## 5 Results  
After processing the responses to the surveys, the CHAEA scores for each course have been calculated. Tables 4 and 5 show the average scores for each learning style, distributed by the obtained score (i.e., the mark) and their corresponding level according to Table 1. As can be observed in Table 4, in practically every studied course, the reflector learning style scores the highest, followed by the theorist style. The average reflector style score is considerably high (17 courses from the 19 studied achieved more than 15 points), with respect to the ceiling score (20 points). With the theorist style, the score is slightly lower, ranging between 13 and 16 points. However, in general, as shown in Table 5, the theorist style achieves the highest level, scoring higher or close to 4 in the majority of studied courses, while the reflector style performs between 3 and 3.5. Generally, every course reports a moderate or high level in each learning style. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l|c c c c} \hline
**Course** & **Active** & **Reflector** & **Theorist** & **Pragmati** \\ \hline ExpBio-Bicche-2223 & \(9.73\pm 3.39\) & \(\mathbf{16.80\pm 2.04}\) & \(14.07\pm 3.65\) & \(11.07\pm 3.28\) \\ ExpBio-Bicche-2324 & \(9.11\pm 3.26\) & \(\mathbf{16.32\pm 2.77}\) & \(14.63\pm 2.09\) & \(12.05\pm 3.17\) \\ PlaNut-Bicche-2223 & \(9.94\pm 2.77\) & \(\mathbf{17.06\pm 2.95}\) & \(15.06\pm 2.61\) & \(11.65\pm 2.47\) \\ PlaNut-Bicche-2324 & \(8.50\pm 3.54\) & \(10.00\pm 2.83\) & \(\mathbf{16.00\pm 1.41}\) & \(10.50\pm 0.71\) \\ StrFun-CellMol-2223 & \(8.80\pm 2.40\) & \(\mathbf{16.60\pm 2.13}\) & \(13.73\pm 2.31\) & \(11.73\pm 2.99\) \\ StrFun-CellMol-2324 & \(12.00\pm 0.00\) & \(\mathbf{18.00\pm 0.00}\) & \(17.00\pm 0.00\) & \(12.00\pm 0.00\) \\ Healm-Speech-2223 & \(10.76\pm 3.49\) & \(\mathbf{16.00\pm 2.43}\) & \(13.76\pm 2.34\) & \(12.71\pm 2.28\) \\ LanDev-Speech-2324 & \(12.78\pm 2.54\) & \(\mathbf{14.33\pm 3.08}\) & \(14.00\pm 2.06\) & \(13.33\pm 2.24\) \\ ChiDis-Speech-2223 & \(11.50\pm 3.32\) & \(\mathbf{16.25\pm 1.29}\) & \(15.00\pm 2.17\) & \(12.67\pm 2.77\) \\ ComLan-Primary-2324 & \(11.91\pm 2.86\) & \(\mathbf{16.83\pm 1.80}\) & \(15.61\pm 1.70\) & \(12.78\pm 1.48\) \\ InfCon-Physio-2324 & \(11.38\pm 3.07\) & \(\mathbf{16.50\pm 2.39}\) & \(16.00\pm 1.69\) & \(13.75\pm 1.83\) \\ Infys-Health-2223 & \(11.89\pm 3.03\) & \(15.17\pm 2.83\) & \(\mathbf{15.33\pm 2.28}\) & \(14.17\pm 2.18\) \\ ComTec-Software-2223 & \(10.10\pm 3.37\) & \(\mathbf{15.15\pm 3.18}\) & \(13.40\pm 3.27\) & \(11.75\pm 3.24\) \\ ComTec-Software-2324 & \(9.22\pm 4.06\) & \(\mathbf{15.33\pm 3.04}\) & \(14.56\pm 3.36\) & \(14.22\pm 3.49\) \\ IntSys-Computer-2223 & \(10.20\pm 3.35\) & \(\mathbf{16.50\pm 2.33}\) & \(14.60\pm 2.64\) & \(13.20\pm 3.69\) \\ TheAut-Computer-2223 & \(10.37\pm 3.14\) & \(\mathbf{15.92\pm 2.56}\) & \(14.45\pm 2.36\) & \(12.68\pm 2.97\) \\ TheAut-Computer-2324 & \(10.57\pm 2.49\) & \(\mathbf{16.17\pm 2.60}\) & \(13.90\pm 2.70\) & \(12.90\pm 3.30\) \\ ProPla-Computer-2223 & \(9.82\pm 3.06\) & \(\mathbf{16.09\pm 3.21}\) & \(15.55\pm 1.37\) & \(13.64\pm 2.16\) \\ ProPla-Computer-2324 & \(10.50\pm 3.30\) & \(\mathbf{15.12\pm 3.27}\) & \(13.00\pm 3.21\) & \(11.88\pm 2.64\) \\ \hline UMA-2224 & \(10.45\pm 3.15\) & \(\mathbf{16.08\pm 2.63}\) & \(14.53\pm 2.54\) & \(12.64\pm 2.86\) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Average CHAEA score for each learning style and course. Best results are highlighted in bold. The average classification of the CHAEA results for each branch of knowledge is plotted in Figure 1. The health branch is distinguished as the branch with the highest level in the four learning styles compared with the remaining branches. It is interesting to observe how the shapes of the classifications are similar across the branches, with the main differences lying in their predominance. For each learning style, the correlation between grades and CHAEA marks of the participants in each course was analyzed using a linear regression model, with the students of each subject as samples.