Lecture Effectiveness by Lecturers from

Biomedical Science Department,

FSKB UKMSupervisor: Pn. Rifina

PM Dr Ahmad Rohi bin Ghazali

GROUP 6 BIOMEDICAL SCIENCE

Baharudin bin Jusup A110076Kuek Wen Hua A121643Choi Jane Ru A122765Wan Marahaini binti Wan Razali A123127Chin Yi Chao A123371Noridayu binti Zakaria A123382Nurhafiza bte Salleh Hudin A123415Nor Zalilah bt Mohd Nordin A123640Tan Huan Huan A123675Nantha Kumar A/L Jeyaprakasam A123708Tan Boon Phiau A125969

GROUP MEMBERS

INTRODUCTION

The study are mainly conducted to provide an useful framework in improving lecture delivery effectiveness among 1st year Biomedical Science lecturers in FSKB, UKM.

The importance of this study is to assess and evaluate the teaching performance among the 1st year Biomedical Science lecturers in FSKB, UKM.

Our sample subjects are students and self(lecturer).

Students are chosen because they are the subjects who attend the lectures ,thus they can directly evaluate the effectiveness of the lectures.

Lecturers are chosen to evaluate themselves so that their self evaluation can be compared with students’ evaluation to see the coherent.

Some of the research issues that have initiate this study are: Most of the studies on lecture delivery effectiveness use only one source of information that can create bias and unreliability.

Some studies like SPPK is done online. It is not guaranteed that students are the ones evaluating or maybe an unrelated third party might be the ones evaluating. This may have caused inaccuracy of the evaluation.

The research is done based on the background reference to two research articles:

a) The Colleague Developmental Program: a multidisciplinary program of peer observation partnerships (Maree et al, 2009)b)Using the 360o multisource feedback model to evaluate teaching and professionalism (Ronald, 2009)

These two articles are referred to obtain information regarding the multisource of lecturing evaluation.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Is the lecture given by lecturers from Biomedical Science Department, FSKB

UKM effective?

Lecture given by lecturers from Biomedical Science Department,

FSKB UKM is effective.

GENERAL OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the lecture delivery effectiveness given by

1st year Biomedical Science Department, FSKB UKM

lecturers.

i) To determine students’ understanding level.

ii) To compare the effectiveness of various teaching methods.

iii)To determine the association between lecturers self-preparation with students’ understanding.

iv)To determine the association between the effectiveness of lectures and students’ academic performance.

Sampling method - Lecturers: Universal sampling - Students: Stratified random sampling (will be further

divided into strata) - Research data - Gender, races, CGPA

Sampling frame - Name list of 1st to 3rd years Biomedical Science students

and all 1st year lecturers of Biomedical Science Department session

2010/2011

 

For lecturer :i) Lecturers that had teach for less than 2

years. ii) Lecturers from other than Biomedical

Department.  iii) Lecturers who are in study or sabbatical leave.

For Student: i) Students from other than Biomedical Science Department.ii) Fourth year Biomedical Science students .

1st to 3rd year students and lecturers from Biomedical Science Department, FSKB UKM

Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

-1st to 3rd year students and lecturers from Biomedical Science department

- Questionnaire

- Descriptive- Kruskal-wallis- Mann-Whitney- Spearman Correlation

- Independent variable : Lecturers self-preparation, teaching method- Dependent variable : Effectiveness of teaching

Sample unit

Method and material being used

Research analysis

Variables

Students sample size:

N = Population size for the study = 228 (1st to 3rd Biomedical students)

n = Sample size

= 144n* = In case if there is any outliers that could

affect the finding of our study, 10% extra subjects will be added to the sample size.

= 160

Lecturers sample size:

N = 7 (1st year lecturers of Biomedical Science)

n = 7

Sample size

Demographic Data :Demographic Data :

SexFrequenc

y

Male 31

Female 135

Demographic Data :

Demographic Data :Demographic Data :

YearsFrequenc

y

1st Year 53

2nd Year 53

3rd Year 53

Lecturer 7

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1

To Determine Students’ Understanding Level

Descriptive Statistic

The bar chart shows

Out of 166 students, 7 students - very good understanding level 87 students -good understanding level69 students - moderate understanding level 3 students - poor understanding levelno students - very poor understanding level

•Most of the students have good understanding level after the lecture delivered .•There is none of the students with very poor understanding level after the lecture delivered .

This proves that students have the perception that the lecture delivered by the lecturers’ are effective.

Eble (1971) pointed out that there are five components of effective teaching as perceived by the students. They include teacher must use an analytic/synthetic approach, well organized, teacher-group interaction, teacher-individual students interaction and dynamism/enthusiasm manner.

Smith (1980) contributed a checklist for good teaching by including test prerequisite skills, provides feedback to the teacher, adopts to individual differences, provide feedback to the students, flexible, promotes active student learning, motivates students and clear and well-organized.

All these factors are vital for the understanding of students towards lectures delivered.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2

To Determine The Effectiveness of Various Teaching Method Test: Kruskal Wallis

Mann Whitney Test

Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.Effectiveness of

teaching methods.260 996 .000 .872 996 .000

Normality Testing

Using Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test- The P value obtained (0.001) is less than 0.05, thus the data is not normally distributed.

N Degree of freedom

Significant value

Effectiveness of teaching methods

996 5 0.000

At degree of freedom, F (5, 990),p value = 0.001 (p<0.05) there is a highly significant difference between the 6 groups of teaching methods.  

Kruskal Wallis

In order to know where the significance lies, comparisons between groups of teaching methods are done by the use of nonparametric Mann Whitney Test.

Assignment Case study

Individual/group presentation

E-SPIN Tutorial Problem base learning

Assignment - 0.677 0.223 *0.000 0.198 0.801

Case study 0.677 - 0.079 *0.000 0.085 0.832

Individual/group presentation

0.223 0.079 - *0.000 0.858 0.102

E-SPIN *0.000 *0.000 *0.000 - *0.000 *0.000

Tutorial 0.198 0.085 0.858 *0.000 - 0.109

Problem base learning

0.801 0.832 0.102 *0.000 0.109 -

Mann Whitney Test

p value <0.05There are significantly different between teaching method of using E-SPIN with other teaching methods like assignment, case study, individual/group presentation, tutorial and problem base learning.

There is no significant difference among teaching methods like assignment, case study, individual/group presentation, tutorial and problem base learning.

From the mean value,

Case study (xI =3.69) & problem base learning (xI = 3.69) assignment (xI = 3.65) individual/group presentation (xI =3.56) tutorial (xI = 3.49) E-SPIN (xI = 2.53)

EffectiveWay of Teaching

Problem based learning and case study Prepares students to become effective and efficient life-long learners which is an absolute essential in a profession where new types of problems and new information surfaces with almost logarithmic expansion. Students are able to access, study and integrate information from all the disciplines that might be related to understanding and resolving the particular problem they are working with, just as people in the real world must recall and apply information integrated from diverse sources in their work.

Besides, courses taught using problem-based learning methods give life sciences graduate students direct practice in the statistical reasoning skills needed to choose appropriate procedures for analyzing data from their research studies.

Unmotivated learners or those with poor study habits may fall behind.

The lack of familiar structure and routine may take getting used to.

Students may feel isolated or miss social interaction.

Instructor may not always be available on demand.

Slow or unreliable Internet connections can be frustrating

PREVIOUS RESEARCHPREVIOUS RESEARCHBarrows (1986) classified PBL methods, as used in

medical education, according to the degree of student involvement in the learning process and the amount of information that is given to students about the problem.

Students who acquired knowledge in the context of solving problems have been shown to be more likely to use it spontaneously to solve new problems than individuals who acquire the same information under more traditional methods of learning facts and concepts through lectures (Bransford, Franks, Vye, & Sherwood, 1989).

In addition, students in the problem‑based learning environment have developed stronger clinical competencies although the differences were small and non‑significant (de Vries, Schmidt, & de Graaff, 1989).

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3 To associate the

relationship between lecturers’ self-preparation and lecture delivery effectiveness

Test: Spearman Correlation

Null Hypothesis: There is no correlation coefficient of population between students’ understanding level and lecturers’ self-preparation.

Alternative Hypothesis: There is a correlation coefficient of population between students’ understanding level and lecturers’ self-preparation.

Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.Lecturers' self-preparation .316 166 .000 .749 166 .000

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Normality Testing

Using Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test- The P value obtained (0.001) is less than 0.05, thus the data is not normally distributed.

Students’ understanding

level

Lecturers’ self-

preparation

Students’ understandi

ng level

Spearman Correlation

1 0.263**

Sig . ( 2-tailed ) 0.001N 166 166

Lecturers’ self-

preparation

Spearman Correlation

0.263** 1

Sig. ( 2-tailed ) 0.001

N 166 166** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Spearman Correlation

From Spearman Correlation Test:p value = 0.001 (p<0.05) r value = 0.263There is significant different between students’ understanding level and lecturers’ self-preparation, therefore the Null Hypothesis is rejected.The r value shows positive correlation between students’ understanding level and lecturers’ self-preparation. The strength of correlation is weak.

PREVIOUS RESEARCHPREVIOUS RESEARCH

Horngren (1963), pointed out that good teachers possess three crucial characteristics. These are knowledge of the subject matter, adequate preparation and enthusiasm. He defines preparation as being “always ready”.

Sheffield (1974) listed out the characteristics of effective teachers most often mentioned which include master of his/her subject or competent, lectures well prepared and orderly, subject related to life or practical, students’ questions and opinions encouraged, enthusiastic about his/her subject, approachable, friendly or available, concerned for students’ progress, has a sense of humour or amusing, warm, kind, sympathetic, and teaching aids used effectively.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4 To associate the

effectiveness of lecture and students’ academic performance during 1st year 1st semester

Test: Pearson Correlation

Null Hypothesis: There is no correlation coefficient between effectiveness of lecture and students’ academic performance during 1st year 1st semester.

Alternative Hypothesis: There is a correlation coefficient between effectiveness of lecture and students’ academic performance during 1st year 1st semester.

Normality Testing

Using Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test- The P value obtained (0.001) is less than 0.05, thus the data is not normally distributed.

Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.Effectiveness of lecture .281 166 .000 .837 166 .000

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Spearman Correlation

Correlations

Effectiveness of lecture GPA

Spearman's rho

Effectiveness of lecture

Correlation Coefficient

1.000 .036

Sig. (2-tailed) . .654

N 166 159

GPA Correlation Coefficient

.036 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) .654 .

N 159 159

From Spearman Correlation Test:p value = 0.654 (p>0.05)r value = 0.036There is no significant different between effectiveness of lecture and students’ academic performance during 1st year 1st semester. Therefore the Null Hypothesis do not rejected.Thus, there is no correlation between effectiveness of lecture and students’ academic performance during 1st year 1st semester.

This might be due to students not depending solely on the lecturer’s lecture delivery and lecture notes.

Students may find other sources to perform academically besides lecture notes only.

Besides, it might be the students responsibility if they do not perform well in their academics even if the lecturer had delivered their lectures effectively, for example the students not paying full attention during lecture or being absent for a particular lecture.

PREVIOUS RESEARCHPREVIOUS RESEARCH French and Coppage (2000) believe that the importance of

applying innovative teaching methods require fully student participation in class. On the teaching method issues, Walberg (1999) defined teaching-centered approach as direct teaching which emphasizing systematic sequencing of lessons, a presentation of new content and skill, guided students practice, feedback and independent practice by student.

Since the result obtained proves that problem based learning is an effective teaching method, there tend to be a difference between PBL and non-PBL students in their academic performance which is not dependant on lecture effectiveness solely.

Nolte, et al., (1988) found that use of reserve material went up. Blumberg and Michael (1992) found that PBL students were more likely to use textbooks and other books and informal discussion with peers than did non‑PBL students, who were more likely to rely on lecture notes