Global Advanced Research Journal of Medicine and Medical Sciences (GARJMMS) ISSN: 2315-5159
November 2017 Vol. 6(11), pp. 296-301
Copyright © 2017 Global Advanced Research Journals
Full Length Research Paper
Can Pathology –Teaching’ Strategy be Affected by the Students’ Learning Style and to what extent the Students’ Performance be Affected?
Ihab Shafek Atta1*, Fahd N AlQahtani2, Thamer AH Alghamdi3, Saad Abudulsalam Mankrawi3 and Ali MA Alamri3
1Pathology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Egypt, Albaha University, Saudi Arabia.
2Radiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Albaha University, Saudi Arabia.
3Interns, Faculty of Medicine, Albaha University, Saudi Arabia.
Accepted 14 November, 2017
The best way to establish any curriculum is to identify about the learner, how would they learn? And what is the easiest method of perception of knowledge to our students? To answer these questions, one must identify the learning style of our beneficiaries. In our pathology, integrated–based curriculum, no attention was made for our students’ learning style. This has a drawback for some students who cannot achieve the learning objectives of the curriculum. The main goals of this study were to make periodic evaluation of our pathology curriculum. To achieve that, we find the first step is to know, how the students deal with the pathology lectures? The extent of pathology perception by students. So, the identification of learning style of the student is the first step in a long chain of challenges and changes that must be occurring in the pathology curriculum. This study was carried out in two consecutive years on two successive undergraduates by Faculty of Medicine, Albaha University (FMBU), Where two classes were selected for this study. Each class includes 60 students. All students of the two classes were asked to identify their own individual learning styles through answering a planned short questionnaire instrument prepared by the Medical Education Unit, faculty of medicine, Albaha University (MEUFMBU). This instrument divides the students into figures-attached, audio-visual and observable or perceptible learner. According to the results obtained, modification of our lectures will be made. For this purpose, eight modules were selected for both the study and control group, i.e, four for each. The changes in the lecture were made in the modules of the study group. Regarding our students’ learning style, we found most of them having figures- attached style, little have audio-visual style and a few have observable style. Accordingly, we modified our pathology lectures to be more interactive than the silent traditional one, By shifting towards the most interactive learning, we found a marvelous in student performance and achieving the learning outcomes among the study group than in the control group. Identification of student’ learning style is extremely important for curricular development and its periodic evaluation. Not all ways of interactive lecture are suitable for the students, but those elaborated from student ‘learning style are the most active that make our lecture more attractive, and more impressive.
Keywords: learning style, interactive lecture, student’ performance
Berg CA, Bergendahl VC, Lundberg BK (2003). Benefiting from open-ended experiment? A comparison of attitudes to, and outcomes of, an expository versus an open-inquiry version of the same experiment. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 25: 351-372.
Butler JA (1992). Use of teaching methods within the lecture format. Med. Teacher. 14: 11-25.
Campbell BJ (1991). Planning for a student learning style. J. Educ. Bus. 66(6): 356-359.
Coffield F, Moseley D, Hall E, Ecclestone K (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. London: Learning & Skills Research Centre.
Goldberg HR, Haase E, Shoukas A, Schramm L (2006). Redefining classroom instruction. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 30: 124-127
Hardy Ernst, Kay Colthorpe (2007). Interactive lecturing for students with diverse science backgrounds. Adv. Physiol. Edu. 31: 41-44.
Hawk TF, Shah AJ (2007). Using learning style instruments to enhance student learning. Decision Sci. J. Innovat.Educ. 5(1): 1-20.
Kimmel P (1992). Abandoning the lecture: curriculum reform in the introduction to clinical medicine. The Pharos. 55: 36-38.
Kumar S (2003). An innovative method to enhance interaction during lecture sessions. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 27: 20-25. 13.
Maloney M, Lally B (1998). The relationship between attendance at university lectures and examination performance. Irish J. Educ. 29: 52-62.
Modell HI (1996). Preparing students to participate in an active learning environment. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 15: 69-77.
Nasmith L, Steinert Y (2001). The evaluation of a workshop to promote interactive lecturing. Teach Learn Med. 13: 43-48.
Pajares F (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Rev. Educ. Res. 66: 543-578. 27.
Rao SP, DiCarlo SE (2000). Peer instruction improves performance on quizzes. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 24: 51- 55.
Rao SP, DiCarlo SE (2001). Active learning of respiratory physiology improves performance on respiratory physiology examinations. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 25: 55- 61.
Stahl SA (2002). Different strokes for different folks? In L. Abbeduto (Ed.), Taking sides: Clashing on controversial issues in educational psychology (pp. 98-107). Guilford, CT, USA: McGraw-Hill.
- Ihab Shafek Atta on Google Scholar
- Ihab Shafek Atta on Pubmed
- Fahd N AlQahtani on Google Scholar
- Fahd N AlQahtani on Pubmed
- Thamer A H Alghamdi on Google Scholar
- Thamer A H Alghamdi on Pubmed
- Saad Abudulsalam Mankrawi on Google Scholar
- Saad Abudulsalam Mankrawi on Pubmed
- Ali M A Alamri on Google Scholar
- Ali M A Alamri on Pubmed