Mrinal PAL, Subinay DATTA, Amit Kumar PRADHAN, Kanika Mandi CHOWDHURİ, Joydeep GHOSH, Rajarshi RAHUT

Biyokimya Dersindeki Başarıyı Arttırmak İçin Kullanılan Değişik Öğretim Yöntemlerinin Karşılaştırılması

AMAÇ: Tıp öğrencileri birinci sınıfta Biyokimyanın zor ve unutulabilir bulmaktadır. Bu açıdan, akademik performanslarını arttrımak için uygulanabilecek en iyi yardım ve yöntemi belirlemek için öğretmenlerden ve öğrencilerden çok kullanılan eğitim yardımları ve yöntemlerinin etkinliği hakkında geri bildirim üzerinde çalıştık. YÖNTEM: Bu çalışma 2012-2013 akademik yılının ilk yarısını tamamlayan 100 birinci sınıf öğrencisini ve bu öğrencilerin 11 öğretmenini kapsar. Öğretmen ve öğrencilerden soru formunu doldurmaları, sonar da 5 ay boyunca Biyokimya öğretiminde kullanılan öğretim yardımı ve yöntemleri puanlandırmaları istendi. BULGULAR: Çalışmanın sonuçları öğrencilerin en çok PowerPoint sunusunu tercih ettiklerini gösterdi. Öğrencilerin performansı söz konusu olduğunda geleneksel tebeşir ve konuşma ile öğretiminin etkisi Transparan-Tepegöz ve PowerPoint kullanımına göre daha fazlaydı. Fakat yazı tahtası TransparanTepegöz ve PowerPoint sunusu ile desteklendiğinde öğrencilerin tercihinin ve başarısının artışı daha iyiydi. Bu durum öğretmen tercihleri için de böyleydi. SONUÇ: Bu gözlem muhtemelen her öğretim yardımının doğasındaki eksiklik diğeri ile kompanze edilmesinden kaynaklanıyordu. Öğretim yöntemlerine gelirsek, bu yöntemlerin kombinasyonu didaktik derslerle kıyaslandığında daha etkiliydi.

[Comparison Between Different Teaching Methods to Increase Performance of Students in Biochemistry]

AIM: Medical students during their first year of Bachelor of Medicine & Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) course, find Biochemistry difficult and volatile. In this regard, we studied the feedback from students as well as from teachers about the effectiveness of prevailing teaching aids and methods, so that best teaching aid and method can be adopted to improve their academic performance. METHODS: This study comprises of total 100 students of 1st MBBS course, who have completed the 1st semester of academic year 2012-13 and their 11 teachers. Irrespective of the topic, the students as well as teachers were asked to fill the questionnaires and then grade the teaching aids and methods that were used to teach Biochemistry for the period of 5 months. RESULTS: The results of the study showed that as per the subjective assessment of the lectures concern, students preferred PPT teaching the most. As far as the students performance was concerned the impact of traditional Chalk and Talk teaching was more than the lectures using transparency and overhead projector (TOHP) and PowerPoint presentations (PPT). But when supplementing chalkboard with PPT or TOHP, the enhancement of the students preference and performance was much better. This fact was true about teachers preference also. CONCLUSION: This observation may probably be due to the fact that, inherent deficiency of each teaching aid was compensated by the other. With regard to teaching method, the combination of teaching methods was more effective when compared to didactic lectures.

PDF

___

1. Priyadarshini KS, Shetty HV, Reena R. Assessment of different teaching aids and teaching methods for the better perception of Biochemistry by 1st MBBS. Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences. 2012; 1(6)1159-65.
2. Parvin R, Haque N, Ahmed N, Ahmad R, Ali I, Ara R, Rahman MM, Bhattacharjee S, Bhattacharjee S, Rafiqueuddin A. Is audiovisual method better than traditional for medical students? a survey report. Bangladesh J Medicine 2010; 21 : 60-67.
3. Cannon R. Lecturing, Kensington (N.S.W.), Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australia. 1988.
4. Finch PM. The effect of problem-based learning on the academic performance of students studying pediatric medicine in Ontario. Med Educ. 1999; 33: 411-17.
5. Seth V, Upadhyaya P, Ahmad M, Kumar V. Impact of various lecture delivery methods in Pharmacology. EXCLI Journal 2010;9:96-101.
6. Novelli ELB, Fernandes AAH. Students preferred teaching techniques for biochemistry in biomedicine and medicine courses. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2007;35:263266.
7. Creed T. PowerPoint No! Cyberspace Yes! In: The National Teaching and Learning Forum. New York, NY: Greenwood Publishing Group. 1998.
8. Adkins J. PowerSpeak: Forgotten fundamentals of presentation speaking.2001. Available from: http://lowendmac.com/lab/01/0712.html. Accessed June 10, 2010.
9. Sharma R, Verma U, Kapoor B, Chopra VS. Novel teaching approaches in Pharmacology. JK Science 2004;6:172-3.
10.Lowry RB. Electronic presentation of lectures effect upon student performance. U Chem Ed 1999;8:18-21.
11.Savoy A, Proctor RW, Salvendy G. Information retention from PowerPoint and traditional lectures. Comput Educ. 2009;52:858867.
12. Rocklin T. PowerPoint is not evil. In: The National Teaching and Learning Forum. New York, NY: Greenwood Publishing Group; 1998.
13. Bartsch RA, Cobern KM. Effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in lectures. Computers and Education. 2003;41:7786.
14.Mayer RE, Anderson RB. The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. J Edu Psych 1992;84:444-52.
15. Seth V, Prerna Upadhyaya, Mushtaq Ahmad, Vijay Moghe. Power point or chalk and talk: perceptions of medical students in a medical college in India. Advances in Medical Education and Practice. 2010; 1: 11-16.
16.Casanova J, Casanova SL. Computers as electronic blackboard: Remodeling the organic chemistry lecture. Educom Re. 1991:3134.
17.Garg A, Rataboli PV, Muchandi K. Students' opinion on the prevailing teaching methods in pharmacology and changes recommended. Indian J Pharmacol 2004;36:155-8.
18.Ernest K, Anand KN, Kanagasabapathy N, Chandy SJ, Kuruvilla A, Thomas M. Patient oriented problem solving (POPS) approach and audiovisual aided lectures in teaching pharmacology A comparative study. Indian J Pharmacol 1998;30:97-101.
19.Pence HE. PowerPoint and cooperative learning: An ideal instructional combination. The Technology Source, July 1997. Available online at http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show=article&id=1 034 (1997).
20.Chaudry R, Dullo P, Gupta U. Attitude of 1st MBBS medical students about two different visual aids in physiology lectures. Pak Journal Physiology. 2009;2:5.
21.Kulkarni R, Ashwini. CA, Reddy B. Student Perception on Lectures in Medical Education. Anatomica Karnataka. 2011;5(2): 01-13.
22.Shallcross DE, Harrison TG. Lectures: electronic presentations versus chalk and talk a chemists view. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2007; 8 (1): 73-79.
23.Estes A, Ressler S, Welch R, Hanus J. Seminar on communication skills. Exceed teaching workshop 2009. Available from: http://www.asce.org/uploadedFiles/Leaders hip_Training/EXCEED/USMA-09- Seminar-VIChalkboard.ppt. Accessed June 10, 2010.
24.Ananthakrishnan N. Microteaching as a vehicle of teacher training its advantages and disadvantages. J. Postgrad. Med. 1993; 39(3): 142-143.
25.Seth V, Upadhyaya P, Ahmad M, Kumar V. An assessment of teachers preference for lecture delivery methods in medical education. Educational Research and Review 2010;5(9):533-537.
26.Hunt N. Enhancing lectures the modern way. The New Academic Autumn 1998. (1998):3-9.
27.Sammons M C. Using PowerPoint presentations in writing classes. The Technology Source (http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show=article&id= 519) August 1997. _____.p>. (1997).
28. Rossen S, McGraw D, Graham E, Lee D. "Enhancing your lecture with presentation software - Setting instructional goals".http://www.oid.ucla.edu/Fnmc/classtep.ht m and http://www.oid.ucla.edu/Fnmc/goals.htm Last updated September 1997 by David McGraw for Faculty New Media Center (FNMC) at UCLA Office of Instructional Development.(1997).