Figure 4.1: VARK questionnaire responses
Fig 4.1 above reveals the tallied responses for each of the major sensory modalities (V, A, R or K) describing their preferred responses to the situation presented in the questionnaire.
Table 4.1 Possible combinations of VARK modes
Single Mode
|
Multimode
|
|
Dual Mode
|
Trimode
|
Quadrimode
|
V (Visual)
|
VA
|
VAR
|
VARK
|
A (Aural)
|
VR
|
VAK
|
|
R (Read/Write
|
VK
|
ARK
|
|
K (Kinesthetic)
|
AR
|
VRK
|
|
|
AK
|
|
|
|
RK
|
|
|
Table 4.1 shows the possible combinations of the only 15 styles considered in our study ignoring the mild, strong and very strong categories in the unimodal learning style.
Figure 4.2: Pictorial presentation of the distribution of participants' VARK learning style preferences
Fig 4.2 shows that among the 31 participants, 58.1% preferred the multimodal style of learning. Out of that, dual, trimodal and quadrimodal were preferred by 9.7%, 22.6%, and 25.8% respectively. The remaining 41.9% preferred unimodal styles.
Table 4.2: Overall distribution of participants’ VARK learning preferences
Preferred mode
|
Number (n)
|
Percentage (%)
|
Single Mode
|
13
|
41.9
|
Multimodal
|
18
|
58.1
|
Quadrimode
|
8
|
25.8
|
Trimode
|
7
|
22.6
|
Dual mode
|
3
|
9.7
|
Source: Field data (2020)
Table 4.2 shows the overall distribution of student VARK learning preferences. Out of the total of N= 31 participants, 18 participants (58.1%) preferred multimodal style of learning. Out of the18 multimodal, dual, trimodal and quadrimodal were preferred by 3 (9.7%), 7 (22.6%) and 8 (25.8%) respectively. The remaining 13 students (41.9%) preferred unimodal styles.
Table 4.3: Participants’ distribution with subgroups of VARK learning styles
Single Mode
|
Number
(n)
|
%
|
Dual Mode
|
Number
(n)
|
%
|
Trimode
|
Number(n)
|
%
|
Quadrimode
|
Number (n)
|
%
|
V
|
0
|
0
|
VA
|
0
|
0
|
VAR
|
0
|
0
|
VARK
|
8
|
25.8
|
A
|
1
|
3.2
|
VR
|
0
|
0
|
VAK
|
3
|
9.7
|
|
|
|
R
|
5
|
16.1
|
VK
|
0
|
0
|
ARK
|
4
|
12.9
|
|
|
|
K
|
7
|
22.6
|
AR
|
0
|
0
|
VRK
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AK
|
2
|
6.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RK
|
1
|
3.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Field data (2020)
Table 4.3 shows the total number per sub-groupings under the VARK categories.
Table 4.4: Parametric scores of the lumbar spine imaging clinical exam for various learning styles
Standard Learning Style
|
Patient Identification
(5)
|
Positioning (20)
|
Centering Point (10)
|
Cassette (5)
|
Collimation
(5)
|
Immobilization Device (5)
|
Total (50)
|
Percentage (100%)
|
A
|
3
|
8
|
2
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
14
|
24
|
R
|
4
|
13
|
4
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
22
|
44
|
R
|
1
|
10
|
4
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
15
|
30
|
R
|
1
|
12
|
6
|
3
|
1
|
0
|
23
|
46
|
R
|
3
|
8
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
0
|
17
|
34
|
R
|
5
|
18
|
8
|
4
|
3
|
5
|
43
|
86
|
K
|
3
|
18
|
5
|
0
|
2
|
4
|
32
|
64
|
K
|
2
|
12
|
5
|
4
|
1
|
3
|
27
|
54
|
K
|
2
|
8
|
2
|
4
|
2
|
0
|
18
|
36
|
K
|
4
|
16
|
6
|
3
|
4
|
1
|
34
|
68
|
K
|
2
|
6
|
3
|
4
|
1
|
1
|
17
|
34
|
K
|
2
|
6
|
3
|
4
|
1
|
0
|
16
|
32
|
K
|
4
|
13
|
7
|
4
|
3
|
2
|
33
|
66
|
AK
|
3
|
12
|
4
|
0
|
2
|
0
|
21
|
42
|
AK
|
4
|
15
|
7
|
0
|
3
|
2
|
31
|
62
|
RK
|
2
|
8
|
7
|
0
|
3
|
3
|
23
|
46
|
VAK
|
3
|
6
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
11
|
22
|
VAK
|
3
|
12
|
7
|
4
|
1
|
2
|
29
|
58
|
VAK
|
3
|
8
|
4
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
16
|
32
|
ARK
|
4
|
15
|
8
|
5
|
4
|
1
|
37
|
74
|
ARK
|
5
|
15
|
7
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
36
|
72
|
ARK
|
3
|
12
|
5
|
4
|
2
|
4
|
30
|
60
|
ARK
|
4
|
12
|
5
|
3
|
1
|
2
|
27
|
54
|
VARK
|
4
|
6
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
12
|
24
|
VARK
|
3
|
8
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
13
|
26
|
VARK
|
1
|
8
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
11
|
22
|
VARK
|
3
|
10
|
3
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
17
|
34
|
VARK
|
2
|
7
|
1
|
4
|
1
|
0
|
15
|
30
|
VARK
|
4
|
16
|
7
|
3
|
2
|
4
|
36
|
72
|
VARK
|
4
|
12
|
4
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
21
|
42
|
VARK
|
4
|
14
|
8
|
4
|
3
|
4
|
37
|
74
|
Source: Field data (2020)
Table 4.4 shows the clinical scores (frequency) awarded by the blinded clinical tutor based on competency under the various clinical parameters for lumbar spine imaging.
Table 4.5: Grouping of overall scores under various learning modalities
Single Mode
|
Dual Mode
|
Trimode
|
Quadrimode
|
24
|
62
|
22
|
22
|
44
|
46
|
32
|
26
|
46
|
42
|
72
|
24
|
64
|
|
58
|
34
|
66
|
|
74
|
30
|
86
|
|
60
|
72
|
34
|
|
54
|
42
|
54
|
|
|
74
|
36
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
68
|
|
|
|
32
|
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
|
Source: Field data (2020)
Table 4.5 shows the various categorizations of clinical exam scores of participants under the various learning modalities.
Table 4.6: Descriptive statistics of participant’s exam scores
|
N
|
Mean
|
Std. Deviation
|
Std. Error
|
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
|
Minimum
|
Maximum
|
|
Lower Bound
|
Upper Bound
|
Singlemode
|
13
|
47.54
|
18.640
|
5.170
|
36.27
|
58.80
|
24
|
86
|
Dual-mode
|
3
|
50.00
|
10.583
|
6.110
|
23.71
|
76.29
|
42
|
62
|
Trimode
|
7
|
53.14
|
19.489
|
7.366
|
35.12
|
71.17
|
22
|
74
|
Quadrimode
|
8
|
40.50
|
21.024
|
7.433
|
22.92
|
58.08
|
22
|
74
|
Total
|
31
|
47.23
|
18.617
|
3.344
|
40.40
|
54.05
|
22
|
86
|
Source: Field data (2020)
Table 4.6 reveals the descriptive analysis of the various groups of VARK learning styles with the Number, Means, Standard Deviations, Standard Error, 95% Confidence Interval for Mean, Minimum and Maximum of participant scores.
Figure 4.3: Box plots for various groupings of learning modes
Source: Field data (2020)
Fig 4.3 above is the visual presentation of box plots of the various groupings of learning modes showing approximately symmetrical appearance with boxes overlapping indicating an approximately normal distribution of data for all learning modes.
Table 4.7: Test of homogeneity of variances (Levene’s statistic) for the dependent variable
Levene Statistic
|
df1
|
df2
|
Sig.
|
.567
|
3
|
27
|
.642
|
Source: Field data (2020)
Table 4.7 shows the test of homogeneity (Levene’s statistic) as the sig value, p= 0.642
Decision rules for Levene’s test (α = 0.05)
If p ≥ .05, the variances are not significantly different, accept the null hypothesis.
If p ≤ 0.05, the variances are significantly different, reject the null hypothesis.
Since our p-value ≥ 0.05 (p= 0.642), we accept the null hypotheses satisfying the assumption of equal variance hence not violating the assumption validating our performance of the parametric statistical analysis (ANOVA).
Table 4.8: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the participant’s exam scores
|
Sum of Squares
|
Df
|
Mean Square
|
F
|
Sig.
|
Between Groups
|
631.331
|
3
|
210.444
|
.582
|
.632
|
Within Groups
|
9766.088
|
27
|
361.707
|
|
|
Total
|
10397.419
|
30
|
|
|
|
Source: Field data (2020)
Table 4.8 shows the results of the one-way Analysis Of Variance (ANOVA) between student learning styles preferences and scores of participants. Results showed that there was no significant difference of participant scores on learning style preferences at p≤ 0.05 level for the following conditions F= (3, 27) = 0.582, p= 0.632 for participant scores