Receptivity of the Medical Students in a Lecture

5357 words (21 pages) Essay

27th Sep 2017 Health Reference this

Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a university student. This is not an example of the work produced by our Essay Writing Service. You can view samples of our professional work here.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UKEssays.com.

Evaluation of Receptivity of the Medical Students in a Lecture of a largGroup

Group

*Vidyarthi Surendra K1, §Nayak Roopa P.2, †Gupta Sandeep K.3

1,2,3Department of Pharmacology, Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Medical College and Hospital

(DSMCH), Siruvachur-621113, Perambalur, Tamil Nadu.

*Corresponding Author Dr. Surendra Kumar Vidyarthi, MD Pharmacology, Associate

Professor, Department of Pharmacology, DSMCH, Siruvachur, Perambalur, Tamil Nadu, India. Email:skvmanju9208@yahoo.co.in , Mobile: 9424143490

§Dr. Roopa P. Nayak (Professor, Head, Dept. of Pharmacology, DSMCH),

Dr. Sandeep K. Gupta (Assistant Professor, Dept. of Pharmacology, DSMCH).

ABSTRACT:

Background: Lecturing is widely used teaching method in higher education to convey information to large numbers of students1. Instructors of large introductory classes may believe they have no viable option but to lecture, and to evaluate the effectiveness of lecturing, particularly compared with alternative engagement strategies, and particularly in large class environments, still seems a critical dimension of research3. Aims and Objectives: The present study was to evaluate the effectiveness/receptivity of interactive lecturing in a large group of MBBS second year students. Material and Methods: The present study was conducted in the well-equipped lecture theater of a Medical College and Hospital . A fully prepared interactive lecture on the specific topic delivered by using power point presentation for 30 minutes to 111 MBBS second year students. Topic was never disclosed to the students before to deliver the lecture. After, that each paper evaluated and analyzed by using various

statistical calculation. Results: The 31 male, 80 female including 111 students of average age

18.58 years baseline (pre-test) receptivity mean % was 30.99 (SD14.64) and post-test receptivity mean % was increased upto 50.51(SD 19.52). The only 12 students out of 111 post-test receptivity value was less (mean % 25.8, SD 10.84) than the baseline (mean % 45, SD 9.05) receptive value and this reduction of receptivity was more towards negative side. Statistics: The statistical calculation was done by applying the paired t-test formula by using www.Openepi.com version 3.01 online/offline software and by using Microsoft Excel Sheet Windows 2010. Conclusion: In interactive lecture session with power point presentation students / learners can learn, even in large-class environments, but it should be active- learner centered.

Key words: Receptive level, Lecture, Large Group.

INTRODUCTION:

The term „Lecture‟ is derived from Latin word “lectus past participle of legere – to read a discourse given to an audience or class for instruction”. It is thought to be the origin of the lecture is from pre-date the printing press by centuries. Though, books were scarce and valuable, making the lecturer the gatekeeper of knowledge, which the student had to commit to memory1. Lecturing is still a widely used teaching method in higher education to convey information to large number of students. Good lectures can be compelling, and the suggestion that lectures are inherently ineffective because students stop learning after 15 min has recently been called into question2. Instructors of large introductory classes may believe they have no viable option but to lecture, and the call to evaluate the effectiveness of lecturing, particularly compared with alternative engagement strategies, and particularly in large class environments, still seems a critical dimension of research3. The present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of interactive lecturing in a large group among MBBS second year students. AIMS and OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the study was to evaluate receptivity of the medical student in a lecture of large group.

Get Help With Your Essay

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!

Find out more

MATERIAL and METHODS: After getting approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee, the present study was conducted in aMedical College and Hospital, . The study subjects were MBBS 2nd year students of the . The lecture theater was well equipped with audiovisual; air-conditioned with good seating arrangement. Before starting a lecture on the specific topic among 111MBBS second year students, instructor distributed questionnaire of

pre-test multiple-choice-ten-questions set to each student. Approximately 10 minutes time given to attempt the questions. The pre-test questionnaires sets were re-collected from the students after the 10 minutes. The instructor started to deliver lecture upto 30 minutes by using power point presentation. The lecture session was interactive to make the students attentive. This lecture contents were not disclosed and even students had never attended the same topic elsewhere before the pre-test. After end of the lecture, instructor again distributed same set of post-test-multiple-choice ten-questionnaires for ten minutes. After, that each paper was evaluated and analyzed by using various statistical calculation. This study was conducted in the month of November 2013. The Pre-test and post-test Questionnaire sets were same (See Appendix 1.Fig.1).

STATISTICS:

The statistical calculation was done by applying the paired t-test formula by using www.Openepi.com version 3.01 online / offline software (See Fig.6) and by using Microsoft Excel Sheet Windows 2010.

RESULTS:

The 111 students (including 31 male and 80 female) participated in the study and their average age was 18.58 year (See table1 and Fig.2). The baseline (pre-test) receptivity mean

% of the students was 30.99 (Standard Deviation=SD 14.64) and post-test receptivity mean % of the same students was increased upto 53.51(SD 19.52) (See table2 and Fig.3). Thus, there was 22.51 % mean receptivity of the students increased after the large group lecture (See table3 and Fig.6). Only 12 students out of 111 post-test receptivity values was less (mean %

25.8, SD 10.84) than the baseline (mean % 45, SD 9.05) receptive value (See table4 and

Fig.5) and this reduction of receptivity was more towards negative side (See table4 and

Fig.7).

Table 1: Preliminary Biodata of the Students

Number of the Students (N)

Male

Female

Age year (Mean)

111

31

80

18.58

       

Fig. 2: Preliminary Biodata of the Students

111

80

18.58 31

Total No.of Students

Age (Mean) year

Male

Female

Table 2: Pre-test, Post-test Receptivity Mean % and its Differences Mean % of the

Students

 

Pre-test Receptivity

Mean % of the

Students

Posttest Receptivity

Mean % of the

Students

Differences of Pretest and

posttest Receptivity Mean

% of the Students

Mean

30.99

53.51

22.52

S. D.

14.64

19.52

21.76

       

Fig.3: Receptivity (Mean %) of the students Before and After the Lecture & Differences mean

60 30.99

53.51

40 14.64 19.52

20

0

22.52 21.76

Mean

Pre-test Receptivity (%)

Post-test Receptivity (%)

Differences SD

of Receptivity (%)

Table 3: Percentwise increased Receptivity of the Students after the Lecture

0 % Receptivity

1- 30%

2- Receptivity

31 60% Receptivity

61 – 90% Receptivity

91 – 100% Receptivity

8

55

35

1

0

         

Fig.4: Number of Students showed Receptivity

after the Lecture

60

50

40

30

20 8

10

0

55 * Number of Students

35

1 0

Table 4: Pre-test, Post-test Receptivity Mean % and its Differences Mean % of the ONLY 12

Students who scored less than the Baseline Receptive level

 

Pre-test Receptivity

Mean %

Posttest Receptivity

Mean %

Differences of Pretest and posttest Receptivity Mean %

Mean

45

25.8

-19.17

S. D.

9.05

10.84

6.69

       

Fig.5: 12 Students showed Receptivity less than the

Baseline.

50 45

40

30

25.8

20 12

10

0

-10

-20

9.05 10.84

6.69

-19.17

Mean

SD

DISCUSSION:

“Theories are statements about how things are connected. Their purpose is to explain why things happen as they do”4.„When formal theory seems to offer no helpful answer, the search for theory at a more modest level can be turned into a provocative question: What would be needed by way of theory to help me better organize and present my data and to recognize relevant aspects of my field-work experience?‟5.

Find out how UKEssays.com can help you!

Our academic experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing project you may have. From simple essay plans, through to full dissertations, you can guarantee we have a service perfectly matched to your needs.

View our services

In this study we focused on the instructional method of questioning as a technique intended to prime active cognitive processing in learners. We asked 10 questions (Appendix1; Fig.1) based on the lecture content, before and after the lecture, each question given four multiple- choice options. Asked all students to attempt the correct option, after evaluation of each set of questionnaire, analyzed the obtained marks by using paired t-test. Questioning can be a generative method of instruction because when students answer questions during learning they select relevant information, mentally organize the material, and integrate it with their prior knowledge. So, in the present study we evaluated receptivity of the students with test questions on a variety of kinds of knowledge covered in the lecture content.

In the present study, we attempted to create attention during the lecture session by asking verbal relevant question to emphasizing content of the lecture and its clinical importance simultaneously by instructor interacting to the students that was based on content of the lecture material.

In the present study baseline (pre-test) and post-test receptivity mean % of the students was

30.99, 53.51 respectively. So, the improvement of the receptivity of the students was only

22.51 % mean (p< 0.0000001); obviously this improvement was more.

We already know that lectures as a rule have little educational value. People learn by doing, not by watching and listening. The only 12 students out of 111 post-test receptivity values was less (mean % 25.8, SD 10.84) than the baseline (mean % 45, SD 9.05) receptive value. Probably, it could be possible that students, who were not attentive during lecture session and at the time of attempting the questions, scored less marks. Apart from 12 students, another eight (8) student of the study receptive levels were 0 % percent; i.e.; their pre-test receptive level were same as post-test, probably they could not be attentive or they were not taking much interest to listen the lecture or they were not understanding the contents of the lecture or could be possibility that instructor not explained properly. Even, Phillip Wankat wrote,

that anything you can do in a large class you can do better in a small one7.

CONCLUSION:

So, our main conclusion of this study is interactive lecture session with power point presentation students / learners can learn, even in large-class environments. It is true that, large group classes with lecture-centered give limited opportunities for students to interact with the instructor. It is possible to deliver lecture effectively and needs more effort in large group class, even if you’re not a big-league entertainer. It is necessary to make logistical arrangements far enough in advance, provide plenty of active learning experiences in the classroom instead of depending on straight lecturing.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY:

In the large group lecture within one hour, it is impractical to interact every student in –terms of knowing their understanding ability. Thus, it is difficult to justify, why the post-test receptivity was less than the baseline receptive value of few (12 students in this study) students of this study, it could be possible that students who were not attentive during lecture session and at the time of attempting the questions. Apart from 12 students, another eight (8) student of the study receptive levels were 0 % percent; i.e.; their pre-test receptive level were same as post-test, probably they could not be attentive or they were not taking much interest

to listen the lecture or they were not understanding the contents of the lecture or could be possibility that instructor not explained properly.

 

REFERENCES:– References:

1. Brown S (2002) Lecturing: a Practical Guide. Routlege 2013, London

2. Wilson, K., and Korn, J. H. (2007). Attention during lectures: beyond ten minutes.

Teaching of Psychology 34, 85–89.

3. Boyer, D. (1987). College: The Undergraduate Experience in America. New York, NY: Harper & Rowe.

4. Le Compte, M. D. and Preissle, J. (1993) Ethnography and Qualitative Design in

Educational Research, San Diego, CA., Academic Press)

5. Wolcott, H. F. (1995) The Art of Fieldwork, Walnut Creek, CA, Alta Mira Press.

6. R.M. Felder, How About a Quick One?” Chem. Engr. Education, 26(1), 18-19 (1992). Formats for in-class exercises. North Carolina State University.

Appendix1.Fig1:

Fig.1 (Pre-test and Post-test Questionnaires)

for

MBBS 2 YEAR STUDENTS (Batch 2012)

Time: 10 Minutes Marks: 10 (one mark for each question) Date: 11-11-2013

Notes: Choose most correct answer and mark with (ïƒ-) in the given correct option.

Name: …………………………………………………….……………Age:…………………………Sex:………………..…

Q. 1. Which receptor locat<

Evaluation of Receptivity of the Medical Students in a Lecture of a largGroup

Group

*Vidyarthi Surendra K1, §Nayak Roopa P.2, †Gupta Sandeep K.3

1,2,3Department of Pharmacology, Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Medical College and Hospital

(DSMCH), Siruvachur-621113, Perambalur, Tamil Nadu.

*Corresponding Author Dr. Surendra Kumar Vidyarthi, MD Pharmacology, Associate

Professor, Department of Pharmacology, DSMCH, Siruvachur, Perambalur, Tamil Nadu, India. Email:skvmanju9208@yahoo.co.in , Mobile: 9424143490

§Dr. Roopa P. Nayak (Professor, Head, Dept. of Pharmacology, DSMCH),

Dr. Sandeep K. Gupta (Assistant Professor, Dept. of Pharmacology, DSMCH).

ABSTRACT:

Background: Lecturing is widely used teaching method in higher education to convey information to large numbers of students1. Instructors of large introductory classes may believe they have no viable option but to lecture, and to evaluate the effectiveness of lecturing, particularly compared with alternative engagement strategies, and particularly in large class environments, still seems a critical dimension of research3. Aims and Objectives: The present study was to evaluate the effectiveness/receptivity of interactive lecturing in a large group of MBBS second year students. Material and Methods: The present study was conducted in the well-equipped lecture theater of a Medical College and Hospital . A fully prepared interactive lecture on the specific topic delivered by using power point presentation for 30 minutes to 111 MBBS second year students. Topic was never disclosed to the students before to deliver the lecture. After, that each paper evaluated and analyzed by using various

statistical calculation. Results: The 31 male, 80 female including 111 students of average age

18.58 years baseline (pre-test) receptivity mean % was 30.99 (SD14.64) and post-test receptivity mean % was increased upto 50.51(SD 19.52). The only 12 students out of 111 post-test receptivity value was less (mean % 25.8, SD 10.84) than the baseline (mean % 45, SD 9.05) receptive value and this reduction of receptivity was more towards negative side. Statistics: The statistical calculation was done by applying the paired t-test formula by using www.Openepi.com version 3.01 online/offline software and by using Microsoft Excel Sheet Windows 2010. Conclusion: In interactive lecture session with power point presentation students / learners can learn, even in large-class environments, but it should be active- learner centered.

Key words: Receptive level, Lecture, Large Group.

INTRODUCTION:

The term „Lecture‟ is derived from Latin word “lectus past participle of legere – to read a discourse given to an audience or class for instruction”. It is thought to be the origin of the lecture is from pre-date the printing press by centuries. Though, books were scarce and valuable, making the lecturer the gatekeeper of knowledge, which the student had to commit to memory1. Lecturing is still a widely used teaching method in higher education to convey information to large number of students. Good lectures can be compelling, and the suggestion that lectures are inherently ineffective because students stop learning after 15 min has recently been called into question2. Instructors of large introductory classes may believe they have no viable option but to lecture, and the call to evaluate the effectiveness of lecturing, particularly compared with alternative engagement strategies, and particularly in large class environments, still seems a critical dimension of research3. The present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of interactive lecturing in a large group among MBBS second year students. AIMS and OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the study was to evaluate receptivity of the medical student in a lecture of large group.

MATERIAL and METHODS: After getting approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee, the present study was conducted in aMedical College and Hospital, . The study subjects were MBBS 2nd year students of the . The lecture theater was well equipped with audiovisual; air-conditioned with good seating arrangement. Before starting a lecture on the specific topic among 111MBBS second year students, instructor distributed questionnaire of

pre-test multiple-choice-ten-questions set to each student. Approximately 10 minutes time given to attempt the questions. The pre-test questionnaires sets were re-collected from the students after the 10 minutes. The instructor started to deliver lecture upto 30 minutes by using power point presentation. The lecture session was interactive to make the students attentive. This lecture contents were not disclosed and even students had never attended the same topic elsewhere before the pre-test. After end of the lecture, instructor again distributed same set of post-test-multiple-choice ten-questionnaires for ten minutes. After, that each paper was evaluated and analyzed by using various statistical calculation. This study was conducted in the month of November 2013. The Pre-test and post-test Questionnaire sets were same (See Appendix 1.Fig.1).

STATISTICS:

The statistical calculation was done by applying the paired t-test formula by using www.Openepi.com version 3.01 online / offline software (See Fig.6) and by using Microsoft Excel Sheet Windows 2010.

RESULTS:

The 111 students (including 31 male and 80 female) participated in the study and their average age was 18.58 year (See table1 and Fig.2). The baseline (pre-test) receptivity mean

% of the students was 30.99 (Standard Deviation=SD 14.64) and post-test receptivity mean % of the same students was increased upto 53.51(SD 19.52) (See table2 and Fig.3). Thus, there was 22.51 % mean receptivity of the students increased after the large group lecture (See table3 and Fig.6). Only 12 students out of 111 post-test receptivity values was less (mean %

25.8, SD 10.84) than the baseline (mean % 45, SD 9.05) receptive value (See table4 and

Fig.5) and this reduction of receptivity was more towards negative side (See table4 and

Fig.7).

Table 1: Preliminary Biodata of the Students

Number of the Students (N)

Male

Female

Age year (Mean)

111

31

80

18.58

       

Fig. 2: Preliminary Biodata of the Students

111

80

18.58 31

Total No.of Students

Age (Mean) year

Male

Female

Table 2: Pre-test, Post-test Receptivity Mean % and its Differences Mean % of the

Students

 

Pre-test Receptivity

Mean % of the

Students

Posttest Receptivity

Mean % of the

Students

Differences of Pretest and

posttest Receptivity Mean

% of the Students

Mean

30.99

53.51

22.52

S. D.

14.64

19.52

21.76

       

Fig.3: Receptivity (Mean %) of the students Before and After the Lecture & Differences mean

60 30.99

53.51

40 14.64 19.52

20

0

22.52 21.76

Mean

Pre-test Receptivity (%)

Post-test Receptivity (%)

Differences SD

of Receptivity (%)

Table 3: Percentwise increased Receptivity of the Students after the Lecture

0 % Receptivity

1- 30%

2- Receptivity

31 60% Receptivity

61 – 90% Receptivity

91 – 100% Receptivity

8

55

35

1

0

         

Fig.4: Number of Students showed Receptivity

after the Lecture

60

50

40

30

20 8

10

0

55 * Number of Students

35

1 0

Table 4: Pre-test, Post-test Receptivity Mean % and its Differences Mean % of the ONLY 12

Students who scored less than the Baseline Receptive level

 

Pre-test Receptivity

Mean %

Posttest Receptivity

Mean %

Differences of Pretest and posttest Receptivity Mean %

Mean

45

25.8

-19.17

S. D.

9.05

10.84

6.69

       

Fig.5: 12 Students showed Receptivity less than the

Baseline.

50 45

40

30

25.8

20 12

10

0

-10

-20

9.05 10.84

6.69

-19.17

Mean

SD

DISCUSSION:

“Theories are statements about how things are connected. Their purpose is to explain why things happen as they do”4.„When formal theory seems to offer no helpful answer, the search for theory at a more modest level can be turned into a provocative question: What would be needed by way of theory to help me better organize and present my data and to recognize relevant aspects of my field-work experience?‟5.

In this study we focused on the instructional method of questioning as a technique intended to prime active cognitive processing in learners. We asked 10 questions (Appendix1; Fig.1) based on the lecture content, before and after the lecture, each question given four multiple- choice options. Asked all students to attempt the correct option, after evaluation of each set of questionnaire, analyzed the obtained marks by using paired t-test. Questioning can be a generative method of instruction because when students answer questions during learning they select relevant information, mentally organize the material, and integrate it with their prior knowledge. So, in the present study we evaluated receptivity of the students with test questions on a variety of kinds of knowledge covered in the lecture content.

In the present study, we attempted to create attention during the lecture session by asking verbal relevant question to emphasizing content of the lecture and its clinical importance simultaneously by instructor interacting to the students that was based on content of the lecture material.

In the present study baseline (pre-test) and post-test receptivity mean % of the students was

30.99, 53.51 respectively. So, the improvement of the receptivity of the students was only

22.51 % mean (p< 0.0000001); obviously this improvement was more.

We already know that lectures as a rule have little educational value. People learn by doing, not by watching and listening. The only 12 students out of 111 post-test receptivity values was less (mean % 25.8, SD 10.84) than the baseline (mean % 45, SD 9.05) receptive value. Probably, it could be possible that students, who were not attentive during lecture session and at the time of attempting the questions, scored less marks. Apart from 12 students, another eight (8) student of the study receptive levels were 0 % percent; i.e.; their pre-test receptive level were same as post-test, probably they could not be attentive or they were not taking much interest to listen the lecture or they were not understanding the contents of the lecture or could be possibility that instructor not explained properly. Even, Phillip Wankat wrote,

that anything you can do in a large class you can do better in a small one7.

CONCLUSION:

So, our main conclusion of this study is interactive lecture session with power point presentation students / learners can learn, even in large-class environments. It is true that, large group classes with lecture-centered give limited opportunities for students to interact with the instructor. It is possible to deliver lecture effectively and needs more effort in large group class, even if you’re not a big-league entertainer. It is necessary to make logistical arrangements far enough in advance, provide plenty of active learning experiences in the classroom instead of depending on straight lecturing.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY:

In the large group lecture within one hour, it is impractical to interact every student in –terms of knowing their understanding ability. Thus, it is difficult to justify, why the post-test receptivity was less than the baseline receptive value of few (12 students in this study) students of this study, it could be possible that students who were not attentive during lecture session and at the time of attempting the questions. Apart from 12 students, another eight (8) student of the study receptive levels were 0 % percent; i.e.; their pre-test receptive level were same as post-test, probably they could not be attentive or they were not taking much interest

to listen the lecture or they were not understanding the contents of the lecture or could be possibility that instructor not explained properly.

 

REFERENCES:– References:

1. Brown S (2002) Lecturing: a Practical Guide. Routlege 2013, London

2. Wilson, K., and Korn, J. H. (2007). Attention during lectures: beyond ten minutes.

Teaching of Psychology 34, 85–89.

3. Boyer, D. (1987). College: The Undergraduate Experience in America. New York, NY: Harper & Rowe.

4. Le Compte, M. D. and Preissle, J. (1993) Ethnography and Qualitative Design in

Educational Research, San Diego, CA., Academic Press)

5. Wolcott, H. F. (1995) The Art of Fieldwork, Walnut Creek, CA, Alta Mira Press.

6. R.M. Felder, How About a Quick One?” Chem. Engr. Education, 26(1), 18-19 (1992). Formats for in-class exercises. North Carolina State University.

Appendix1.Fig1:

Fig.1 (Pre-test and Post-test Questionnaires)

for

MBBS 2 YEAR STUDENTS (Batch 2012)

Time: 10 Minutes Marks: 10 (one mark for each question) Date: 11-11-2013

Notes: Choose most correct answer and mark with (ïƒ-) in the given correct option.

Name: …………………………………………………….……………Age:…………………………Sex:………………..…

Q. 1. Which receptor locat<

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

DMCA / Removal Request

If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have your work published on the UKDiss.com website then please: