Metodologias de ensino na graduação em farmácia e os estilos de aprendizagem

• Autor(a) principal: Vieira, Márcio Lima da Conceição
• Data de Publicação: 2017
• Tipo de documento: Trabalho de conclusão de curso
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UFS
• Texto Completo: https://ri.ufs.br/handle/riufs/6736
• topic: Farmácia; Drugstore; Ensino de famacologia; Teaching of famacology; Graduação em farmácia; Graduation in pharmacy; CIENCIAS BIOLOGICAS::FARMACOLOGIA::FARMACOLOGIA GERAL

Faced with the need for a new training of health professionals that aims to meet SUS principles and guidelines, it is necessary for higher education institutions to rethink their teaching methodologies. Understanding how students learn, that is, learning style, is essential. In this perspective, this study aimed to identify the learning styles and preferences of undergraduate students in Pharmacy of the Federal University of Sergipe submitted to the active and traditional methodologies, as well as to evaluate the applicability of the Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire (ILS). This is a descriptive, exploratory cross-sectional study with 38 students (23 submitted to the active methodology and 15 to the traditional methodology) in June 2015. The ILS has 44 questions with four dimensions, which represent the learning stages: perception (sensory or intuitive); input (visual or verbal); processing (active or reflective), and understanding (sequential or global). The pilot study showed that there was no significant difference between the learning styles of students submitted to different teaching methodologies, in general there was a predominance of sensory perception 30 (78.9%), visual input 25 (65.7%), , active processing 23 (60.5%) and sequential understanding 28 (73.7%). Regarding the applicability of ILS, the clarity of the items, the length and the time of application were used as criteria for analysis. In the meantime, 23 (60%) of the students indicated that the instrument was extensive, which also impacted the response time (on average 35 minutes), however, it was considered comprehensible by 100% of the participants.