Awareness, Perceptions and Preferences of Various Teaching and Learning Methodologies Among Medical Imaging Technology Students in Chennai

Awareness, Perceptions and Preferences of Various Teaching and Learning Methodologies Among Medical Imaging Technology Students in Chennai | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Awareness, Perceptions and Preferences of Various Teaching and Learning Methodologies Among Medical Imaging Technology Students in Chennai Swetha Hari, Karan Sekar, Victor Rakesh Lazar, Akash Nixon, Sibyl Siluvai, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8914462/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 17 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the level of awareness among Medical Imaging Technology students regarding various teaching and learning methodologies; to evaluate their perceptions of the effectiveness, engagement, and applicability of these approaches in enhancing theoretical knowledge and clinical competence; to identify students’ preferred teaching methods for improving academic performance, skill development, and practical understanding; and to propose feasible educational strategies that can be implemented by educators and institutions to optimize learning outcomes. BACKGROUND: Health professions education increasingly emphasizes student-centered and clinically oriented teaching approaches to improve learning outcomes and professional competence. Understanding students’ awareness, perceptions, and preferences toward teaching methodologies is important for aligning instructional strategies with learner needs. This study aimed to evaluate these factors among Medical Imaging Technology (MIT) students in Chennai. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A descriptive cross-sectional survey was conducted among undergraduate and postgraduate MIT students in Chennai. Data were collected using a structured, validated online questionnaire assessing demographic details, awareness and perceptions of teaching methodologies, learning style preferences based on the VARK model, and suggested improvements to teaching practices. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis. RESULT: A total of 264 MIT students participated. Observational learning demonstrated the highest awareness (54.9%), followed by case-based learning (53.0%), self-regulated learning (50.4%), e-learning (49.6%), and peer-assisted learning (49.2%). Awareness was lowest for simulation-based learning (27.3%), with 23.9% reporting no awareness; 44.3% reported experience with assessment-as-learning. Perceptions were predominantly positive. High levels of agreement were observed for self-regulated learning (73.5%), observational learning (73.1%), case-based learning (72.7%), and e-learning (71.2%). Simulation-based learning (67.0%) and problem-based learning (68.2%) were also favourably perceived, while neutral responses were relatively higher for flipped classroom and evidence-based medicine. Reading/writing (43.2%) and visual (25.4%) were the most preferred learning styles, with 19.3% demonstrating multimodal preferences. Case-based and observational learning were the most preferred instructional approaches (64.4% each), followed by e-learning (61.0%) and self-regulated learning (60.2%). Most students reported alignment between teaching methods and their preferred learning styles (63.3% always/often). Frequently suggested improvements included increased hands-on training, enhanced theory–clinical integration, and expanded case-based and simulation-based learning. CONCLUSION: MIT students demonstrated positive attitudes toward active and clinically oriented teaching approaches. Expanding experiential and simulation-based learning opportunities may further improve student engagement, clinical competence, and readiness for professional practice. Medical Imaging Technology Students Teaching–Learning Methodologies Student Perceptions Learning Preferences Medical Education Educational Strategies Active Learning Methods Health Professions Education Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 INTRODUCTION Health professions education is continuously evolving to meet the increasing complexity of modern healthcare systems.(1,2) Students in allied health sciences are required not only to acquire theoretical knowledge but also to develop clinical competence, critical thinking ability, and technical skills essential for professional practice.(3,4) The effectiveness of this learning process is strongly influenced by the teaching methodologies adopted within the curriculum.(5) Constructive alignment between learning objectives, instructional strategies, and assessment methods plays a central role in improving student learning outcomes.(6) Although traditional lecture based instruction remains widely used due to its efficiency in delivering large volumes of information, it has increasingly been criticized for promoting passive learning and limited student engagement.(6,7) Active learning approaches have been shown to improve knowledge retention, student participation, and higher-order cognitive skills across health science disciplines.(7) Student-centered instructional strategies such as CBL, PBL, SBL, TBL, PAL, flipped classroom models, and e-learning have gained increasing importance in health professions education. These approaches promote collaborative learning, self-directed learning, clinical reasoning, and application of theoretical knowledge in clinical contexts.(8–10) Simulation based education, in particular, has emerged as an important tool for bridging the gap between theoretical instruction and clinical practice while ensuring patient safety.(11) (Table 1) Individual learning preference is a key factor affecting learning effectiveness, and the VARK model is widely used to describe how learners perceive and process information.(12) Studies among healthcare students have reported multimodal learning preferences, with a notable inclination toward visual and kinesthetic learning modalities in clinically oriented disciplines.(13–16) Students’ awareness of different teaching methodologies, their perceptions of instructional effectiveness, and their preferences for specific learning approaches are important considerations in curriculum design and education quality improvement.(5) Aligning teaching strategies with learner characteristics may enhance engagement and perceived learning effectiveness.(17) MIT education requires a balance between theoretical instruction and practical training. As diagnostic imaging continues to evolve technologically, it becomes increasingly important to understand how students perceive and prefer different teaching methodologies within this discipline. Evaluating these factors may provide insights into optimizing instructional strategies in MIT education. Although teaching and learning methodologies in health professions education have been widely studied, evidence specific to MIT education remains limited, particularly in South Indian educational settings.(18) Therefore, the present study aims to investigate the awareness, perceptions, and preferences related to various teaching and learning methodologies among MIT students in Chennai, and to determine whether existing instructional practices are aligned with students’ preferred learning styles. MATERIALS AND METHODS Study design A descriptive cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study was conducted to assess the awareness, perceptions, and preferences regarding various teaching and learning methodologies among MIT students in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. The study was carried out between September 2025 and December 2025 using an online survey platform (Google Forms). Study Population and recruitment The study population consisted of undergraduate (B.Sc.) and postgraduate (M.Sc.) MIT students from institutions in Chennai who had completed at least one academic semester. Participants were recruited using a convenience sampling method through electronic distribution of the questionnaire link. Inclusion criteria: Undergraduate and postgraduate MIT students, Students who had completed at least one academic semester, Students who provided informed consent. Exclusion criteria: Students from other allied health science programs, Students on academic leave or with irregular attendance, Incomplete questionnaire responses. Sample size and sampling technique The sample size was calculated using a prevalence-based formula. Based on findings from a previous study, a prevalence of 77.2% was assumed. With a 95% confidence level and a 10% allowable error, the minimum required sample size was calculated to be 114 participants. A convenience sampling technique was adopted for participant recruitment. Eligible undergraduate (B.Sc.) and postgraduate (M.Sc.) Medical Imaging Technology students in Chennai were invited to participate through an online questionnaire administered via Google Forms. Data collection tool Data were collected using a structured, self-administered questionnaire developed after an extensive review of the literature and reference to previously published studies. The questionnaire was designed to address the objectives of the study and underwent expert validation, content validation, and face validation by faculty members in MIT and medical education. The full English version of the questionnaire is provided as Supplementary Material 1 . The final questionnaire consisted of the following sections: Sociodemographic details Awareness of teaching and learning methodologies Perceptions toward teaching methods (Likert scale) Learning style preferences based on the VARK model Preferred instructional approaches and suggestions The validated questionnaire was converted into an online format using Google Forms and distributed electronically to eligible participants. Data analysis The collected data were entered into Microsoft Excel and analyzed using statistical software. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. Frequencies and percentages were calculated for categorical variables such as awareness, perceptions, and preferences toward teaching and learning methodologies. Measures of central tendency and dispersion, including mean and standard deviation, were used to describe continuous variables such as age. The results were presented using tables and graphical representations where appropriate. RESULTS Section A: Demographic Characteristics of the Participants (Table 2) A total of 264 MIT students participated in the study, with complete responses available for all variables. The mean age of the participants was 20.51 ± 1.94 years. Among the participants, 158 (59.8%) were male and 106 (40.2%) were female. The majority of respondents were undergraduate students (229, 86.7%), while 35 (13.3%) were enrolled in the postgraduate program. Regarding institutional distribution, 35 (13.3%) participants were from government institutions and 229 (86.7%) were from private institutions. The mean age of students from government institutions was 20.8 ± 1.7 years, whereas students from private institutions had a mean age of 20.6 ± 1.5 years. (Table 2) Section B: Awareness of Teaching and Learning Methodologies (Graph 1) Students demonstrated variable levels of awareness and exposure to different instructional strategies. Observational learning had the highest reported awareness and experience (145, 54.9%), followed by CBL (140,53.0%), SRL (133, 50.4%), e-learning/video lectures (131, 49.6%), and PAL (130, 49.2%). Lower awareness was observed for SBL, with only 27.3% reporting experience and 23.9% indicating no awareness. AaL was experienced by 44.3% of participants, while 17.4% reported no awareness. Section C: Perceptions Toward Teaching and Learning Methodologies (Graph 2) Students’ perceptions toward different teaching methodologies were demonstrated predominantly positive perceptions. High levels of agreement (agree + strongly agree) were observed for SRL (n = 194, 73.5%), observational learning (n = 193, 73.1%), CBL (n = 192, 72.7%), and e-learning/video lectures (n = 188, 71.2%). SBL (n = 177, 67.0%) and PBL (n = 180, 68.2%) also received favourable perceptions, with the majority of students expressing agreement regarding their usefulness. Neutral responses were relatively higher for flipped classroom and EBM, suggesting possible uncertainty or limited exposure among participants. Strong disagreement across all teaching methods was minimal, indicating an overall positive attitude toward diverse instructional approaches. Section D: Learning Style Preferences (Graph 3) Based on the adapted VARK questionnaire, the most preferred single learning style was Reading/Writing (n = 114, 43.2%), followed by Visual learning (n = 67, 25.4%). A notable proportion of students (n = 51, 19.3%) demonstrated a multimodal learning preference, indicating flexibility in learning approaches. Auditory (n = 17, 6.4%) and Kinesthetic (n = 15, 5.7%) learning styles were least preferred when considered independently. Preference for Teaching Methodologies (Graph 4) When students were asked to rate their instructional preferences, CBL and observational learning emerged as the most preferred methods (each 64.4%). E-learning/video lectures (61.0%) and SRL (60.2%) were also strongly preferred. Flipped classroom and PAL showed comparatively lower preference ratings, with a higher proportion of students selecting neutral or least-preferred responses. However, no single method was universally rejected, reflecting the diversity of learning preferences within the cohort. Alignment Between Teaching Methods and Learning Preferences (Graph 5) Most students reported that their current teaching methods supported their preferred learning styles, with 95 (36.0%) indicating “always” and 72 (27.3%) reporting “often”. In contrast, only 11 participants (4.1%) indicated rare or no alignment between teaching methods and their learning preferences. Section E: Student-Suggested Improvements to Teaching Methods Participants were asked to suggest changes that could improve teaching methods in the MIT curriculum. Multiple responses were permitted. The most frequently suggested improvements included increased hands-on training, better integration of theory with clinical practice, and greater use of case based or clinical examples. Students also recommended more engaging lectures incorporating visual aids and videos, increased use of interactive teaching strategies such as group discussions and PBL, and expanded simulation-based or laboratory sessions. Overall, 165 participants (62.5%) selected four or fewer improvement options, whereas 99 participants (37.5%) selected more than four options, indicating substantial student interest in enhancing teaching practices through multiple instructional approaches. DISCUSSION The present study assessed the awareness, perceptions, and preferences of various teaching and learning methodologies among Medical Imaging Technology students in Chennai. The findings indicate that students are generally aware of several instructional approaches and demonstrate positive perceptions toward student-centered and clinically oriented teaching methods. Participants showed greater awareness of observational learning, CBL, SRL, and e-learning/video lectures. These methods are commonly integrated into health science curricula because they support clinical understanding and independent learning( 19 ). In contrast, relatively lower awareness of SBL and AaL suggests that these strategies may not yet be widely implemented in MIT education within the study setting. SBL has been shown to improve technical competence, confidence, and clinical decision-making in healthcare training( 11 ), indicating an opportunity for curricular enhancement. Perceptions toward teaching methodologies were predominantly positive. SRL, observational learning, CBL, and e-learning received the highest levels of agreement, suggesting that students value active participation, autonomy in learning, and clinically relevant instruction. Similar findings have been reported in studies of allied health and medical students, where active learning approaches were associated with improved engagement and perceived learning effectiveness.( 7 ) Although SBL and PBL were viewed positively, the relatively higher proportion of neutral responses may indicate limited exposure to these methods rather than negative perceptions. Increased and structured implementation of such strategies may improve student acceptance and engagement. Analysis of learning style preferences using the VARK framework showed that the reading/writing learning style was the most preferred, followed by visual learning, while a considerable proportion of students demonstrated multimodal preferences. The prominence of visual learning is consistent with the nature of MIT education, which relies heavily on image interpretation and visual analysis. The preference for reading/writing may reflect the theoretical components of imaging education, including physics, anatomy, and imaging protocols. CBL and observational learning emerged as the most preferred teaching methodologies, reinforcing the importance of clinically contextual instruction in MIT training. These approaches facilitate the integration of theoretical knowledge with clinical imaging practice and support the development of diagnostic reasoning skills. E-learning and SRL were also strongly preferred, highlighting the importance of flexible learning opportunities in modern health professions education. Most participants reported that current teaching methods supported their preferred learning styles, indicating reasonable alignment between instructional practices and learner needs. However, student feedback emphasized the importance of increasing hands-on training, improving theory clinical integration, incorporating more case-based examples, and expanding SBL opportunities. These suggestions underscore the importance of experiential learning in MIT education. This study adds to the limited literature on teaching and learning methodologies in Medical Imaging Technology education in India, particularly in the Chennai region. The findings suggest that students are receptive to diverse instructional approaches, especially those that promote clinical application and active learning. Expanding experiential and simulation-based learning opportunities may further enhance student engagement and competency development. STRENGTHS A key strength of this study is its focused on MIT students, a population that has received relatively limited attention in health professions education research. The use of a structured and validated questionnaire, along with an adequate sample size, enhances the reliability and credibility of the findings. LIMITATIONS Some limitations should be considered when interpreting the results. As the study employed a cross-sectional design, responses reflect student perceptions at a single point in time. Data were collected through self-reported questionnaires, which may be influenced by individual interpretation. Additionally, the study was conducted among institutions within Chennai; therefore, findings may reflect the educational context of the study setting. Future multi-center studies could provide broader generalization. CONCLUSION This study demonstrates that MIT students in Chennai possess positive awareness and favourable perceptions of teaching and learning methodologies that emphasize clinical application, active engagement, and self-directed learning. Among these, observational learning, CBL, SRL, and e-learning were particularly well-recognized and preferred. Aligning instructional strategies with student preferences may enhance engagement, learning outcomes, and professional competence. Greater integration of theory with clinical practice, enhanced hands-on training, and expanded SBL opportunities can further strengthen the curriculum. These findings offer valuable insights for educators and curriculum developers aiming to implement student-centered and experiential teaching approaches in MIT education. Abbreviations MIT: Medical Imaging Technology CBL: Case Based Learning EBM: Evidence Based Medicine PBL: Problem Based Learning SBL: Simulation Based Learning PAL: Peer-Assisted Learning TBL: Team-Based Learning SRL: Self-Regulated Learning AaL: Assessment as Learning Declarations Declaration of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in the Manuscript Preparation Process During the preparation of this manuscript, the author used ChatGPT (OpenAI) to assist with language editing, improving grammar, refining sentence structure. After using this tool, the author carefully reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the final version of the manuscript. Availability of data and materials: The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee of SRM Medical College Hospital and Research Centre (IEC No: SRMIEC–ST0825–2782; dated 17 September 2025). The study was conducted in accordance with institutional ethical guidelines and the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Participant confidentiality and anonymity were strictly maintained throughout the study. Consent and voluntary participation: Participation in the study was voluntary. An electronic informed consent form was included at the beginning of the questionnaire, and only participants who agreed to participate were allowed to proceed with the survey. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Author contributions: Swetha Hari: conceived and designed the study, developed the questionnaire, collected data, performed analysis, and drafted the manuscript. Karan Sekar: contributed to study design, coordinated data collection, assisted in interpretation of results, served as corresponding author, and reviewed the manuscript. Victor Rakesh Lazar: contributed to methodological guidance, academic input in imaging education, and manuscript review. Akash Nixon: assisted with data analysis, technical support, and manuscript editing. Sibyl Siluvai: provided expert guidance on questionnaire validation, including content validation and methodological refinement. Evangelin Vijaya Kumar: assisted in data collection, literature review, and manuscript review. Senthil Kumar Aiyappan: supervised the study. Acknowledgements: The authors thank the Department of Radio-Diagnosis, SRM Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, for their support during the study References Hays RB, Ramani S, Hassell A. Healthcare systems and the sciences of health professional education. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2020;25(5):1149–62. Khan University A, Frenk J, Chen L, qar Bhutta ZA, Cohen J, Crisp N, et al. The Lancet Commissions Health professionals for a new century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. www thelancet com [Internet]. 2010;376:1923–58. Available from: www.thelancet.com. Frank JR, Snell LS, Cate O, Ten, Holmboe ES, Carraccio C, Swing SR, et al. Competency-based medical education: Theory to practice. Med Teach. 2010;32(8):638–45. Harden RM. Outcome-based education: The future is today. Med Teach. 2007;29:625–9. Biggs J. ALIGNING TEACHING AND ASSESSING TO COURSE OBJECTIVES. Biggs J. Constructive alignment in university teaching [Internet]. Vol. 1, HERDSA Review of Higher Education. Available from: Does active learning works. Challa KT, Sayed A, Acharya Y. Modern techniques of teaching and learning in medical education: a descriptive literature review. MedEdPublish. 2021;10(1). Thistlethwaite JE, Davies D, Ekeocha S, Kidd JM, MacDougall C, Matthews P et al. The effectiveness of case-based learning in health professional education. A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 23. Vol. 34, Medical Teacher. 2012. 4. PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION. Motola I, Devine LA, Chung HS, Sullivan JE, Issenberg SB. Simulation in healthcare education: A best evidence practical guide. AMEE Guide 82 Med Teach. 2013;35(10). Fleming ND, Mills C. DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska-Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska-Lincoln To Improve the Academy: A Journal of Educational Development Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education Not Another Inventory, Rather a Catalyst for Reflection Not Another Inventory, Rather a Catalyst for Reflection [Internet]. Available from: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/podimproveacad El Sayed MM, Mmohsen D. Assessment of Learning Styles For Medical Students Using Vark Questionnaire. Int J Manage Appl Sci. 2016. Norcini JJ, McKinley DW. Assessment methods in medical education. Teach Teach Educ. 2007;23(3):239–50. 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. Ojeh N, Harewood H, Greaves N, Sobers N, Boyce K, Lashley PM, et al. A Phenomenological Exploration of Experiences Related to Learning Styles Among Undergraduate Medical Students in a Barbadian Medical School. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2023;14:1105–18. Blessing M. Aligning Learning Styles with Teaching Styles: A Comprehensive Overview. 2024. Stanley T. Case Studies and Case-Based Learning. New York: Routledge; 2021. Steven Tenny A, Varacallo Affilations M. Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) [Internet]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470182/?report=printable Wood DF. Problem based learning. BMJ. 2003;326(7384):328–30. Alharbi A, Nurfianti A, Mullen RF, McClure JD, Miller WH. The effectiveness of simulation-based learning (SBL) on students’ knowledge and skills in nursing programs: a systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24(1):1099. Kaushal N, E-LEARNING:. MEANING, IMPORTANCE, PRINCIPLES AND RELEVANCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION Meaning and Importance of E-Learning. Amer MG, Althaqafi RMM, Assiri SA, Alsufyani A, Alrubai FS, Mohamed NM. PEER-ASSISTED LEARNING: UNDERGRADUATE MEDICAL STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION. Millenium: Journal of Education, Technologies, and Health. 2021;2(16):11–22. Fryling MJ, Johnston C, Hayes LJ. Understanding Observational Learning: An Interbehavioral Approach. Anal Verbal Behav. 2011;27(1):191–203. Ozdamli F, Asiksoy G. Flipped classroom approach [Internet]. Vol. 8, World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues. 2016. Available from: http://. Sousa M, Fontão E. Team-based learning—An approach to enhance collaboration and academic success in engineering education: A comprehensive study. Forum Educ Stud. 2025;3(1):2239. Zimmerman BJ. Self-Regulated Learning: Theories, Measures, and Outcomes. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier; 2015. pp. 541–6. Hinduja P, Noor S, Siddiqui S, ASSESSMENT AS LEARNING (AAL). : AN INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACH IN LEARNING SECOND LANGUAGE [Internet]. Vol. 6, Journal of Research and Reviews in Social Sciences Pakistan. Available from: http://journal.kinnaird.edu.pk Tables Table 1 : Overview of teaching and learning methodologies assessed in the study Teaching Method Description Educational purpose Case-Based Learning (CBL) Applying knowledge to real or simulated clinical cases through guided discussion.(20) Application of theory to clinical practice. Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) Using best available research evidence to guide clinical decision-making.(21) Research and analytical skills. Problem-Based Learning (PBL) Learning initiated by problems that promote self-directed and collaborative learning.(22) Critical thinking and self-directed learning. Simulation-Based Learning (SBL) Developing clinical skills using simulated environments, models, or virtual tools.(23) Practical and technical skill development. E-Learning Learning delivered through digital technologies independent of time and location.(24) Flexible and self-paced learning. Peer-Assisted Learning (PAL) Students learning collaboratively by teaching and supporting each other.(25) Collaborative learning. Observational Learning Learning by observing and imitating behaviours or skills demonstrated by others.(26) Visual understanding of procedures. Flipped Classroom A student-centered model where content is learned before class digitally, and classroom time is used for active learning.(27) Active classroom engagement. Team-Based Learning (TBL) Small-group collaboration, readiness assurance, and application activities to enhance engagement, teamwork, and problem-solving.(28) Communication and teamwork. Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) Students independently set goals, apply strategies, monitor progress, and evaluate their learning outcomes.(29) Metacognitive development. Assessment as Learning (AaL) Learning through self-assessment, peer feedback, and reflective evaluation.(30) Reflective learning. Table 2: Section A: Demographic characteristics of study participants (N = 265) Variable Government institutions (n = 35) Private institutions (n = 229) Total (N = 264) Mean Age (years) 20.8 ± 1.7 20.6 ± 1.5 20.51 ± 1.94 Gender , n (%) Male 17 (48.6%) 141 (61.6%) 158 (59.8%) Female 18 (51.4%) 88 (38.4%) 106(40.2%) Academic Level Undergraduate 32 (91.4%) 197 (86.0%) 229 (86.7%) Postgraduate 3 (8.6%) 32 (14.0%) 35 (13.3%) Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files SupplementaryFileTeachingLearningMethodsQuestionnarie.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 09 Apr, 2026 Reviews received at journal 09 Apr, 2026 Reviews received at journal 04 Apr, 2026 Reviews received at journal 01 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 31 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 27 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 25 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 25 Mar, 2026 Reviews received at journal 23 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 23 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 04 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 02 Mar, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 02 Mar, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 02 Mar, 2026 Editor invited by journal 26 Feb, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 25 Feb, 2026 First submitted to journal 25 Feb, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8914462","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":599690217,"identity":"d2422916-26f5-43b0-bf03-0d671fb6b0fe","order_by":0,"name":"Swetha Hari","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"SRM Institute of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Swetha","middleName":"","lastName":"Hari","suffix":""},{"id":599690218,"identity":"bc706235-5b30-4c6e-a70a-330c57b93303","order_by":1,"name":"Karan Sekar","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"SRM Institute of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Karan","middleName":"","lastName":"Sekar","suffix":""},{"id":599690219,"identity":"f924600e-f06f-42e1-bdbf-dc8bd842c38e","order_by":2,"name":"Victor Rakesh Lazar","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"SRM Institute of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Victor","middleName":"Rakesh","lastName":"Lazar","suffix":""},{"id":599690220,"identity":"231be761-8ad2-4d23-bb15-2b5b0dc73b36","order_by":3,"name":"Akash Nixon","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"SRM Institute of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Akash","middleName":"","lastName":"Nixon","suffix":""},{"id":599690221,"identity":"0ccb5cd4-f54a-48c6-98e5-c724be04735c","order_by":4,"name":"Sibyl Siluvai","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"SRM Kattankulathur Dental College and Hospital, SRM Institute of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sibyl","middleName":"","lastName":"Siluvai","suffix":""},{"id":599690222,"identity":"657c9e82-1d5b-4a64-baf8-0e4ee88ae02a","order_by":5,"name":"Evangelin Vijaya Kumar","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"SRM Institute of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Evangelin","middleName":"Vijaya","lastName":"Kumar","suffix":""},{"id":599690223,"identity":"748c70c0-8503-4ea0-b7db-868beee472ec","order_by":6,"name":"Senthil Kumar Aiyappan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"SRM Institute of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Senthil","middleName":"Kumar","lastName":"Aiyappan","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-02-19 06:23:19","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8914462/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8914462/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":104177517,"identity":"333905d9-9c56-4c71-9cf0-62c4c38c02f0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-08 16:46:28","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":83602,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGraph 1 Aware of teaching and learning methods\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8914462/v1/aa1e6fa24e30851f50303707.png"},{"id":104403844,"identity":"0092952b-eda1-4b89-93a1-477055f2bf8c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-11 12:19:11","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":82086,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGraph 2 Perceptions towards teaching methods\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8914462/v1/a448cc384317a7be00c837d4.png"},{"id":104403366,"identity":"c13a6521-9042-4751-8001-a40617eb097c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-11 12:18:10","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":79456,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGraph 3 Learning style preferences\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8914462/v1/6198102339780550eb417114.png"},{"id":104177523,"identity":"f0f2f3a4-e165-4b68-b2a3-a328fc5b0bf5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-08 16:46:28","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":84719,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGraph 4 Most effective methods in enhancing your learning\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8914462/v1/65cd121854a7fd13bc0600eb.png"},{"id":104177520,"identity":"c0dce222-895b-4db3-ac49-d629df7abbb2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-08 16:46:28","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":55329,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGraph 5 Extent to Which Teaching Methods Support Students’ Learning Preferences\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8914462/v1/a91b9fd765883de6b57c157d.png"},{"id":104408778,"identity":"c4de9609-8f09-455e-850a-6d4fb7602cc1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-11 12:43:22","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1398897,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8914462/v1/3e516393-37a8-4baf-8052-b9fb755e9137.pdf"},{"id":104177518,"identity":"eb15e177-9e86-4a21-92e2-25a103b86856","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-08 16:46:28","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":36950,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryFileTeachingLearningMethodsQuestionnarie.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8914462/v1/9e81390793dacd2a0a89fa8b.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eAwareness, Perceptions and Preferences of Various Teaching and Learning Methodologies Among Medical Imaging Technology Students in Chennai\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eHealth professions education is continuously evolving to meet the increasing complexity of modern healthcare systems.(1,2) Students in allied health sciences are required not only to acquire theoretical knowledge but also to develop clinical competence, critical thinking ability, and technical skills essential for professional practice.(3,4) The effectiveness of this learning process is strongly influenced by the teaching methodologies adopted within the curriculum.(5)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConstructive alignment between learning objectives, instructional strategies, and assessment methods plays a central role in improving student learning outcomes.(6) Although traditional lecture based instruction remains widely used due to its efficiency in delivering large volumes of information, it has increasingly been criticized for promoting passive learning and limited student engagement.(6,7) Active learning approaches have been shown to improve knowledge retention, student participation, and higher-order cognitive skills across health science disciplines.(7)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudent-centered instructional strategies such as CBL, PBL, SBL, TBL, PAL, flipped classroom models, and e-learning have gained increasing importance in health professions education. These approaches promote collaborative learning, self-directed learning, clinical reasoning, and application of theoretical knowledge in clinical contexts.(8\u0026ndash;10) Simulation based education, in particular, has emerged as an important tool for bridging the gap between theoretical instruction and clinical practice while ensuring patient safety.(11) (Table 1)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIndividual learning preference is a key factor affecting learning effectiveness, and the VARK model is widely used to describe how learners perceive and process information.(12) Studies among healthcare students have reported multimodal learning preferences, with a notable inclination toward visual and kinesthetic learning modalities in clinically oriented disciplines.(13\u0026ndash;16)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudents\u0026rsquo; awareness of different teaching methodologies, their perceptions of instructional effectiveness, and their preferences for specific learning approaches are important considerations in curriculum design and education quality improvement.(5) Aligning teaching strategies with learner characteristics may enhance engagement and perceived learning effectiveness.(17)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMIT education requires a balance between theoretical instruction and practical training. As diagnostic imaging continues to evolve technologically, it becomes increasingly important to understand how students perceive and prefer different teaching methodologies within this discipline. Evaluating these factors may provide insights into optimizing instructional strategies in MIT education. Although teaching and learning methodologies in health professions education have been widely studied, evidence specific to MIT education remains limited, particularly in South Indian educational settings.(18)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTherefore, the present study aims to investigate the awareness, perceptions, and preferences related to various teaching and learning methodologies among MIT students in Chennai, and to determine whether existing instructional practices are aligned with students\u0026rsquo; preferred learning styles.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"MATERIALS AND METHODS","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStudy design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA descriptive cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study was conducted to assess the awareness, perceptions, and preferences regarding various teaching and learning methodologies among MIT students in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. The study was carried out between September 2025 and December 2025 using an online survey platform (Google Forms).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eStudy\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePopulation and recruitment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study population consisted of undergraduate (B.Sc.) and postgraduate (M.Sc.) MIT students from institutions in Chennai who had completed at least one academic semester. Participants were recruited using a convenience sampling method through electronic distribution of the questionnaire link.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInclusion criteria: Undergraduate and postgraduate MIT students, Students who had completed at least one academic semester, Students who provided informed consent.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExclusion criteria: Students from other allied health science programs, Students on academic leave or with irregular attendance, Incomplete questionnaire responses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSample size and sampling technique\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe sample size was calculated using a prevalence-based formula. Based on findings from a previous study, a prevalence of 77.2% was assumed. With a 95% confidence level and a 10% allowable error, the minimum required sample size was calculated to be 114 participants. A convenience sampling technique was adopted for participant recruitment. Eligible undergraduate (B.Sc.) and postgraduate (M.Sc.) Medical Imaging Technology students in Chennai were invited to participate through an online questionnaire administered via Google Forms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eData collection tool\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData were collected using a structured, self-administered questionnaire developed after an extensive review of the literature and reference to previously published studies. The questionnaire was designed to address the objectives of the study and underwent expert validation, content validation, and face validation by faculty members in MIT and medical education.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe full English version of the questionnaire is provided as \u003cb\u003eSupplementary Material 1\u003c/b\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe final questionnaire consisted of the following sections:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eSociodemographic details\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eAwareness of teaching and learning methodologies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceptions toward teaching methods (Likert scale)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eLearning style preferences based on the VARK model\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003ePreferred instructional approaches and suggestions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe validated questionnaire was converted into an online format using Google Forms and distributed electronically to eligible participants.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe collected data were entered into Microsoft Excel and analyzed using statistical software. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. Frequencies and percentages were calculated for categorical variables such as awareness, perceptions, and preferences toward teaching and learning methodologies. Measures of central tendency and dispersion, including mean and standard deviation, were used to describe continuous variables such as age. The results were presented using tables and graphical representations where appropriate.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"RESULTS","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSection A: Demographic Characteristics of the Participants\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e(Table 2)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA total of 264 MIT students participated in the study, with complete responses available for all variables. The mean age of the participants was 20.51 \u0026plusmn; 1.94 years.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong the participants, 158 (59.8%) were male and 106 (40.2%) were female. The majority of respondents were undergraduate students (229, 86.7%), while 35 (13.3%) were enrolled in the postgraduate program.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding institutional distribution, 35 (13.3%) participants were from government institutions and 229 (86.7%) were from private institutions. The mean age of students from government institutions was 20.8 \u0026plusmn; 1.7 years, whereas students from private institutions had a mean age of 20.6 \u0026plusmn; 1.5 years. (Table 2)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSection B: Awareness of Teaching and Learning Methodologies\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e(Graph 1)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudents demonstrated variable levels of awareness and exposure to different instructional strategies. Observational learning had the highest reported awareness and experience (145, 54.9%), followed by CBL (140,53.0%), SRL (133, 50.4%), e-learning/video lectures (131, 49.6%), and PAL (130, 49.2%).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLower awareness was observed for SBL, with only 27.3% reporting experience and 23.9% indicating no awareness. AaL was experienced by 44.3% of participants, while 17.4% reported no awareness.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSection C: Perceptions Toward Teaching and Learning Methodologies\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e(Graph 2)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudents\u0026rsquo; perceptions toward different teaching methodologies were demonstrated predominantly positive perceptions. High levels of agreement (agree + strongly agree) were observed for SRL (n = 194, 73.5%), observational learning (n = 193, 73.1%), CBL (n = 192, 72.7%), and e-learning/video lectures (n = 188, 71.2%).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSBL (n = 177, 67.0%) and PBL (n = 180, 68.2%) also received favourable perceptions, with the majority of students expressing agreement regarding their usefulness. Neutral responses were relatively higher for flipped classroom and EBM, suggesting possible uncertainty or limited exposure among participants.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStrong disagreement across all teaching methods was minimal, indicating an overall positive attitude toward diverse instructional approaches.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSection D: Learning Style Preferences\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e(Graph 3)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the adapted VARK questionnaire, the most preferred single learning style was Reading/Writing (n = 114, 43.2%), followed by Visual learning (n = 67, 25.4%). A notable proportion of students (n = 51, 19.3%) demonstrated a multimodal learning preference, indicating flexibility in learning approaches.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAuditory (n = 17, 6.4%) and Kinesthetic (n = 15, 5.7%) learning styles were least preferred when considered independently.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePreference for Teaching Methodologies\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e(Graph 4)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen students were asked to rate their instructional preferences, CBL and observational learning emerged as the most preferred methods (each 64.4%). E-learning/video lectures (61.0%) and SRL (60.2%) were also strongly preferred.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFlipped classroom and PAL showed comparatively lower preference ratings, with a higher proportion of students selecting neutral or least-preferred responses. However, no single method was universally rejected, reflecting the diversity of learning preferences within the cohort.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAlignment Between Teaching Methods and Learning Preferences\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e(Graph 5)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMost students reported that their current teaching methods supported their preferred learning styles, with 95 (36.0%) indicating \u0026ldquo;always\u0026rdquo; and 72 (27.3%) reporting \u0026ldquo;often\u0026rdquo;. In contrast, only 11 participants (4.1%) indicated rare or no alignment between teaching methods and their learning preferences.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSection E: Student-Suggested Improvements to Teaching Methods\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants were asked to suggest changes that could improve teaching methods in the MIT curriculum. Multiple responses were permitted. The most frequently suggested improvements included increased hands-on training, better integration of theory with clinical practice, and greater use of case based or clinical examples. Students also recommended more engaging lectures incorporating visual aids and videos, increased use of interactive teaching strategies such as group discussions and PBL, and expanded simulation-based or laboratory sessions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, 165 participants (62.5%) selected four or fewer improvement options, whereas 99 participants (37.5%) selected more than four options, indicating substantial student interest in enhancing teaching practices through multiple instructional approaches.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe present study assessed the awareness, perceptions, and preferences of various teaching and learning methodologies among Medical Imaging Technology students in Chennai. The findings indicate that students are generally aware of several instructional approaches and demonstrate positive perceptions toward student-centered and clinically oriented teaching methods.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants showed greater awareness of observational learning, CBL, SRL, and e-learning/video lectures. These methods are commonly integrated into health science curricula because they support clinical understanding and independent learning(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e). In contrast, relatively lower awareness of SBL and AaL suggests that these strategies may not yet be widely implemented in MIT education within the study setting. SBL has been shown to improve technical competence, confidence, and clinical decision-making in healthcare training(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e), indicating an opportunity for curricular enhancement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceptions toward teaching methodologies were predominantly positive. SRL, observational learning, CBL, and e-learning received the highest levels of agreement, suggesting that students value active participation, autonomy in learning, and clinically relevant instruction. Similar findings have been reported in studies of allied health and medical students, where active learning approaches were associated with improved engagement and perceived learning effectiveness.(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough SBL and PBL were viewed positively, the relatively higher proportion of neutral responses may indicate limited exposure to these methods rather than negative perceptions. Increased and structured implementation of such strategies may improve student acceptance and engagement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnalysis of learning style preferences using the VARK framework showed that the reading/writing learning style was the most preferred, followed by visual learning, while a considerable proportion of students demonstrated multimodal preferences. The prominence of visual learning is consistent with the nature of MIT education, which relies heavily on image interpretation and visual analysis. The preference for reading/writing may reflect the theoretical components of imaging education, including physics, anatomy, and imaging protocols.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCBL and observational learning emerged as the most preferred teaching methodologies, reinforcing the importance of clinically contextual instruction in MIT training. These approaches facilitate the integration of theoretical knowledge with clinical imaging practice and support the development of diagnostic reasoning skills. E-learning and SRL were also strongly preferred, highlighting the importance of flexible learning opportunities in modern health professions education.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMost participants reported that current teaching methods supported their preferred learning styles, indicating reasonable alignment between instructional practices and learner needs. However, student feedback emphasized the importance of increasing hands-on training, improving theory clinical integration, incorporating more case-based examples, and expanding SBL opportunities. These suggestions underscore the importance of experiential learning in MIT education.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study adds to the limited literature on teaching and learning methodologies in Medical Imaging Technology education in India, particularly in the Chennai region. The findings suggest that students are receptive to diverse instructional approaches, especially those that promote clinical application and active learning. Expanding experiential and simulation-based learning opportunities may further enhance student engagement and competency development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSTRENGTHS\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA key strength of this study is its focused on MIT students, a population that has received relatively limited attention in health professions education research. The use of a structured and validated questionnaire, along with an adequate sample size, enhances the reliability and credibility of the findings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLIMITATIONS\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSome limitations should be considered when interpreting the results. As the study employed a cross-sectional design, responses reflect student perceptions at a single point in time. Data were collected through self-reported questionnaires, which may be influenced by individual interpretation. Additionally, the study was conducted among institutions within Chennai; therefore, findings may reflect the educational context of the study setting. Future multi-center studies could provide broader generalization.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"CONCLUSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study demonstrates that MIT students in Chennai possess positive awareness and favourable perceptions of teaching and learning methodologies that emphasize clinical application, active engagement, and self-directed learning. Among these, observational learning, CBL, SRL, and e-learning were particularly well-recognized and preferred. Aligning instructional strategies with student preferences may enhance engagement, learning outcomes, and professional competence. Greater integration of theory with clinical practice, enhanced hands-on training, and expanded SBL opportunities can further strengthen the curriculum. These findings offer valuable insights for educators and curriculum developers aiming to implement student-centered and experiential teaching approaches in MIT education.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cp\u003eMIT: Medical Imaging Technology\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCBL: Case Based Learning\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEBM: Evidence Based Medicine\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePBL: Problem Based Learning\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSBL: Simulation Based Learning\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePAL: Peer-Assisted Learning\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTBL: Team-Based Learning\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSRL: Self-Regulated Learning\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAaL: Assessment as Learning\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDeclaration of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in the Manuscript Preparation Process\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring the preparation of this manuscript, the author used ChatGPT (OpenAI) to assist with language editing, improving grammar, refining sentence structure. After using this tool, the author carefully reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the final version of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate:\u003c/strong\u003e Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee of SRM Medical College Hospital and Research Centre (IEC No: SRMIEC\u0026ndash;ST0825\u0026ndash;2782; dated 17 September 2025). The study was conducted in accordance with institutional ethical guidelines and the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Participant confidentiality and anonymity were strictly maintained throughout the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent and voluntary participation:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eParticipation in the study was voluntary. An electronic informed consent form was included at the beginning of the questionnaire, and only participants who agreed to participate were allowed to proceed with the survey.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication:\u003c/strong\u003e Not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSwetha Hari:\u003c/strong\u003e conceived and designed the study, developed the questionnaire, collected data, performed analysis, and drafted the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKaran Sekar:\u003c/strong\u003e contributed to study design, coordinated data collection, assisted in interpretation of results, served as corresponding author, and reviewed the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVictor Rakesh Lazar:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003econtributed to methodological guidance, academic input in imaging education, and manuscript review.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAkash Nixon:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eassisted with data analysis, technical support, and manuscript editing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSibyl Siluvai:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eprovided expert guidance on questionnaire validation, including content validation and methodological refinement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEvangelin Vijaya Kumar:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eassisted in data collection, literature review, and manuscript review.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSenthil Kumar Aiyappan:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003esupervised the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors thank the Department of Radio-Diagnosis, SRM Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, for their support during the study\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHays RB, Ramani S, Hassell A. Healthcare systems and the sciences of health professional education. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2020;25(5):1149\u0026ndash;62.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhan University A, Frenk J, Chen L, qar Bhutta ZA, Cohen J, Crisp N, et al. The Lancet Commissions Health professionals for a new century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. www thelancet com [Internet]. 2010;376:1923\u0026ndash;58. Available from: www.thelancet.com.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFrank JR, Snell LS, Cate O, Ten, Holmboe ES, Carraccio C, Swing SR, et al. Competency-based medical education: Theory to practice. Med Teach. 2010;32(8):638\u0026ndash;45.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarden RM. Outcome-based education: The future is today. Med Teach. 2007;29:625\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBiggs J. ALIGNING TEACHING AND ASSESSING TO COURSE OBJECTIVES.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBiggs J. Constructive alignment in university teaching [Internet]. Vol. 1, HERDSA Review of Higher Education. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.herdsa.org.au\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDoes active learning works.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChalla KT, Sayed A, Acharya Y. Modern techniques of teaching and learning in medical education: a descriptive literature review. MedEdPublish. 2021;10(1).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThistlethwaite JE, Davies D, Ekeocha S, Kidd JM, MacDougall C, Matthews P et al. The effectiveness of case-based learning in health professional education. A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 23. Vol. 34, Medical Teacher. 2012.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4. PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMotola I, Devine LA, Chung HS, Sullivan JE, Issenberg SB. Simulation in healthcare education: A best evidence practical guide. AMEE Guide 82 Med Teach. 2013;35(10).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFleming ND, Mills C. DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska-Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska-Lincoln To Improve the Academy: A Journal of Educational Development Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education Not Another Inventory, Rather a Catalyst for Reflection Not Another Inventory, Rather a Catalyst for Reflection [Internet]. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://digitalcommons.unl.edu/podimproveacad\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/podimproveacad\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEl Sayed MM, Mmohsen D. Assessment of Learning Styles For Medical Students Using Vark Questionnaire. Int J Manage Appl Sci. 2016.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNorcini JJ, McKinley DW. Assessment methods in medical education. Teach Teach Educ. 2007;23(3):239\u0026ndash;50.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUrval 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\u0026ndash;20.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOjeh N, Harewood H, Greaves N, Sobers N, Boyce K, Lashley PM, et al. A Phenomenological Exploration of Experiences Related to Learning Styles Among Undergraduate Medical Students in a Barbadian Medical School. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2023;14:1105\u0026ndash;18.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlessing M. Aligning Learning Styles with Teaching Styles: A Comprehensive Overview. 2024.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStanley T. Case Studies and Case-Based Learning. New York: Routledge; 2021.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSteven Tenny A, Varacallo Affilations M. Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) [Internet]. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470182/?report=printable\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470182/?report=printable\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWood DF. Problem based learning. BMJ. 2003;326(7384):328\u0026ndash;30.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlharbi A, Nurfianti A, Mullen RF, McClure JD, Miller WH. The effectiveness of simulation-based learning (SBL) on students\u0026rsquo; knowledge and skills in nursing programs: a systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24(1):1099.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKaushal N, E-LEARNING:. MEANING, IMPORTANCE, PRINCIPLES AND RELEVANCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION Meaning and Importance of E-Learning.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAmer MG, Althaqafi RMM, Assiri SA, Alsufyani A, Alrubai FS, Mohamed NM. PEER-ASSISTED LEARNING: UNDERGRADUATE MEDICAL STUDENTS\u0026rsquo; PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION. Millenium: Journal of Education, Technologies, and Health. 2021;2(16):11\u0026ndash;22.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFryling MJ, Johnston C, Hayes LJ. Understanding Observational Learning: An Interbehavioral Approach. Anal Verbal Behav. 2011;27(1):191\u0026ndash;203.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOzdamli F, Asiksoy G. Flipped classroom approach [Internet]. Vol. 8, World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues. 2016. Available from: http://.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSousa M, Font\u0026atilde;o E. Team-based learning\u0026mdash;An approach to enhance collaboration and academic success in engineering education: A comprehensive study. Forum Educ Stud. 2025;3(1):2239.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZimmerman BJ. Self-Regulated Learning: Theories, Measures, and Outcomes. International Encyclopedia of the Social \u0026amp; Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier; 2015. pp. 541\u0026ndash;6.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHinduja P, Noor S, Siddiqui S, ASSESSMENT AS LEARNING (AAL). : AN INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACH IN LEARNING SECOND LANGUAGE [Internet]. Vol. 6, Journal of Research and Reviews in Social Sciences Pakistan. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://journal.kinnaird.edu.pk\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://journal.kinnaird.edu.pk\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e: Overview of teaching and learning methodologies assessed in the study\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTeaching Method\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDescription\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 166px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEducational purpose\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCase-Based Learning (CBL)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eApplying knowledge to real or simulated clinical cases through guided discussion.(20)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 166px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eApplication of theory to clinical practice.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEvidence-Based Medicine (EBM)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUsing best available research evidence to guide clinical decision-making.(21)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 166px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResearch and analytical skills.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProblem-Based Learning (PBL)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLearning initiated by problems that promote self-directed and collaborative learning.(22)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 166px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCritical thinking and self-directed learning.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSimulation-Based Learning (SBL)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDeveloping clinical skills using simulated environments, models, or virtual tools.(23)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 166px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePractical and technical skill development.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eE-Learning\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLearning delivered through digital technologies independent of time and location.(24)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 166px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFlexible and self-paced learning.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePeer-Assisted Learning (PAL)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudents learning collaboratively by teaching and supporting each other.(25)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 166px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCollaborative learning.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eObservational Learning\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLearning by observing and imitating behaviours or skills demonstrated by others.(26)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 166px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVisual understanding of procedures.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFlipped Classroom\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA student-centered model where content is learned before class digitally, and classroom time is used for active learning.(27)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 166px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eActive classroom engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTeam-Based Learning (TBL)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSmall-group collaboration, readiness assurance, and application activities to enhance engagement, teamwork, and problem-solving.(28)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 166px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCommunication and teamwork.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSelf-Regulated Learning (SRL)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudents independently set goals, apply strategies, monitor progress, and evaluate their learning outcomes.(29)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 166px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMetacognitive development.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAssessment as Learning (AaL)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 294px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLearning through self-assessment, peer feedback, and reflective evaluation.(30)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 166px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReflective learning.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTable 2: Section A: Demographic characteristics of study participants (N = 265)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVariable\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGovernment\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003einstitutions (n = 35)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePrivate institutions\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(n = 229)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal (N = 264)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMean Age (years)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.8 \u0026plusmn; 1.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.6 \u0026plusmn; 1.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.51 \u0026plusmn; 1.94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 519px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGender\u003c/strong\u003e, \u003cstrong\u003en (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Male\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17 (48.6%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e141 (61.6%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e158 (59.8%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFemale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18 (51.4%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e88 (38.4%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e106(40.2%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 519px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcademic Level\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eUndergraduate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32 (91.4%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e197 (86.0%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e229 (86.7%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePostgraduate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (8.6%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32 (14.0%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35 (13.3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-medical-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"meed","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Medical Education](http://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/meed/default.aspx","title":"BMC Medical Education","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Medical Imaging Technology Students, Teaching–Learning Methodologies, Student Perceptions, Learning Preferences, Medical Education, Educational Strategies, Active Learning Methods, Health Professions Education","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8914462/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8914462/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOBJECTIVES:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study aimed to assess the level of awareness among Medical Imaging Technology students regarding various teaching and learning methodologies; to evaluate their perceptions of the effectiveness, engagement, and applicability of these approaches in enhancing theoretical knowledge and clinical competence; to identify students’ preferred teaching methods for improving academic performance, skill development, and practical understanding; and to propose feasible educational strategies that can be implemented by educators and institutions to optimize learning outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBACKGROUND:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHealth professions education increasingly emphasizes student-centered and clinically oriented teaching approaches to improve learning outcomes and professional competence. Understanding students’ awareness, perceptions, and preferences toward teaching methodologies is important for aligning instructional strategies with learner needs. This study aimed to evaluate these factors among Medical Imaging Technology (MIT) students in Chennai.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMATERIALS AND METHODS:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA descriptive cross-sectional survey was conducted among undergraduate and postgraduate MIT students in Chennai. Data were collected using a structured, validated online questionnaire assessing demographic details, awareness and perceptions of teaching methodologies, learning style preferences based on the VARK model, and suggested improvements to teaching practices. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRESULT:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA total of 264 MIT students participated. Observational learning demonstrated the highest awareness (54.9%), followed by case-based learning (53.0%), self-regulated learning (50.4%), e-learning (49.6%), and peer-assisted learning (49.2%). Awareness was lowest for simulation-based learning (27.3%), with 23.9% reporting no awareness; 44.3% reported experience with assessment-as-learning.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePerceptions were predominantly positive. High levels of agreement were observed for self-regulated learning (73.5%), observational learning (73.1%), case-based learning (72.7%), and e-learning (71.2%). Simulation-based learning (67.0%) and problem-based learning (68.2%) were also favourably perceived, while neutral responses were relatively higher for flipped classroom and evidence-based medicine.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eReading/writing (43.2%) and visual (25.4%) were the most preferred learning styles, with 19.3% demonstrating multimodal preferences. Case-based and observational learning were the most preferred instructional approaches (64.4% each), followed by e-learning (61.0%) and self-regulated learning (60.2%). Most students reported alignment between teaching methods and their preferred learning styles (63.3% always/often). Frequently suggested improvements included increased hands-on training, enhanced theory–clinical integration, and expanded case-based and simulation-based learning.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCONCLUSION:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMIT students demonstrated positive attitudes toward active and clinically oriented teaching approaches. Expanding experiential and simulation-based learning opportunities may further improve student engagement, clinical competence, and readiness for professional practice.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Awareness, Perceptions and Preferences of Various Teaching and Learning Methodologies Among Medical Imaging Technology Students in Chennai","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-03-08 16:46:23","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8914462/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-04-09T11:51:08+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-09T04:01:51+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-04T04:25:22+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-01T16:50:13+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"82899243460260681711478543660577556733","date":"2026-03-31T04:41:42+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"182963062110320997438187308973471706968","date":"2026-03-27T11:29:46+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"176159709155157153175865018502029482329","date":"2026-03-26T03:39:48+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"77364193675067542763141217814194528280","date":"2026-03-25T11:44:31+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-03-24T00:29:46+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"39161230137429921488899105445770948576","date":"2026-03-23T14:19:39+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"199841743413625402287462070643414132978","date":"2026-03-04T05:52:26+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"40913429172267096520251008684393658539","date":"2026-03-03T01:06:01+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-03-02T06:09:33+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-03-02T05:38:39+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2026-02-26T12:45:46+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-02-25T05:14:04+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Medical Education","date":"2026-02-25T05:09:02+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-medical-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"meed","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Medical Education](http://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/meed/default.aspx","title":"BMC Medical Education","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"8841b465-93e0-4628-a6b2-cf25e67e44f9","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 8th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-20T05:24:31+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-03-08 16:46:23","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8914462","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8914462","identity":"rs-8914462","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}