The learning styles of graduating Canadian urology residents
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.9291Keywords:
Education, learning style, urology residents, curriculumAbstract
INTRODUCTION: The Kolb learning theory attributes differences in the way people learn with the way they perceive and process an experience, leading to uniquely different learning styles. Studied in other surgical disciplines, it has yet to be examined in a urology population. Identifying the learning style of urology residents may help in the development of teaching curricula that are best suited to knowledge and skill acquisition. The objective of this study was to characterize the learning styles of graduating Canadian urology residents attending the Queen’s Urology Exam Skill Training (QUEST) examination.
METHODS: The Kolb Experiential Learning Profile (KELP) 4.0 questionnaire was administered to all graduating Canadian urological residents attending QUEST for the years 2021- 24. Project participation was 100%. All participants received a report at the conclusion of the course. Participants’ preferred learning phase (acting, thinking, reflecting, experiencing) and a specific learning style (deciding, analyzing, thinking, acting, initiating, balancing, reflecting, experiencing, imagining) were identified for all residents. Preferred learning phase and learning style were compared among years using the Chi-squared test (a=0.05). Preferred learning phase and learning style were compared among self-identified gender using the Fisher-Freeman-Halton exact test (a=0.05).
RESULTS: Graduates from 2021 (n=35), 2022 (n=29), 2023 (n=37), and 2024 (n=35) were included. In aggregate, the preferred learning phases among urology residents included thinking (38%, n=51), followed closely by acting (32%, n=44). A minority of urology residents preferred the reflecting (21%, n=28) and experiencing phase (10%, n=13). There were no significant differences year to year within an individual learning phase (p>0.05). In aggregate, the most common preferred learning styles included the deciding learning style (21%, n=29), followed by analyzing (15%, n=20), thinking (14%, n=19), acting (13%, n=18), and initiating (13%, n=18). Less common learning styles included balancing (11%, n=15), reflecting (7%, n=10), imagining (3%, n=4), and experiencing (2%, n=3). There were no significant differences year to year within an individual learning style (p>0.05). There were no significant differences between self-identified gender and preferred learning phase or style (p>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Graduating Canadian urology residents vary in their preferred learning styles, but the majority seem to learn by acting and thinking. A non-trivial number of learners displayed learning styles underrepresented in surgical specialties. This lays the groundwork for future studies correlating learning style to exam performance and identifying predictors of successful completion of residency.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:
- Post the Article on any Web site
- Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
- Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
- Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.
The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.
You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.
The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:
- That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
- That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
- That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
- That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.







