Impact of Learning Style on Medical Students' Satisfaction With Hands-On Procedural Training

Introduction Hands-on procedural training is a cornerstone of medical education, yet little is known about how individual learning styles influence students' perceived relevance of procedural training. We explored the impact of learning styles on pre-clerkship medical students' perceptions of hands-on procedural training. Materials and methods A total of 151 pre-clerkship medical students (72% response rate; 66 males, 85 females) participated in an optional procedural training day comprising three one-hour workshops covering 22 different procedures. Participants completed an exit survey assessing their learning style per Kolb's Experiential Learning Styles (Accommodating, Assimilating, Converging, and Diverging) and satisfaction with the training, including engagement, enjoyment, and effect on their career outlook. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's honestly significant difference post hoc test were used to compare satisfaction levels of students based on learning style. Results The 151 survey respondents comprised 34 Accommodating (23%), 25 Assimilating (17%), 66 Converging (44%), and 26 Diverging learners (17%). Across all learning styles, students averaged high scores for satisfaction, with the mean exceeding 6 on a 7-point Likert scale for engagement, enjoyment, and future career outlook. Between learning groups, Assimilating and Accommodating learners reported the highest enjoyment scores, while Diverging learners reported lower enjoyment compared to these groups (p<0.05). No statistically significant differences were observed between learning styles for engagement or future career outlook. Students who attended sessions aligned with their preferred specialty reported higher satisfaction, particularly among Accommodating, Converging, and Diverging learners (p<0.01). While Kolb's Experiential Learning Model provided a framework for exploring learner variation, its limitations are recognized, and unmeasured factors such as prior procedural experience or baseline interest may have influenced satisfaction. The absolute differences between groups, however, were small, suggesting limited practical or educational significance despite statistical significance. Conclusions Hands-on procedural training was well-received by pre-clerkship students across all Kolb learning styles, with consistently high satisfaction scores. While some statistically significant differences in enjoyment emerged between learner groups, these differences were small and unlikely to warrant substantial modification of current instructional approaches. This study contributes to the limited literature on how learning styles influence early procedural medical education, suggesting that hands-on procedural training can serve diverse learning styles effectively without extensive adaptation. Future research may explore whether incorporating minor reflective elements could further optimize engagement for certain learner groups.