ARTICLE INFO

Article Type

Original Research

Authors

Kalantari   N (1)
Ghaffari   S (*)
Ghaffari   S (*)






(*) Parasitology & Mycology Department, Medicine Faculty, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran
(*) Parasitology & Mycology Department, Medicine Faculty, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran
(1) 1“Molecular & Cellular Biology Research Center” and “Laboratory Sciences Department, Para-Medicine Faculty”, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran

Correspondence

Address: Parasitology & Mycology Department, Medicine Faculty, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Ganjafrooz Street, Babol, Iran
Phone: +981112291291
Fax: +981132236367
s3ghaffari@yahoo.com

Article History

Received:  July  9, 2013
Accepted:  January 11, 2014
ePublished:  October 7, 2014

BRIEF TEXT


… [1] The lecture method is the most common teaching method in the Iranian universities. The metod is very inexpensive and presents a vast amount of knowledge in a short time [2, 3]. Fatigue due to learners’ inactivation, one-way communication, no enough time to ask questions and exchange the ideas, no motivation, and rapid forgetting of the contents are some disadvantages of the method [4]. Encouraging the students to active participation to achieve better learning and providing the opportunity for group discussion are summarized as one of the most important teaching method [5].

Group discussion with lecture presentation leads to change the attitude and learning rate of the learners [6]. There are more attitude change and higher interest for leaning in the discussion method than the lecture method [7]. Lecture method alongside small discussion groups leads to higher GPA and there is a significant difference between the mean score (in the mentioned method) and obtained mean score in mere lecture presentation. The combined lecture-discussion method is a better teaching strategy [8].

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of students’ participation in Parasitology teaching on their learning and satisfaction to find a better training method.

This is a semi-experimental study.

69 second- and third-year BS students of laboratory sciences of Para-Medicine Faculty of Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran, (registered at 2010 and 2011) were studied in 2012-13.

Each group was studied in two consequent semesters, in which Parasitology 1 (Helminthology) and then, Parasitology 2 (Protozoology) courses were presented. 58 students were answered the questionnaire.

Helminthology course was presented in mere lecture method to the students registered at 2010 (“control group”). The course was presented in active participation method to the students registered at 2011 (“case group”). Protozoology course was presented in active participation method for students registered at 2010 (“case group”) and its mean score was compared with the mean score of the students registered at 2009 (“control group”). To engage the learners, Parasitology 1 and 2 courses were designed as two theoretical units for each course based on the educational headlines. At the first session, headlines and aims of the lessons, the aim of the study, and teaching method were explained to the students. Then, the learners referred to the related university teachers and registered their topics of interest and seminar presentation times. At the subsequent sessions, after the lesson had been presented by one student and some questions had been asked, other students were asked to answer the proposed questions. Finally, the university teacher began to explain the concepts of the lesson and complete the topic. A researcher-made questionnaire, provided by the teacher, was used to assess the students’ viewpoints about lessons presentation through active participation method. The questionnaire had 21 questions, scored as 3 (agree), 2 (no idea), and 1 (disagree), to assess the students’ viewpoints about effectiveness of the used method in learning progress of Parasitology 1 and 2. The questions of the questionnaire were provided and its validity was assessed based on the educational resources and consultations with the experts. Reliability of the questionnaire was obtained 0.89 based on Cronbach’s Alpha test and using SPPS 18 software. Mean values and final scores higher than 16 and 17 in the two methods were compared to each other. At the final session, the questionnaires were given to the students and then, they were collected. Data were analyzed using SPSS 18 software, descriptive statistics, and Student T test.

17 students (29.3%) and 41 students (70.7%) were male and female, respectively. The learners’ age average was 20.9±0.91years range from 19-23years. 48 students (82.8%) and 10 students (17.2%) were unmarried and married, respectively. Mean value of the students’ GPAs was 16.6±1.1 ranged from 14.4-18.8. 35 students (60.4%) assessed the teaching method for Parasitology Course better than the lecture method presented by the university teachers. 32 students (55.2%) were satisfied by the method. 33 students (56.9%) offered the method for coming semesters. 44 students (75.9%) said that the method enhanced the students’ analysis capability (Table 1). The students’ mean scores of Parasitology 1 course with learners’ participation and without learners’ participation were 15.00±0.51 and 12.80±0.40, respectively. There was a significant difference between the mean scores. The students’ mean scores of Parasitology 2 course with learners’ participation and without learners’ participation were 16.20±0.40 and 14.00±0.60, respectively. There was a significant difference between the mean scores. The frequency of higher scores than 16 and 17 in Parasitology 1 and 2 courses with learners’ participation was more than the frequency in the courses without learners’ participation (Table 2).

students’ learning and satisfaction in the active participation for Parasitology course was more than than the lecture method. The students were more satisfied from the participation method and the method has increased their knowledge [9, 10]. The learners have participated with higher interest in microbiology course, presented with the students’ participation [11]. Mean scores of Parasitology 1 and 2 courses, presented via students’ participation, were significantly higher than the mean scores in lecture method; and more students had higher scores than 16 and 17. Final mean score of Parasitology Course of the students, participated in the discussion method, has been significantly higher than the score of the students, participated in the lecture method [3] which is confirmed by the other studies [5-7, 12-15]. There is no significant difference between mean scores of the nutrition students in Nutrition Therapy 1 and 2 courses in active participation and lecture methods [10], which is inconsistent with the present results. … [16] More than 75% of the learners said that the active participation method enhanced their analysis capability. 56.9 and 58.6% of the students declared that the method motivated them to participate in the courses and to learn more. 70.7 and 84.5% of the learners assessed the method as a factor leading to the better relationship between the university teachers and the students, while it needed more coordination between them. 65.5% of the students declared that the method led to more group discussion in the classroom. Using interactive teaching and learning methods leads to more active classroom, learners’ increased self-esteem, more referrals to the resources, enhanced learning, classroom management, and reduced absenteeism [17].

Besides using the strategy in teaching other courses, more comprehensive study ought to be done in teaching different courses to the students of different disciplines, simultaneously.

Limiting the study to the Laboratory Science students and small sample size were of the limitations of the study.

Students’ participation in Parasitology Course improves quality of teaching the course. Using the method leads to strengthened motivation to learn the lesson, participation in the course, and trying further. The method provides an opportunity to more and better relationship between the teachers and the students.

The researchers feel grateful to Ms. Ghavipanje, Ms. Ghaffari, and Laboratory Sciences students.

Non-declared

Non-declared

The study funded by Babol University of Medical Sciences.

TABLES and CHARTS

Show attach file


CITIATION LINKS

[1]Liaghatdar M, Abedi MR, Jafari E, Bahrami F. Effectiveness of lecturing teaching method and group-discussion teaching method on educational achievements and communicative skills: A comparative study. Q J Res Plan High Educ. 2004;10(3):29-55. [Persian]
[2]Golafrooz Shahri H, Khaghanizade M. Introduction to oral presentation teaching method. Sci J Educ Strateg Med Sci. 2010;2(4):161-6. [Persian]
[3]Fattahi Bafghi A, Karimi H, Anvari MH, Barzegar K. Comparison of the Effectiveness of Two Teaching Methods of Group Discussion and Lecturing in Learning Rate of Laboratory Medicine Students. Strides Dev Med Educ. 2007;4(1):51-6. [Persian]
[4]Norozi HM, Mohsenizadeh SM, Jafary Suny H, Ebrahimzadeh S. The effect of teaching uning a blend of collaborative and mastery of learning models, on learning of vital signs: An experiment on nursing and operation room students of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences. Iran J Med Educ. 2011;11(5):544-53. [Persian]
[5]Krueger PM, Neutens J, Bienstock J, Cox S, Erickson S, Goepfert A, et al. To the point: Reviews in medical education teaching techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(2):408-11.
[6]Rossiter Jr CM. The effects of various methods of teaching about freedom of speech on attitudes about free speech issues. Free Speech Yearbook. 1997;9(1):44-51.
[7]Hill RJ. A comparative study of lecture and discussion methods (Studies in adult group learning in the liberal arts). Bangalore: The Fund for Adult Education; 1960.
[8]Johnson JP, Mighten A. Comparison of teaching strategies: Lecture notes combined with structured group discussion versus lecture only. J Nurs Educ. 2005;44(7):319-22.
[9]Momeni Danaei SH, Zarshenas L, Oshagh M, Omid Khoda SM. Which method of teaching would be better; cooperative or lecture?. Iran J Med Educ. 2011;11(1):24-31. [Persian]
[10]Farhadi A, Fallahi E, Ghazi Sh. Effect of modified team effect of design (m-TED) and lecture teaching methods on students' satisfaction and thier learning in Lorestan University of Medical Sciences. Biannual J Med Educ Dev Center Babol Univ Med Sci. 2013;1(1):7-12. [Persian]
[11]Ghasemian-Safaei H, Farajzadegan Z. Active participation of students in teaching. Iran J Med Educ. 2012;11(9):1129-30. [Persian]
[12]Safari M, Yazdanpanah B, Ghafarian HR, Yazdanpanah Sh. Comparing the effect of lecture and discussion methods on students` learning and satisfaction. Iran J Med Educ. 2006;6(1):59-64. [Persian]
[13]Khalili H, Baba Mohammady H, Hadji Aghajani S, Qods AA . The effects of two educational methods, classic and critical thinking strategies (CTS), on the stable learning of nursing students. J Med Educ. 2003;3(2):71-6. [Persian]
[14]Masoumy M, Ebadi A, Raisifar A, Hosseini R, Javanbakhtian R. Comparison of two teaching methods on nursing students’ learning and retention: Concept mapping or lecture?. Iran J Med Educ. 2012;12(7):498-507. [Persian]
[15]Heravi M, Jadid Milani M, Rejeh N. The effect of lecture and focus group teaching methods on nursing students learning in community health course. Iran J Med Educ. 2004;4(1):55-60. [Persian]
[16]Jafari M. Comparison of lecture and blended teaching methods on learning and satisfaction of medical students in biochemistry course. Iran J Med Educ. 2012;12(7):488-97. [Persian]
[17]Mortazavi H, Nemat R, Soheil Arshadi S, Armat MR. The effectiveness of various teaching methods application and learning in education process. Iran J Med Educ. 2005;5(14). [Persian]