View in EDS HTML Full Text

Use of Teaching Methods within the Lecture Format.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Use of Teaching Methods within the Lecture Format.
Language: English
Authors: Butler, Jennifer A.
Source: Medical Teacher. 1992 14(1):11-25.
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 1992
Intended Audience: Teachers; Administrators; Practitioners
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Tests/Questionnaires
Descriptors: Biology, Foreign Countries, Higher Education, Instructional Effectiveness, Lecture Method, Questionnaires, Science Education, Student Attitudes, Student Evaluation of Teacher Performance, Surveys, Teacher Evaluation, Teaching Methods, Undergraduate Students
Geographic Terms: United Kingdom (England)
ISSN: 0142-159X
Abstract: Reports survey results of 126 students enrolled in first- or second-year biology courses concerning the effectiveness of different teaching methods within the lecture format. Indicates that the traditional, didactic lecture, although perceived as least effective, was regarded as highly effective when enhanced by active student involvement. Appendices include the surveys utilized and frequency graphs of responses. (22 references) (JJK)
Entry Date: 1992
Accession Number: EJ449219
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN9707172091;MCH01MAR.92;2000Jan17.20:26;v4.1</anid> <title id="AN9707172091-1">USE OF TEACHING METHODS WITHIN THE LECTURE FORMAT </title> <p>SUMMARY A survey was carried out at Dorset House School of Occupational Therapy, Oxford, into the perceived effectiveness of different teaching methods used within the lecture format in the Human Biology Courses for Year 1 and Year 2. Results showed that the traditional, didactic lecture was perceived by the students as the least effective method used, yet by involving the students actively within the lecture time the format was enhanced and was regarded as a more effective teaching/learning tool. Experiential tasks and learning packages used within the lecture format were also perceived by the students as effective. Some trends were noted relating to the age of students and the different perceptions of effectiveness of teaching methods. The implication of these results on the planning and financing of courses is discussed. </p> <hd id="AN9707172091-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The traditional lecture:--an exercise in one way communication lasting approximately 50 minutes and comprising the transference of notes from the paper of the lecturer to that of the student without going through the brains of either. Is this a fair definition? Is this how students perceive the process? </p> <p>The traditional, didactic lecture format (defined as the continuous exposition by one person for approximately 50 minutes to a largely passive recipient audience) is the dominant teaching method within most Higher Education courses. Yet many studies have shown that this method, whilst being as a good as (or as bad as) other methods for the transmission of information (including the framework of a subject), is not very effective at stimulating thought (Bligh, 1972). </p> <p>The determinants of memory, learning, thinking, problem solving, attention span, factors causing forgetting as well as factors aiding recall, have been described many times in published papers and in texts (Bligh, 1972, Cox, 1987, Gibbs et al., 1987, Carruthers, 1988, Jackson & Prosser, 1989, Issaacs, 1989) and cited as evidence for the need for review of teaching strategies utilized in higher education and in medical education if active learning (involving higher order skills such as analysis, evaluation and synthesis of ideas and concepts) is to be attained. </p> <p>This paper does not attempt to reiterate these frequently documented facts and ideas, but accepts them as read and refers the reader to the original references. </p> <p>What is clear in higher education (including medical and paramedical studies-Laidlaw, 1988) is that the use of lectures as a means of teaching, especially with the climate of rising staff/student ratios, is here to stay. Bligh (1972) identifies this perceived 'efficiency' of the lecture and its' continued use as due to three main factors: </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) one lecturer teaches many students and thus is seen as cost effective, </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) it is a method readily understood by both staff and students and is in the culture of higher education, </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) the sense of 'theatre' which many lecturers enjoy. </p> <p>Given these factors, educationalists must change their use of the lecture time in order to improve student learning, achieve the higher-order educational objectives which at present may largely be given merely lip service, and also, as Jenkins (1991) suggests, set up a culture whereby the students take responsibility for their own learning and the lecturer becomes a manager and facilitator of the learning experience rather than a presenter of information and ideas. </p> <p>The lecture must, therefore, be used in conjunction with other methods and techniques, with evaluation by the students of the effectiveness of these methods upon their learning. Some research involving the evaluation of the traditional lecture is illuminating (Hasekura et al., 1990)! </p> <p>In medical and paramedical education, the Biological Sciences (anatomy and physiology particularly) are problematical areas because they are taught not just for the acquisition of facts, but rather in order that the student may acquire medical knowledge, understand disease processes and treatment rationale, and attain competent clinical skills. Studies have shown (Cox, 1987; Mitchell, 1988; Schwartz, 1989) that this transference of knowledge is not automatic, especially when the core anatomy and physiology subjects are taught via traditional methods of lecturing. Arguments for Problem-based Learning and small group teaching in these areas, and the success of these techniques in clinical skill acquisitions is well documented within these study papers. Such teaching strategies, moving away from the traditional methods like lecturing do however require low staff/student ratios and a considerable changing of roles for both lecturer and student. This change and transition can only occur over time, and given the arguments for the continuing use of the lecture within Higher Education already stated, it may be expedient to examine the role of the nontraditional lecture as one of a variety of teaching/learning strategies to be used within course delivery. </p> <p>This survey was set up to investigate whether, within the lecture format, students: </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref4">1</reflink>) perceived any differences between teaching methods as related to their own learning styles and needs, </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref5">2</reflink>) whether any differences found were age related; and </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref6">3</reflink>) if there were any differences in perceived effectiveness of teaching methods between the 1st and 2nd year groups of students. </p> <hd id="AN9707172091-3">Methods</hd> <p>The teaching of Human Biology to Occupational Therapy students was examined. The courses involved were Year 1 Human Biology in Health and Disease, and Year 2 Human Biology and Disease. All students were attending Dorset House School of Occupational Therapy, Oxford, during the winter term 1990. Numbers of students participating in the study were; Year 1--77 students (45 being 20 or under, 32 being 21 or over), Year 2--49 students (24 being 20 or under, 25 being 21 or over). </p> <p>The lecturer for both courses and for all sessions was the same. The timing and venue of the lectures under scrutiny were unavoidably different with Year 1 students being taught at 10.00 am on Tuesdays and Thursdays in a large lecture room, and Year 2 students being taught at 12.00 noon on a Monday and Friday in a smaller classroom. </p> <p>During the lecture series for both courses, five different ways of using the 50 minute lecture time were tried, with both order of presentation and subject matter involved in each method differing for each group where possible. This was done in order to reduce the influence of these variables on the results. The five methods used within the lecture time were: </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref7">1</reflink>) Worksheet--all material is presented to the students in a learning pack designed to be completed within the 50 minute period. The learning pack contains written information interspersed with 'test' questions to enable the student to monitor his/her own progress. Lecturer input:-answering queries which may arise. </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref8">2</reflink>) Didactic format (Traditional Lecture)--a one way communication with all the material being presented in verbal form by the lecturer using standard teaching techniques like audio visual aids to help delivery. </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref9">3</reflink>) Uncompleted Handout--a traditional lecture plus a handout to each student containing the structure of the lecture material and any relevant diagrams, but with gaps. The student is required to fill in the gaps or label the diagrams as the lecture progresses. </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref10">4</reflink>) Completed Handout--a traditional lecture plus a handout to each student containing the total content of the lecture, additional material and references. </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref11">5</reflink>) Experiential Tasks--students divided into pairs or small groups, given set tasks to do, pyramidding (pairs, then fours, then groups getting together for discussion of set tasks plus additional tasks), completing handouts or reporting back to the whole group. Lecturers' input:--the setting of tasks, and facilitating the plenary group discussion. </p> <p>Order of presentation and subject matter for each method in the two courses were as follows: </p> <ct id="AN9707172091-4"> Method Subject Matter Year 1 (1) Completed handout Brain structure & function (2) Traditional lecture Spinal cord (3) Worksheet Nerve impulse (4) Uncompleted handout Cerebellar & extrapyramidal systems (5) Experiential tasks Special senses--eye & ear Year 2 (1) Worksheet Nerve impulse (2) Traditional lecture Cerebellar & extrapyramidal systems (3) Uncompleted handout Muscle tone & upright posture (4) Completed handout Urogenital system--neural control (5) Experiential tasks Bones of the trunk</ct> <p>Following the delivery of these lectures/learning experiences, each student was asked to complete an evaluation form. (See Appendices 1 and 2). They were asked to rate, on an open linear scale ranging from 'Not at all effective' to 'Very effective', their perceptions of how successful or effective the various teaching methods were upon their own learning. In addition, each student was at liberty to make any additional comments they wished regarding the teaching of the Human Biology course. The students were also asked to put their age on the form, or at least indicate '21 or over' or '20 or under'. </p> <p>The use of an open scale was decided upon in order to reduce the likelihood of scores being influenced by imposed numerical values, and to encourage a more reflective approach to assessing the effectiveness of the different methodologies on their own learning. In scoring each form, a transparent acetate was overlaid which converted the mark made on the scale to a numerical value of between 0-10. </p> <hd id="AN9707172091-5">Results</hd> <p>Generally the results of this survey confirmed previous research in this area in that the traditional didactic lecture was perceived as the least effective of all the methods used within the 50 minute lecture time in the Human Biology course for the majority of the students, especially those in Year 1. Year 2 students placed a slightly higher ranking of effectiveness upon the traditional lecture, but other methods were perceived as more effective upon their learning (see table I). </p> <p>When students responses were divided into over 21/under 21 age groupings, differences were noted in the rankings of perceived effectiveness of different methods used in the lecture time (see Table II). </p> <p>The average ranking scores of perceived effectiveness of the different educational methods are presented in Table III, with the frequency distribution of scoring illustrated in graphs 1-10 (see Appendix 3). </p> <p>Analysing the raw data of Year 1 student perceptions of effectiveness of the five teaching methods using the Friedman test, it was found that with a probability of >0.001 there was a relationship between educational method and perceived effectiveness. No statistical significance was found between the perceptions of effectiveness of 'over 21' students and 'under 21' students. Similar analysis of Year 2 student perceptions of effectiveness indicated with a probability >0.01 significant differences in perceived effectiveness between the teaching methods. Again no significant differences were found between the two age groupings (over 21/under 21). </p> <p>There were no significant differences found between the data supplied by the two year groupings i.e. Year 1 students compared with Year 2 students. </p> <p>In examining age differences, although not statistically significant, certain interesting trends can be seen by looking at the frequency graphs 1-10 (Appendix 3). </p> <p>Year 1 students 'under 21' tended to rate the Worksheet at a higher level of effectiveness (8-10 on the scale) than did the 'over 21' students (graph 1). Similarly with the uncompleted handout and the experiential tasks, younger students had a tendency to perceive these methods as more effective upon their learning than the older students (graphs 3 and 5). The traditional didactic lecture elicited a fairly even spread of perceived effectiveness ratings in the 'over 21' students, whereas the younger 'under 21' students had a tendency to rate this method in the lower end of the scale peaking at the middle (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref12">5</reflink>) area (graph 2). </p> <p>Year 2 students also showed trends relating to age differences. Older students had a tendency to rank the worksheet as less effective than the younger students (graph 6), but more use was made of the middle of the rating scale (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref13">5-8</reflink>) by the second year students overall. The traditional lecture had a tendency to be given a higher ranking of effectiveness by the 'over 21' students in the 2nd Year with a noticeable use of the very top (<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref14">10</reflink>) end of the scale (graph 7). No age differences were noticeable in the rating of the uncompleted handout with many students tending to use the upper end (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref15">7-10</reflink>) of the perceived effectiveness scale (graph 8). Experiential tasks for the Year 2 students seemed to be perceived as not a very effective way of learning, with a skew to the lower end of the scale being apparent in the frequency graph (graph 10). </p> <p>Although no statistical differences were found, comparison of the frequency graphs of Year 1 students and Year 2 students indicated a tendency of the former to use the top end of the scale when rating effectiveness of teaching methods, whereas the Year 2 students were more inclined to conservatism in their ratings. N.B. Readers are alerted to the fact that when comparing any of the frequency graphs one with another (Appendix 3) the scale on the vertical axes may differ. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707172091-6"> Qualitative Data Results </hd1> <p>An interpretation of the data obtained from the evaluation forms via the 'any other comments' section related particularly to teaching techniques incorporated within the lecture to help the students relate one lecture to another, lengthen their attention span within the lecture time, and facilitate a focusing onto the essential points within the subject matter taught. The techniques which were most commonly commented upon were: </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref16">1</reflink>) Setting clear objectives for each lecture and seminar session with some references, given in handout form to the students at the start of their course. Typical comments: </p> <p>"The objectives are a brilliant idea, they help me check my notes, do extra work and know that I'm keeping up with the work." </p> <p>"Objectives--very useful--enabled me to do a bit of background before the lectures." </p> <p>"Good guide to what needed doing/reading." </p> <p>"Could be useful but mainly for revision purposes. Haven't really read them yet." </p> <p>"Always could see what we were going to be doing, and helped structure the reading." </p> <p>"Very useful if you miss a lecture, lose notes, or if you are confused over a particular area." </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref17">2</reflink>) Have a break, or 'quiet time' in the middle of the lecture to enable students to go over, think about, or make additional notes on the material covered thus far. </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref18">3</reflink>) Asking students, at the end of the lecture to identify the 'Three Main Points' which they have learned/understood from the lecture material. Then comparison of their main points with those of the lecturer and highlighting any discrepancy between the two. Typical comments: </p> <p>"Quiet time and main points--effective." </p> <p>"Quiet time and 3 main points very good at making points stick." </p> <p>"Three minutes thinking time seems a waste of time!" </p> <p>"I found the quiet 3 minutes and the main 3 points very helpful." </p> <p>"Three main points at the end help me to focus on what is important." </p> <p>"Three main points excellent idea. Makes sense and guides understanding." </p> <hd id="AN9707172091-7">Discussion</hd> <p>That the traditional didactic lecture emerges from this research as being perceived as the least effective teaching/learning tool when compared with other usages of the lecture time is, it might be argued, not surprising given the weight of previous research in this area. Yet what is noteworthy is that the lecture 'per se' is not unpopular or perceived as ineffectual, only when it is given in the traditional manner with the student audience totally passive, does it lose the students' confidence. The popularity and the high effectiveness scores given to the 'uncompleted handout' method in this survey by the majority of students (Year 1 and 2, over 21 and under 21) indicates that the culture of the lecture is acceptable, and that it can be an effective learning mechanism just given that the students have some means to engage them actively in what is happening within that lecture time. As one student comments "I like the uncompleted handout. I can't drop off, because I'm waiting to fill in the next gap." And also "It's like a game, good fun filling in the spaces." That a student can have "fun" in a Human Biology lecture is surely something to be encouraged! </p> <p>The main implications of accepting the uncompleted handout as a general mechanism for improving student learning within the lecture format are twofold. Firstly the amount of preparation time for the handouts is enormous, adding to work commitment of the lecturer. Secondly, a matter of finance. If the students have four Human Biology lectures a week in their first term of Year 1, with each lecture needing perhaps 4-8 sheets of paper per student for the handout, and with 90 students in the year group, it is apparent how much paper is needed just for one course and in one term. The implications on the financing of the course are evident (let alone the environmental concerns of saving trees.) </p> <p>It might be argued however, that the needs of the student are paramount, and that if the aims and objectives of higher education are able to be fulfilled by such a method of teaching, then that must be a priority. Finances and staff resources must be adjusted to enable good and effective teaching/learning to occur. This is of course more of a political question, and one which will not be debated in this paper. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707172091-8"> Age </hd1> <p>The trends observed in age-related perceptions of effectiveness are interesting to discuss further. The younger (under 21) Year 1 students seems to be more comfortable with techniques which enable them to work alone, or work with others, and perceive them as effective methods of teaching. Older students in Year 1 had a tendency to prefer the more concrete methods and perceived the lecture with the completed handout as being the most effective. These differences could be interpreted in various ways. It might be argued that the younger students, many straight from secondary education, are used to experiential learning, exploration as a means of learning, and are fully conversant with the idea of working alone or in groups for this is the trend of general secondary education in this country today. The older students however, perhaps with more responsibilities and less time, and from different educational backgrounds with arguably mainly 'chalk and talk' experience, have different perceptions and needs. It might be suggested, therefore, that they expect to be 'taught' and to be given information which they 'need to know' and thus feel cheated or ill at ease with methods which do not provide them with such 'knowledge'. </p> <p>A second approach to explaining the differences could be to look at levels of anxiety within the two age ranges. Younger students, it might be suggested, tend to accept education as their way of life and not question it too closely. It is a continuation of what has structured their lives for the previous 13 or 14 years. Empirical evidence shows that older students, on the other hand, having had a break from education are generally highly motivated to succeed, and could be more anxious concerning their abilities to cope with the work load and content. This anxiety could lead to the student seeking out concrete and defined blocks of information in order to set limits and boundaries on their own learning, which at once makes it finite and more manageable and thus eases anxiety. </p> <p>If these two factors were influential in determining the perceived effectiveness of teaching methods then, it might be argued, a different picture should emerge in the Year 2 students. By this time the older students should have become fully acquainted with the ethos of Higher Education, and also with a year's 'proof' that they can cope with both the work load and level of study, should be less anxious. Results from this survey show some change of perspective in the older (over 21) Year 2 students, with the uncompleted handout being perceived as the most effective teaching method in terms of their own learning, but then the traditional didactic lecture is ranked as the next in effectiveness so perhaps some concrete thinking and anxiety still remain. In fact, as the statistical analysis of the data indicated, the year of study made no significant differences to the perceived effectiveness of different teaching methods. It might be suggested, therefore, that the age of the student is the more influential factor. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707172091-9"> Year 1 and Year 2 students </hd1> <p>Year 2 students had a tendency within this survey to use more of the middle range of the effectiveness scale when rating teaching methods compared to Year 1 students who tended to use the upper end of the scale. This could be explained in terms of the novelty and enthusiasm felt by Year 1 students for their new course and their new lifestyle generally. It might be argued that by Year 2 this enthusiasm and novelty has perhaps worn off, and having experienced a great many lectures and different types of learning experiences in their first year, the students are more critical, more cynical, and have a greater capacity for realistic comparison of teaching methods and how they effect their learning. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707172091-10"> Experiential tasks </hd1> <p>One result from this survey requires further explanation, namely the poorly rated experiential tasks method of learning by the Year 2 students. It was, in fact, evident at the time of the particular session that things were not going well. The main problem was one of lack of time for each of the tasks set. This led to obvious student frustration and irritation when 'time' was called and they were required to go on to the next allotted task. Given the objectives set for that particular lecture period, plus the sequential nature of the lecture series, plus the inexperience of the lecturer concerned in setting the tasks, the session continued as planned despite growing awareness that the students were either not finishing each task, or not doing them to their satisfaction. Naturally when the students had to rate the method in terms of effectiveness on their learning, generally it was felt to be a poor learning mechanism. Some students did, however, identify the source of the problem and acknowledged that in other circumstances it could be an effective learning tool. For example: </p> <p>"There was not enough time!! Although it is a good way of learning." </p> <p>"Not enough time--would work in a 2 hour session!!" </p> <p>"Only half completed the tasks in the time given." </p> <p>Another point to make is that the experiential tasks were the most radically different, the most non-traditional, of the methods used within the allotted 50 minute lecture time. It might be aruged therefore that the degree of change required by the students away from their traditional and accustomed role was far greater than for the other methods used. Research findings from other studies investigating student responses to active learning tasks (Jenkins, 1991) indicate that on initial exposure to the method, the majority of students find experiential methods strange, threatening and ineffectual. It is only with time and exposure to the method that the student becomes comfortable and confident both with the method and their role. So perhaps the Year 2 responses should have been expected. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707172091-11"> Content </hd1> <p>The choice of content of each of the sessions under examination in this survey was carefully considered especially in the 'experiential tasks' sessions. It was considered that some of the subject matter to be addressed within the course were too complex to be taught via task setting and sharing. The subjects being taught were descriptive elements of Human Anatomy and Physiology and so deep analysis, interpretation, or opinion of information presented was not requested or appropriate to ask for. It was decided therefore to use the 'experiential' sessions solely for simple topics (special senses--eye and ear--for Year 1 students, and bones of the trunk for Year 2 students), in which the students had a working knowledge of the subject from previous 0 or A level studies and could thus contribute to the session. </p> <p>This deliberate choice of subject matter for each of the teaching methods could have had an effect on the results, but it could be argued that if this was the case one might have expected the lecture on the Urogenital system (examining micturition and coitus) to have received a higher rating of effectiveness than it did (given youthful preoccupation with genital function) if content of the sessions were paramount. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707172091-12"> Survey methodology </hd1> <p>Another factor which may have influenced results is the wording of the evaluation form given to the students. It is noted that only for the 'Uncompleted Handout' section were the students given any kind of rationale for an educational method ("... to reduce your note taking and allow you time to think"). Clearly if the survey were to be repeated this methodological flaw should be addressed by either giving some educational explanation for all the methods under scrutiny (and, educationally, it might be argued that it is important to state why one is teaching in a certain way), or alternatively giving no rationale at all (which may be more appropriate in order to comply with rigorous scientific procedure). It might be suggested, however, that the wording would not make a significant difference to these results as individual students marking their evaluation forms seemed very definite and sure in their assessments of how effective they found each style of teaching, with no signs of ambivalence which might be swayed by mere wording of the form. </p> <hd id="AN9707172091-13">Conclusions</hd> <p>That the lecture format (i.e. 50 minute sessions involving one lecturer and large numbers of students) is here to stay is undeniable. This survey replicates other research in this area showing that in comparison with other teaching methods used within the lecture format, the traditional didactic lecture is perceived as the least effective learning method by the students. What is also shown is the ease in which a poorly received teaching/learning method can be transformed into an exciting mechanism which fulfils the objectives of higher education in engaging the students in active learning and participation, by--at its' most simple--giving some form of handout. </p> <p>There is value in the variations of the lecture format; in the use of the nontraditional lecture. If we as educationalists must, by expediency, use the lecture format, then we must also seek to use the modifications of that format which will encourage improved student learning within its boundaries. At its best the modified lecture can be exciting, provoking, inspiring and an effective learning mechanism and it is our duty to make it such. </p> <hd id="AN9707172091-14">TABLE I. Rank order of perceived effectiveness of lecture time methods</hd> <hd1 id="AN9707172091-15"> Year 1 </hd1> <p>1. Completed handout </p> <ulist> <item>2. Uncompleted handout </item> <item>3. Worksheet </item> <item>4. Experiential tasks </item> <item>5. Didactic format </item> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN9707172091-16"> Year 2 </hd1> <p>1. Uncompleted handout </p> <ulist> <item>2. Worksheet </item> <item>3. Complete handout </item> <item>4. Didactic format </item> <item>5. Experiential tasks </item> </ulist> <hd id="AN9707172091-17">TABLE II. Rank order of perceived effectiveness of lecture time methods by age</hd> <hd1 id="AN9707172091-18"> Year 1 </hd1> <p>Under 21 </p> <p>1. Worksheet </p> <ulist> <item>2. Uncompleted </item> <item>3. Experiential </item> <item>4. Completed handout </item> <item>5. Didactic </item> </ulist> <p>Over 21 </p> <p>1. Completed handout </p> <ulist> <item>2. Uncompleted </item> <item>3. Worksheet </item> <item>4. Experiential tasks </item> <item>5. Didactic </item> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN9707172091-19"> Year 2 </hd1> <p>Under 21 </p> <p>1. Uncompleted </p> <ulist> <item>2. Worksheet </item> <item>3. Completed handout </item> <item>4. Didactic </item> <item>5. Experiential </item> </ulist> <p>Over 21 </p> <p>1. Uncompleted </p> <ulist> <item>2. Didactic </item> <item>3. Completed handout </item> <item>4. Worksheet </item> <item>5. Experiential </item> </ulist> <hd id="AN9707172091-20">TABLE III. Average ranking scores of perceive, effectiveness of teaching methods (where 0=not at all effective, 10=very effective.)</hd> <ct id="AN9707172091-21"> Legend for Chart: A - Method 1 (worksheet) B - Method 2 (didactic) C - Method 3 (uncompleted) D - Method 4 (complete) E - Method 5 (experiential) A B C D E Year 1 Total 7.89 5.99 7.93 8.03 7.59 Under 21 8.15 5.8 8.04 7.78 7.91 Over 21 7.63 6.19 7.81 8.28 7.28 Year 2 Total 6.49 5.98 7.10 6.37 4.63 Under 21 6.75 5.42 7.45 6.33 4.54 Over 21 6.24 6.52 6.76 6.40 5.00</ct> <p>PHOTO (BLACK & WHITE): FIG. 1. A student wittily expressed that he found the lecture stupefying (After Hasekura et al., 1990). </p> <hd id="AN9707172091-22">REFERENCES</hd> <p>BLIGH, D. (1972) What's the Use of Lectures? (Harmondsworth, Penguin). </p> <p>CARRUTHERS, D.B. (1988) Twelve mistakes made by university lecturers, Medical Teacher, 10, pp. 165-167. </p> <p>COX, K. (1987) Knowledge which cannot be used is useless, Medical Teacher, 9, pp. 145-154. </p> <p>GIBBS, G., HABESHAW, S. & HABESHAW, T. (1987) Improving student learning during lectures, Medical Teacher, 9, pp. 11-20. </p> <p>HASEKURA, H., FUKUSHIMA, H. & HIRAIDE, K. (1990) Evaluation of lectures on medical ethics through student drawings, Medical Education, 24, pp. 42-45. </p> <p>ISSAACS, G. (<reflink idref="bib989" id="ref19">989</reflink>) Lecture note-taking, learning and recall, Medical Teacher, 11, pp. 295-302. </p> <p>JACKSON, M.W. & PROSSER, M.T. (1989) Less lecturing, more learning, Studies in Higher Education, 14, pp. 55-68. </p> <p>JENKINS, A. (1991) Active Learning in Structured Lectures (E.M.U. Oxford Polytechnic) (unpublished). </p> <p>LAIDLAW, J.M. (1988) Twelve tips for lecturers, Medical Teacher, 10, pp. 13-17. </p> <p>MITCHELL, G. (1988) Problem-based learning in medical schools: a new approach, Medical Teacher, 10, pp. 57-67. </p> <p>SCHWARTZ, P.L. (1989) Active small group learning with a large group; a practical example, Medical Teacher, 11, pp. 81-86. </p> <hd id="AN9707172091-23">BIBLIOGRAPHY</hd> <p>ABBATT, F.R. (1980) Teaching for Better Learning--a Guide for Teachers of Primary Health Care Staff (Geneva, World Health Organization). </p> <p>ANDRESEN, L.W. (1988) Lecturing to Large Groups (TERC Occasional Publication No. 24. University of New South Wales, Australia). </p> <p>BOYDELL, T. (1976) Experiential Learning (Department of Adult and Higher Education, University of Manchester). </p> <p>BROWN, G. (1978) Lecturing and Explaining (London, Methuen). </p> <p>GIBBS, G., HABESHAW, S. & HABESHAW, T. (1988) 53 Interesting Things to Do in Your Lectures (Bristol, T.E.S.). </p> <p>GIBBS, G. (1981) 20 Terrible Reasons for Lecturing (SCED Occasional Paper, No. 8, Birmingham). </p> <p>McLEOD, P.J. & TENENHOUSE, A. (1988) Peer review of class handouts, Medical Teacher, 10, pp. 69-73. </p> <p>RAMSDEN, P. & ENTWHISTLE, N.J. (1981) Effects of Academic Departments on Students' Approaches to Studying, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, pp. 368-383. </p> <p>ROGERS, A. (1986) Teaching Adults (Milton Keynes, Open University Press). </p> <p>RUGG, S. (1990) "He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches." Is it true for occupational therapy? British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 53, pp. 381-383. </p> <p>STEPHENS, M.D. & RODERICK, G.W. (1971) Teaching Techniques in Adult Education (Newton Abbot, David & Charles). </p> <hd id="AN9707172091-24">Appendix 1</hd> <hd1 id="AN9707172091-25"> Human biology and disease--Year I </hd1> <p>During your first term in the Human Biology and Disease Course you have experienced various different educational methods used within the 50 minute format of lecture time. In order to evaluate these different approaches, fill in the following form giving your opinion on the effectiveness of the different methods on your learning. There are no right or wrong answers. You may feel that all methods are equally effective, or that all methods are equally non-effective. There is a space for you to write any additional comments you may like to make at the end of the form. </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref20">1</reflink>) In studying the nerve impulse, all the material was presented to you in the form of a worksheet. Was this an effective method of learning for you? </p> <p>ILLUSTRATION </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref21">2</reflink>) In studying the spinal cord, all material was presented to you in a traditional 'straight' lecture. Was this an effective learning method for you? </p> <p>ILLUSTRATION </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref22">3</reflink>) In studying the cerebellar and extrapyramidal systems you were given an uncompleted handout to reduce your note taking and allow you time to think. Was this effective for you? </p> <p>ILLUSTRATION </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref23">4</reflink>) In studying gross structure and functions of the brain you had lectures supplemented by a complete handout. Was this an effective method of learning for you? </p> <p>ILLUSTRATION </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref24">5</reflink>) In studying the special senses, you were given worksheets to complete individually and in pairs so that the material was presented to you in an active and experiential way. Was this an effective method of learning for you? </p> <p>ILLUSTRATION </p> <p>Additional comments (over page) </p> <hd id="AN9707172091-26">Appendix 2</hd> <hd1 id="AN9707172091-27"> Human biology and disease--Year II </hd1> <p>Over the past 5 weeks you have experienced 5 different approaches to lecturing in your Human Biology course. Fill in the following form giving your opinion on the effectiveness of the different methods on your learning. There are no right or wrong answers. You may feel that all methods are equally effective, or that all are equally non-effective. There is a space for you to write any additional comments you may wish to make concerning the 50 minute lecture period. </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref25">1</reflink>) In week 1 (nerve impulse) the lecture material was given to you totally in a worksheet. Was this an effective method of learning for you? </p> <p>ILLUSTRATION </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref26">2</reflink>) In week 2 (cerebellar & extrapyramidal systems) you were given all the material in a 'straight' lecture. Was this an effective learning method for you? </p> <p>ILLUSTRATION </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref27">3</reflink>) In week 3 (muscle tone and upright posture) you were given an uncompleted handout to reduce your note taking and allow you time to think. Was this effective for you? </p> <p>ILLUSTRATION </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref28">4</reflink>) In week 4 (urogenital system) half of the lecture material was given to you in a complete handout. Was this an effective learning method for you? </p> <p>ILLUSTRATION </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref29">5</reflink>) In week 5 (trunk-bones) you were given tasks to do individually and in pairs so that the material was presented in an experiential way. Was this an effective method of learning for you? </p> <p>ILLUSTRATION </p> <p>Additional comments (over page) </p> <p>Appendix 3 </p> <p>Frequency graphs for ranked effectiveness of educational methods </p> <p>GRAPHS: FIG. 2. Year I students. (a) Method 1--worksheet; (b) Method 2--traditional lecture; (c) Method 3--uncompleted handout; (d) Method 4--complete handout; and (e) Method 5--experiential tasks (-- under 21; --21 and over). </p> <p>GRAPHS: FIG. 3. Year II students. (a) Method 1--worksheet; (b) Method 2--traditional lecture; (c) Method 3-uncompleted handout; (d) Method 4--completed handout; and (e) Method 5--experiential tasks (-- under 21; --21 and over). </p> <aug> <p>By Jennifer A. Butler, Dorset House School of Occupational Therapy, 58 London Road, Headington, Oxford </p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib1" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib2" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib3" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib4" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib5" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib7" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib989" firstref="ref19"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ449219
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Use of Teaching Methods within the Lecture Format.
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Butler%2C+Jennifer+A%2E%22">Butler, Jennifer A.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Medical+Teacher%22"><i>Medical Teacher</i></searchLink>. 1992 14(1):11-25.
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 1992
– Name: Audience
  Label: Intended Audience
  Group: Audnce
  Data: Teachers; Administrators; Practitioners
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research<br />Tests/Questionnaires
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Biology%22">Biology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Effectiveness%22">Instructional Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Lecture+Method%22">Lecture Method</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Questionnaires%22">Questionnaires</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Education%22">Science Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Evaluation+of+Teacher+Performance%22">Student Evaluation of Teacher Performance</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Surveys%22">Surveys</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Evaluation%22">Teacher Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom+%28England%29%22">United Kingdom (England)</searchLink>
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0142-159X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Reports survey results of 126 students enrolled in first- or second-year biology courses concerning the effectiveness of different teaching methods within the lecture format. Indicates that the traditional, didactic lecture, although perceived as least effective, was regarded as highly effective when enhanced by active student involvement. Appendices include the surveys utilized and frequency graphs of responses. (22 references) (JJK)
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 1992
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ449219
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ449219
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 11
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Biology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Higher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Lecture Method
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Questionnaires
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Evaluation of Teacher Performance
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Surveys
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United Kingdom (England)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Use of Teaching Methods within the Lecture Format.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Butler, Jennifer A.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 1992
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0142-159X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 14
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Medical Teacher
              Type: main
ResultId 1