively interpreted by a student is considerable. This has resulted in crucial changes in the field of medical education, with a shift from didactic teacher centred and subject based teaching to the use of interactive, problem based, student centered learning. This study tests the hypothesis that learning styles and approaches to learning differ among students, with accordance to their gender. ^{2, 3}

The term ‘learning style’ defined as different and unique ways used by individuals as they prepare to learn and recall information. (Dunn et al.) Educational theory suggests that clinical experience and success at examinations bears a relationship to learning styles.

Three different approaches to learning have been identified, viz., Deep Approach (DA), Surface Apathetic Approach (SAA) and Strategic Approach (SA). DA is an organized approach where emphasis is placed on understanding concepts and relating ideas, and is considered the preferred style of learning in university education. SAA, on the other hand, is syllabus bound superficial learning with emphasis on route memorization. SA students use either deep or superficial learning as appropriate for a particular topic, with the aim of achieving the highest possible grades. ⁴

Recent research with students higher education as subjects, has found these as the individual differences in the way people prefer to tackle learning task, the term learning styles refers to a general tendency to adopt a preferred strategy when learning a given task. For example: bridling, imaginary and taxonomic.⁵Boys and girls experience school in somewhat different ways, because their learning styles tend to differ somewhat. Although individual differences always trump gender-related differences, there are some differences between the ways boys and girls in under graduate classrooms behave that have implications for teaching and learning.⁶

The investigator during his undergraduate programme had observed his colleagues using different styles and approaches in learning. Everyone had their own learning styles and they were successful in their studies by following their own styles. He also noticed that the learning styles and approaches in boys and girls also vary. Thus the investigator felt to compare the learning styles and approaches among boys and girls, in order to obtain better outcome of educational endeavour.

METHODS:

A descriptive research design with a comparative approach was adopted to compare the learning styles and approaches between male and female students in selected collages in Mangalore.

‘Learning styles’ and ‘learning approaches’ are the two variables of the study. Age, religion, level of interest and course of study were included as the demographic variable for the study. The present study was conducted in two selected collages offering Nursing and Physiotherapy courses which includes Laxmi Memorial College of Nursing and Physiotherapy, Sreenivas College of Nursing and Physiotherapy. The study population would consist of students above the age of 18, pursuing BSc Nursing and BSc Physiotherapy in selected colleges at Mangalore. In this study, the sample comprises of 200 students from the selected colleges in Mangalore, of which 100 are males and 100 females. Multi stage dis-proportionate stratified random sampling technique was used to select the sample. The investigator used simple random sampling to select the colleges in Mangalore. Students who are studying, B. Sc Physiotherapy, B. Sc. Nursing in the selected colleges and Students who are present during data collection were the inclusion criteria. Students who are not willing to participate in study and Students who are studying other baccalaureate courses were set as exclusion criteria. The data collection tool used for this study was the Baseline Proforma, ASSIST Learning Approach Inventory and Kolbs Learning Style Inventory. Demographic proforma consisted of four items for obtaining information regarding age, religion, level of interest and course of study. It was validated by five experts, four from the field of Nursing and one from field of Psychology. Approaches and Study Skill Inventory for Students, is a standardized tool consisting of 52 items. Students respond to items on a 1 - 5 scale (5 high).The alpha co-efficient of the tool was: Deep-0.82, Surface-0.65, and Strategic- 0.83. Kolb’s learning Style Inventory is a standardized tool consisting of 12 sentences with a choice of endings. The Kappa co-efficient of the sample was found to be 0.86. The data collection period was scheduled for one month (1-10-13 to 31-10-13). Prior to the data collection permission was obtained from the concerned authority of the organization for conducting the study. Subjects were selected according to the selected criteria and confidentiality was assured. Informed consent was obtained from the sample. Kolbs Learning Styles Inventory was administered to assess the learning styles. ASSIST Inventory was administered to assess the learning approach. The investigator planned to analyze the data using both descriptive and inferential statistics on the basis of objectives and hypotheses of the study.

RESULTS:

The results are descriptive and inferential according to the objectives. Frequency and percentage distribution of demographic characteristics of the Male and female students are given in Table 1

Table 1: Frequency and percentage distribution of demographic characteristics of the Male and female student’s. N =200

Demographic variables	Male		Female
Demographic variables	Frequency(f)	Percentage (%)	Frequency(f)	Percentage (%)
Age
18	8	8	7	7
1. 19	11	11	9	9
2. 20	34	34	37	37
3. 21 and Above	47	47	47	47
Religion
1. Hindu	41	41	42	42
2. Christian	42	42	52	52
3. Muslim	17	17	6	6
4. Any other	0	0	0	0
Level of Interest
1. Interested	66	66	72	72
2. Somewhat interested	34	34	28	28
3. Not interested	0	0	0	0
Course of Study
1. BSc Physiotherapy	50	50	50	50
2. BSc Nursing	50	50	50	50

Table 2: Frequency and percentage distribution of the male and female student’s according to their Learning styles. N=200

Learning style	Male		Female
	Frequency(f)	Percentage(%)	Frequency(f)	Percentage (%)
Accommodating	16	16	11	11
Diverging	57	57	56	56
Assimilating	25	25	27	27
Converging	2	2	6	6

Table 3: Frequency and percentage distribution of the male and female student’s according to their learning approaches. N=200

Learning style	Male		Female
	Frequency(f)	Percentage(%)	Frequency(f)	Percentage (%)
Deep Approach	45	45	39	39
Strategic Approach	34	34	50	50
Surface Approach	21	21	11	11

Comparison of learning styles between male and female students show that there is no significant difference (p=0.390) between the male and female students learning style. The results are shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Chi- square test showing the comparison of learning styles between male and female students N=200

Variables	Chi- square value (χ²)	df	P- value	Inference
Learning styles	3.012	3	0.390	Not Significant

Comparison of learning approaches between male and female students showed that there is significant difference (p=0.037) between the learning approach among male and female students. The results are shown in Table 5

Table 5: Chi- square test showing the comparison of learning approaches between male and female students N=200

Variables	Chi- square value (χ²)	df	P- value	Inference
Learning Approach	6.601	2	0.037	Significant

Chi-Square test showing association between the learning style of male and female students and selected demographic variables show that there is no significant association between learning style of male and female students with the selected demographic variables.

Chi-Square test showing association between the learning approaches of male and female students and selected demographic variables shows that there is a significant association between learning approaches with Age (p=0.012) and Level of Interest (p=0.045) of male students.

DISCUSSION:

The findings of the study revealed that majority (Male-47%, Female-47%) of the sample were in the age group of “21 years and above” and the least percentage (Male-8%, Female-7%) belonged to 18 years. Highest percentage (Male-42%, Female-52%) of the sample was Christians and the least percentage (Male-17%, Female- 6%) was Muslims. In level of interest, 66% of the males and 72% of the females were interested, while 34% of the males and 28% of the females where somewhat interested. Half (50%) of the students were from BSc Physiotherapy and half (50%) of the students from BSc Nursing. The present study findings are almost consistent with a comparative study conducted to assess the learning styles and approaches to learning among first and final year undergraduate medical students, and postgraduate’s medical trainees of National Hospital, Colombo, Sri Lanka. In the study, out of 147 participants - 73 (49.7%) was first year students, 40 (27.2%) was final year students and 34(23.1%) was postgraduate students. The majority of the samples were Muslims (69%).⁷ Another study was conducted to analyse the change in epistemological beliefs and learning approaches in secondary students as they progress through their studies and to examine the effects of epistemological beliefs on learning approaches, and learning approaches on academic performance. About 1,600 Spanish students, boys and girls, from several secondary schools were the samples for the study. They were between 12 and 20 years old and their average age was 14.79 years. Highest percentage of the subjects (69%) was “interested” in studies. ⁸This study findings and current study findings are consistent.

The present study results show that majority of the students (Males-57%, Females-56%) used diverging learning style and around a quarter of students (Males-25%, Females- 27%) used Assimilating Learning style. When 16% of the males and 11% of the female students used Accommodating learning style, only a few (Male- 2%, Female -6%) used Converging learning style. A similar descriptive analytical study was conducted to assess the medical student’s preferred learning styles on 296 students at Isfahan Medical Science University. The sample was collected randomly and tools were KOLB LSI Questionnaire. The study results shows that 21.50% preferred the accommodators style, 29.44% diverger style, 23.25% converger style and 25.81% the assimilator style as a preferred style of learning.⁹ The current study findings and this study finding are almost consistent. Another, a cross-sectional study was conducted to assess the learning styles of first years under graduate nursing and midwifery students on 345 students (N=345) in selected college of nursing in Australia. A cross-sectional survey including demographic questionnaire and the KOLBS Learning style inventory was used. The majority of first year students investigated in the study were Diverges. (29.5%) followed by assimilators (28.8%) accommodators (23.9%) and converges (17.97%).¹⁰The current study findings and this study finding are consistent.

In the present study, the result showed that majority (45%) of the male students used deep approach as a learning approach. About (34%) of them used strategic approach, only (21%) of the sample used surface approach, where as in female students majority (50%) of them used strategic approach. About (39%) of them used deep approach, only (11%) of them used surface approach as their learning approach. The findings is consistent to a study conducted to investigate the approaches to study and learning of nursing and midwifery students at a school of nursing and midwifery in Iran. Results show that sixty-four per cent of nursing and 63% of midwifery students adopted a deep approach. The use of a surface approach was negatively correlated to the stage of study for midwifery but not nursing students.¹¹ A descriptive exploratory study conducted to assess the nursing student’s styles and approaches to learning on 53 final year nursing students in a selected college of Nursing. Modified Tait and Entwistle Learnig Approach Inventory was used to conduct the study. 24(45.3%), 23(43.4%) and 6 (11.3%) used deep, strategic and surface approach to learn nursing respectively. Significant association existed between level of interest and learning approach at 9<.001 (X²=11.34). ¹². The findings were almost consistent with the present study findings.

The study result show that there is no significant difference (p=0.390) between the learning styles of males and females. The result also showed that there is significant difference (p=0.037) between the learning approach in males and females. Results of this study is consistent with a similar study conducted on gender and learning styles of students, 18 and older, conducted after 1980. This location indicates the strong influence of learning context on women's and men's learning styles. A Quantitative meta-analysis was done with two instruments (Kolb's Learning Style Inventory and Entwistle's Approaches to Studying Inventory) to determine the direction and magnitude of gender differences in various samples. On Kolb's instrument, the results showed that men were more likely than women to prefer the abstract conceptualisation mode of learning. On Entwistle's ASI a difference was found on the affective components of approaches to studying.^13. Another similar comparative study was conducted to assess the learning styles and approaches to learning among first and final year undergraduate medical students, and postgraduates medical trainees of National Hospital, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Results shows that a total of 147 participated: 73 (49.7%) first year students, 40 (27.2%) final year students and 34(23.1%) postgraduate students. The majority (69.9%) of first year students had multimodal learning styles. Among final year students, the majority (67.5%) had multimodal learning styles, and among postgraduates, the majority were unimodal (52.9%) learners. Among all three groups, the predominant approach to learning was strategic. Postgraduates had significant higher mean scores for deep and strategic approaches than first years or final years (p <0.05). Mean scores for the superficial approach did not differ significantly between groups. The learning approaches suggest a positive shift towards deep and strategic learning in postgraduate students.⁷

According to the current study findings, there is no significant association between learning style of male and female with the selected demographic variables. The results of the present study is found almost consistent with a descriptive study carried out to obtain information on learning styles and preferences for teaching of fourth semester medical students and note the association, if any, between respondents' personal characteristics and preferences for learning styles and types of teaching in Department of Pharmacology, Manipal College of Medical Sciences, Nepal. There was no association between surface learning and age, religion and marks obtained in the final examination.¹⁴The findings can again be discussed with a longitudinal study of the learning styles of one cohort of undergraduate pre-registration nursing students at an Irish university. There was a significant relationship between some learning styles and students' age but not with academic achievement.¹⁵Current study findings and this study findings are not consistent.

The present study results indicates that there is a significant association between learning approaches with Age (p=0.012) and Level of Interest (p=0.045) of male students. But there is no significant association between the learning style and other demographic variables. A similar study was conducted to investigate the approaches to study and learning of nursing and midwifery students at a school of nursing and midwifery in Iran. Results show that sixty-four per cent of nursing and 63% of midwifery students adopted a deep approach. The use of a surface approach was negatively correlated to the stage of study for midwifery but not nursing students. There was also a statistically significant positive correlation between level of interest in the field of study and use of strategic approach for both nursing and midwifery students.¹¹The current study findings are almost consistent with this study findings. The findings can also be correlated to a longitudinal study conducted on approaches to learning by undergraduate students to determine if the success of students at a highly selective combined baccalaureate/MD degree program is affected by their different approaches to learning. It appears there are some relationships between approaches to learning and success in the program. This association between learning styles and success also appears to be related to gender differences.¹⁶

CONCLUSION:

The following conclusions were drawn on the basis of the findings of the study. Majority of the students used a Diverging Learning Styles, and the least percentage used a Converging Learning Style. Majority of the Male students used a Deep Learning Approach and most of the female students used a Strategic Learning Approach. The least percentage used a Surface Learning Approach. There is a significant difference between the learning approach in males and females, but there is no significant difference between the learning styles of males and females. There is no significant association between the demographic variables like age, religion, level of interest and course of study with learning styles of male and female students. There is a significant association between the demographic variables like age and level of interest with learning approaches of male students, but there was no association found between the demographic variables like age and level of interest with learning approaches of female students. There is no significant association between the demographic variables like religion and course of study with learning styles of male and female students.

REFERENCES:

1. Felder RM, Brent R. Understanding Student Differences. J Engr Education. 2005; 94(1): 57-72.

2. Marton F, Saljo R. On qualitative differences in learning. I – Outcome and Process. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 1976; 46: 4-11.

3. James W, Gardner D. Learning styles: Implications for distance learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education. 1995; 67: 54-57

4. Pask G. Styles and strategies of learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 1976; 46:128-48.

5. Learning style types. [home page on internet] 2012 Jul [cited 2011 Dec]. Available from: URL:http://homeworktips/learning style.htm

6. Laurillard D. The process of student learning higher education. 1979; 8: 395-409.

7. Samarakoon L, Fernando T, Rodrigo C. Learning styles and approaches to learning among medical undergraduates and postgraduates. BMC Med Educ. 2013 Mar 25;13:42.

8. Psicologia F. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2005 Jun; 75(2): 203-21. 37

9. Newble DI, Entwistle NJ. Learning styles and approaches: implication for medical education. 1986; 20:162-70.

10. Tait, Entwistle. Identifying student at risk through ineffective study strategies, Nursing Journal: Aug 2010:12 , 99-118

11. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2006 May; 54(3):351-8.

12. Learning Style Preferences among Nursing Students (Internet) 2009 March. [Cited on Dec 2011] ; Available from http://www.Sid.irton

13. Sabine E. Severiens, Geert T. M. Ten Dam. Gender differences in learning styles: A narrative review and quantitative meta-analysis. Higher Education. June 1994; Volume 27, Issue 4: 487-501

14. Shankar PR, Dubey AK, Binu VS, Subish P, Deshpande VY. Learning styles of preclinical students in a medical college in western Nepal. Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ). 2006 Jul-Sep; 4(3):390-5.

15. Nurse Education Today. 2011 Jul;67: 444-9.

16. Duckwall M, Arnold L, Hayes J. Research in Higher Education 1991; 32(1): 1-13.

Received on 26.06.2014 Modified on 02.07.2014

Asian J. Nur. Edu. & Research 4(3): July- Sept., 2014; Page 365-369