Skip to main content

Table 2 Characteristics of the participants

From: The relation of dental students’ learning styles to their satisfaction with traditional and inverted classroom models

  Gender Father′s educational level Mother′s educational level
Female Male High school or lower University or higher High school or lower University or higher
Traditional approach     n (percentage)
 Converger 18 (51.4) 15 (65.2) 15 (55.6) 18 (58) 17 (48.6) 16 (69.6)
 Assimilator 7 (20) 5 (21.7) 5 (18.5) 7 (22.6) 9 (25.7) 3 (13)
 Accommodator 8 (22.9) 1 (4.3) 5 (18.5) 4 (12.9) 6 (17.1) 3 (13)
 Diverger 2 (5.7) 2 (8.7) 2 (7.4) 2 (6.5) 3 (8.6) 1 (4.3)
 Total 35 (100) 23 (100) 27 (100) 31 (100) 35 (100) 23(100)
ICM approach     n (percentage)
 Converger 22 (61) 12 (44.4) 23 (60.5) 11 (44) 21 (53.8) 13 (54.2)
 Assimilator 6 (16.7) 10 (37) 8 (21.1) 8 (32) 10 (25.6) 6 (25)
 Accommodator 5 (13.9) 3 (11.1) 4 (10.5) 4 (16) 6 (15.4) 2 (8.3)
 Diverger 3 (8.3) 2 (7.4) 3 (7.9) 2 (8) 2 (5.1) 3 (12.5)
 Total 36 (100) 27 (100) 38 (100) 25 (100) 39 (100) 24 (100)
  1. The percentage values represent the total number of students (n) per learning style group in the traditional and ICM classes