Skip to main content

Do Medical Students’ Learning Styles and Approaches Explain Their Views and Behavior Regarding Lecture Attendance?



Medical students’ attendance at lectures, particularly in the preclinical years, has been steadily declining over the years. One of the many explanations offered for this observation is that students have different learning styles and approaches, such that not all of them benefit from attending lectures; however, no studies have specifically examined this possibility. While there is evidence against learning styles as affecting objective measures of learning, they are associated with subjective measures of learning and may therefore influence student behavior. We hypothesized that students’ learning styles and/or approaches influence their views about the value and purpose of lectures and their motivation to attend them, which, in turn will affect their behavior.

Materials and Methods

A LimeSurvey was distributed to all preclinical students at the American University of Beirut. The survey included questions about demographic data, self-reported attendance rates in Year 1 of medical school, two validated and standardized questionnaires assessing the students’ learning styles (visual, auditory, kinesthetic, tactile, group, individual) and learning approaches (superficial, deep, strategic), and a series of questions exploring the students’ views about the purpose and value of lectures and their motivation to attend lectures.


No associations were found between learning styles or approaches and attendance rates, but this may have been confounded by the mandatory attendance policy at the time. There were, however, a few positive associations between some learning styles or approaches and the students’ views about the value of attending lectures. In particular, students with high scores as auditory learners tended to see absolutely no value in attending lectures, and those with high scores as group, auditory or visual learners, tended to see less value in taking their own notes in lectures. Students with superficial approaches to learning felt that watching videos of a lecture provides equivalent education to attending a lecture. There were no statistically significant associations with either the perceived purpose of lectures or the motivation to attend lectures after correction for multiple testing.


This study reveals that except for some interesting findings related to auditory learners, differences in learning styles or approaches among students cannot adequately explain differences in their attitudes, and likely, behavior, regarding lecture attendance. The idea that learning styles and approaches can influence educational preferences and outcomes, while attractive and intuitive, continues to require supporting evidence.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Availability of Data and Material

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.


  1. 1.

    Zazulia AR, Goldhoff P. Faculty and medical student attitudes about preclinical classroom attendance. Teach Learn Med. 2014;26(4):327–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Persky AM, Kirwin JL, Marasco CJ, May DB, Skomo ML, Kennedy KB. Classroom attendance: factors and perceptions of studens and faculty in US schools of pharmacy. Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2014;6:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Ruth-Sahd LA, Schneider MA. Faculty and student perceptions about attendance policies in baccalaureate nursing programs. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2014;35(3):162–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Pettit RK, McCoy L, Kinney M. What millennial medical students say about flipped learning. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2017;8:487–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Evans KH, Ozdalga E, Ahuja N. The medical education of generation Y. Acad Psychiatry. 2016;40(2):382–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Spencer JA, Jordan RK. Learner centred approaches in medical education. BMJ. 1999;318(7193):1280–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Mehta NB, Hull AL, Young JB, Stoller JK. Just imagine: new paradigms for medical education. Acad Med. 2013;88(10):1418–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Prober CG, Khan S. Medical education reimagined: a call to action. Acad Med. 2013;88(10):1407–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Prober CG, Heath C. Lecture halls without lectures–a proposal for medical education. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(18):1657–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Han H, Resch DS, Kovach RA. Educational technology in medical education. Teach Learn Med. 2013;25(Suppl 1):S39–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    The University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine. Active learning. 2019 [cited 2019 Apr 1].

  12. 12.

    Tokumitsu M. In defense of the lecture. Jacobin magazine. 2017 February 26 [cited 2019 Apr 1].

  13. 13.

    Small A. In defense of the lecturer. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 2014 May 27 [cited 2019 Apr 1].

  14. 14.

    Furedi F. In praise of the university lecture and its place in academic scholarship. The Guardian. 2013 December 10 [cited 2019 Apr 1].

  15. 15.

    Kotsko A. A defense of the lecture. Inside Higher Education. 2009 November 20 [cited 2019 Apr 1].

  16. 16.

    Fulford AA, Mahon A. A philosophical defence of the traditional lecture. Times Higher Education. 2018 April 28.

  17. 17.

    Demir EA, Tutuk O, Dogan H, Egeli D, Tumer C. Lecture attendance improves success in medical physiology. Adv Physiol Educ. 2017;41(4):599–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Subramaniam B, Hande S, Komattil R. Attendance and achievement in medicine: investigating the impact of attendance policies on academic performance of medical students. Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2013;3(2):202–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Deane RP, Murphy DJ. Student attendance and academic performance in undergraduate obstetrics/gynecology clinical rotations. JAMA. 2013;310(21):2282–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Eisen DB, Schupp CW, Isseroff RR, Ibrahimi OA, Ledo L, Armstrong AW. Does class attendance matter? Results from a second-year medical school dermatology cohort study. Int J Dermatol. 2015;54(7):807–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Moro C, Mclean M. Supporting students’ transition to university and problem-based learning. Med Sci Educ. 2017;27:353–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Anderson HG Jr, Frazier L, Anderson SL, Stanton R, Gillette C, Broedel-Zaugg K, et al. Comparison of pharmaceutical calculations learning outcomes achieved within a traditional lecture or flipped classroom andragogy. Am J Pharm Educ. 2017;81(4):70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Belfi LM, Bartolotta RJ, Giambrone AE, Davi C, Min RJ. “Flipping” the introductory clerkship in radiology: impact on medical student performance and perceptions. Acad Radiol. 2015;22(6):794–801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Gillette C, Rudolph M, Kimble C, Rockich-Winston N, Smith L, Broedel-Zaugg K. A meta-analysis of outcomes comparing flipped classroom and lecture. Am J Pharm Educ. 2018;82(5):6898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Chen F, Lui AM, Martinelli SM. A systematic review of the effectiveness of flipped classrooms in medical education. Med Educ. 2017;51(6):585–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Billings-Gagliardi S, Mazor KM. Student decisions about lecture attendance: do electronic course materials matter? Acad Med. 2007;82(10 Suppl):S73–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Mattick K, Crocker G, Bligh J. Medical student attendance at non-compulsory lectures. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2007;12(2):201–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Ahmed T, Shaheen A, Azam F. How undergraduate medical students reflect on instructional practices and class attendance: a case study from the Shifa College of Medicine. Pakistan J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2015;12:7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Bati AH, Mandiracioglu A, Orgun F, Govsa F. Why do students miss lectures? A study of lecture attendance amongst students of health science. Nurse Educ Today. 2013;33(6):596–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Gupta A, Saks NS. Exploring medical student decisions regarding attending live lectures and using recorded lectures. Med Teach. 2013;35(9):767–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Olanipekun T, Effoe V, Bakinde N, Bradley C, Ivonye C, Harris R. Learning styles of internal medicine residents and association with the in-training examination performance. J Natl Med Assoc. 2020;112(1):44–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Koohestani HR, Baghcheghi N. A comparison of learning styles of undergraduate health-care professional students at the beginning, middle, and end of the educational course over a 4-year study period (2015–2018). J Educ Health Promot. 2020;9:208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Childs-Kean L, Edwards M, Smith MD. Use of learning style frameworks in health science education. Am J Pharm Educ. 2020 Jul;84(7):ajpe7885.

  34. 34.

    Lau JN. A commentary on teaching and learning styles as fueled by “how learning preferences and teaching styles influence effectiveness of surgical educators.” Am J Surg. 2021;221(2):254–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Walsh P, Owen PA, Mustafa N, Beech R. Learning and teaching approaches promoting resilience in student nurses: an integrated review of the literature. Nurse Educ Pract. 2020 May;45:102748.

  36. 36.

    Reid JM. The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quaterly. 1987;21(1):87–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Lujan HL, DiCarlo SE. First-year medical students prefer multiple learning styles. Adv Physiol Educ. 2006;30(1):13–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Ojeh N, Sobers-Grannum N, Gaur U, Udupa A, Majumder MAA. Learning style preferences: a study of pre-clinical medical students in Barbados. J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2017;5(4):185–94.

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Sarabi-Asiabar A, Jafari M, Sadeghifar J, Tofighi S, Zaboli R, Peyman H, et al. The relationship between learning style preferences and gender, educational major and status in first year medical students: a survey study from iran. Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2015 Jan;17(1):e18250.

  40. 40.

    Urval RP, Kamath A, Ullal S, Shenoy AK, Shenoy N, Udupa LA. Assessment of learning styles of undergraduate medical students using the VARK questionnaire and the influence of sex and academic performance. Adv Physiol Educ. 2014;38(3):216–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Pashler H, McDaniel M, Rohrer D, Bjork R. Learning styles: concepts and evidence. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2008;9(3):105–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Rohrer D, Pashler H. Learning styles: where’s the evidence? Med Educ. 2012;46(7):634–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Husmann PR, O’Loughlin VD. Another nail in the coffin for learning styles? Disparities among undergraduate anatomy students’ study strategies, class performance, and reported VARK learning styles. Anat Sci Educ. 2019;12(1):6–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Horton DM, Wiederman SD, Saint DA. Assessment outcome is weakly correlated with lecture attendance: influence of learning style and use of alternative materials. Adv Physiol Educ. 2012;36(2):108–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Constantinidou F, Baker S. Stimulus modality and verbal learning performance in normal aging. Brain Lang. 2002;82(3):296–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Massa LJ, Mayer RE. Testing the ATI hypothesis: should multimedia instruction accomodate verbalizer-visualizer cognitive style? Learn Individ Differ. 2006;16:321–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Rogowsky BA, Calhoum BM, Tallal P. Matching learning style to instructional method: effects on comprehension. J Educ Psychol. 2015;107(1):64–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Cook DA, Thompson WG, Thomas KG, Thomas MR. Lack of interaction between sensing-intuitive learning styles and problem-first versus information-first instruction: a randomized crossover trial. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2009;14(1):79–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Newton PM. The learning styles myth is thriving in higher education. Front Psychol. 2015;6:1908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Kirschner PA. Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Comput Educ. 2017;106:166–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Knoll AR, Otani H, Skeel RL, Van Horn KR. Learning style, judgements of learning, and learning of verbal and visual information. Br J Psychol. 2017;108(3):544–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Entwistle NJ, Waterson S. Approaches to studying and levels of processing in university students. Br J Educ Psychol. 1988;58:258–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Speth CA, Namuth DM, Lee DJ. Using the ASSIST short form for evaluating an information technology application: validity and reliability issues. Informing science journal. 2007;10:107–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Mirghani HM, Ezimokhai M, Shaban S, van Berkel HJ. Superficial and deep learning approaches among medical students in an interdisciplinary integrated curriculum. Educ Health (Abingdon ). 2014;27(1):10–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Chonkar SP, Ha TC, Chu SSH, Ng AX, Lim MLS, Ee TX, et al. The predominant learning approaches of medical students. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Ferguson E, James D, Madeley L. Factors associated with success in medical school: systematic review of the literature. BMJ. 2002;324(7343):952–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Feeley AM, Biggerstaff DL. Exam success at undergraduate and graduate-entry medical schools: is learning style or learning approach more important? A critical review exploring links between academic success, learning styles, and learning approaches among school-leaver entry ("traditional ") and graduate-entry (“nontraditional”) medical students. Teach Learn Med. 2015;27(3):237–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Baykan Z, Nacar M. Learning styles of first-year medical students attending Erciyes University in Kayseri. Turkey Adv Physiol Educ. 2007;31(2):158–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors wish to thank students who responded to the LimeSurvey.

Author information



Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Ramzi Sabra or Nathalie K. Zgheib.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 73 KB)

Supplementary file2 (DOCX 195 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mokahal, A.E., Ahmad, A., Habib, J.R. et al. Do Medical Students’ Learning Styles and Approaches Explain Their Views and Behavior Regarding Lecture Attendance?. Med.Sci.Educ. 31, 1693–1702 (2021).

Download citation


  • Medical students
  • Classroom
  • Attendance
  • Learning styles
  • Learning approaches