Typology of learning styles in medical students: a systematic review of 33 countries

Understanding students' learning styles is crucial for guiding the teaching–learning process according to their individual needs and preferences, and for creating effective pedagogical situations. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to identify learning styles in medical students. In this systematic review, three databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) were searched without time limits, and 123 study titles were selected for analysis. This study used the PRISMA framework for a systematic and rigorous search. The quality of studies was assessed using the AXIS. A total of 123 studies, including 32,599 participants (students) from 33 countries globally, were analyzed. The largest number of studies was conducted in India, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the United States. In terms of methodology, the majority of studies (58.6%) were cross-sectional. Studies have mainly used 5 models to identify students' learning styles, among which the VARK model was the most common. The most common learning style among students was Multimodal. Unimodal, convergent, assimilator, and visual learning styles were also among the most common learning styles among students, respectively. The results showed that students' greatest preference was for learning through a multimodal style. Students who use multiple senses and skills in the learning process are likely to have a higher academic success rate than other students. A systematic review of the literature related to this study emphasizes the importance of following instructional design principles and embracing diverse methods for delivering content to students. Therefore, rather than categorizing students by their learning styles, university professors should focus on multimodal teaching. This approach ensures that complex material is accessible and understandable for all learners. Studying learning styles in the future based on new research approaches can help to better and more accurately understand this concept. The study's limitations included a lack of meta-analysis, language bias, publication bias, and heterogeneity of models.