Impact of learning‐style‐based education on student performance and perception in preclinical endodontics

Abstract

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: This study sought to assess the predominant learning mode of second-year dental students, investigate the possible relationship between learning mode, age, and gender, and evaluate if there are quantitative and qualitative differences in predoctoral endodontic lab performance/student perception when learning-mode-specific materials are provided. METHODS: Study participants were 101 dental students from Marquette University. Student learning mode was derived from the Kolb's Learning Style Inventory (LSI) 4.0 and students were assigned to one of three groups: (1) learning-mode-aligned supplemental material, (2) unaligned supplemental material, or (3) no supplemental material. Performance on non-surgical root canal treatment of typodont tooth #9 was collected over two lab exercises, with supplemental material provided in between exercises. Students responded to a satisfaction survey at the study's conclusion. The responses for three groups of learning mode were compared using analysis of variance for continuous numeric variables followed by Bonferroni test for multiple comparison. Categorical variables were compared using chi square and/or Fisher exact tests. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference between learning modes (p < 0.001). No association was found between gender or age and learning mode preference. Comparing score change between lab exercises, mean score improvement was highest for Group 1 (p < 0.05). While all students valued receiving supplemental learning materials, students provided with aligned materials reported statistically significantly higher perception of the materials' role in their improved performance/heightened understanding. CONCLUSION: Providing supplemental material aligned with students' learning mode significantly improved their learning experience objectively and subjectively.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 21 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.