Document Type : Original Article
Authors
- . Saleh Nuhu
- . Lawan Hassan Adamu 1
- . Mohammed Alhaji Buba 2
- . Sani Hyedima Garba 2
- . Babagana Mohammed Dalori 2
- . Ashiru Hassan Yusuf 3
1 ersity, PMB 3220 Kano, 1 Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Basic Medical Sciences, Bayero University, PMB 3011 Kano, Kano State,
2 Department of Human Anatomy, College of Medical Sciences, University of Maiduguri, PMB 1069 Maiduguri, Borno State, Nigeria
3 Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Basic Medical Sciences, Bayero University, PMB 3011 Kano, Kano State,
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Teaching and learning process is increasingly metamorphosing from the traditional
chalk and talk to the modern dynamism in the information and communication technology. Medical
education is no exception to this dynamism more especially in the teaching of gross anatomy, which
serves as one of the bases of understanding the human structure.
OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to determine the gender preference of preclinical medical
students on the use of traditional (chalk and talk) and PowerPoint presentation in the teaching of
gross anatomy.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This was cross‑sectional and prospective study, which was conducted
among preclinical medical students in the University of Maiduguri, Nigeria. Using simple random
techniques, a questionnaire was circulated among 280 medical students, where 247 students filled
the questionnaire appropriately. The data obtained was analyzed using SPSS version 20 (IBM
Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA) to find the method preferred by the students among other things.
RESULTS: Majority of the preclinical medical students in the University of Maiduguri preferred
PowerPoint method in the teaching of gross anatomy over the conventional methods. The Cronbach
alpha value of 0.76 was obtained which is an acceptable level of internal consistency. A statistically
significant association was found between gender and preferred method of lecture delivery on the
clarity of lecture content where females prefer the conventional method of lecture delivery whereas
males prefer the PowerPoint method, On the reproducibility of text and diagram, females prefer
PowerPoint method of teaching gross anatomy while males prefer the conventional method of
teaching gross anatomy.
CONCLUSION: There are gender preferences with regard to clarity of lecture contents and
reproducibility of text and diagram. It was also revealed from this study that majority of the preclinical
medical students in the University of Maiduguri prefer PowerPoint presentation over the traditional
chalk and talk method in most of the questions ask.
Keywords
lecture system versus power point presentation as a teaching
technique for teaching gross anatomy to the first professional
medical students. J Evol Med Dent Sci 2015;4:1811‑7.
2. Forrest S. Learning and teaching: The reciprocal link. J Contin
Educ Nurs 2004;35:74‑9.
3. Squires G. A framework of teaching. Br J Educ Stud 2004;52:342‑58.
4. Falk‑Nilsson E, Walmsley D, Brennan M, Fournier DM, Junfin GB,
Haden K. Cognition and learning. Eur J Dent Educ 2002;6:27‑32.
5. Rajeev M, Arka M. Attitude of undergraduate medical students
towards powerpoint, overhead projector and chalkboard teaching
methods in North India. Int J Pharmacol Res 2015;5:61‑4.
6. Estes A, Ressler S, Welch R, Hanus J. Seminar on Communication
Skills. Exceed Teaching Workshop. Available from: http://
www.asce.org/uploadedFiles/Leadership_Training/
EXCEED/‑USMA–Seminar‑VIChalkboard.ppt. [Last accessed
on 2016 May 15].
7. Lalvarmawi F, Ningthoujam SU, Mishra M. Perception of
postgraduate students on teaching aids. J Med Soc 2013;27:36‑8.
8. Prasad S, Roy B, Smith M. The art and science of presentation:
Electronic presentations. J Postgrad Med 2000;46:193‑8.
9. deSa SB, Keny MS. Power point versus chalkboard based lectures
in pharmacology: Evaluation of their impact on medical student’s
knowledge and their preferences. Int J Adv Health Sci 2014;1:10‑1.
10. Casanova J, Casanova SL. Computers as electronic blackboard:
Remodeling the organic chemistry lecture. Educ Rev1991;27:31‑4.
11. James KE, Burke LA Hutchins HM. Powerful or pointless? Faculty
versus Student perceptions of PowerPoint in Business Education.
Bus Commun Q 2006;69:374‑96.
12. Amare N. To slideware or not to slideware: Students’ experiences
with power point vs. lecture. JTech Writ Commun 2006;36:297‑308.
13. Krishna VT, Datta MV, Kishan YS, Aditya V, Bhanuprakash G.
Comparative study on the teaching effectiveness of chalk &
talk and microsoft powerpoint presentation from the student
perspective. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci 2012;4:191‑3.
14. Brown G, Atkins M. Effective Teaching in Higher Education.
London, UK: Routledge; 1988.
15. Seth V, Upadhyaya P, Ahmad M, Moghe V. PowerPoint or
chalk and talk: Perceptions of medical students versus dental
students in a medical college in India. Adv Med Educ Pract
2010;1:11‑6.
16. Baruah M, Patel L. Evaluation of different teaching methods used
in physiology lectures. Indian J Basic Appl Med Res 2014;4:271‑6.
17. Rajeev M, Priyanka K, Shyam SK. Comparison of power point and
chalkboard lecture delivery methods in undergraduate medical
students in Lucknow region. Int J Innov Med Educ Res 2015; 1(1):
12‑14.
18. Savoy A, Proctor RW, Salvendy G. Information retention from
powerpoint and traditional lectures. Comput Educ 2009;52:858‑67.
19. Rocklin T. Power Point is not evil. In: The National Teaching and
Learning Forum. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group; 1998.
20. Novelli EL, Fernandes AA. Students’preferred teaching
techniques for biochemistry in biomedicine and medicine courses.
Biochem Mol Biol Educ 2007;35:263‑6.
)