Perceptions of Undergraduate Students about Three Teaching Methods; Lectures, Practical and Problem Based Learning Sessions
Volume 4, Issue 1, January 2015, Pages: 15-19
Received: Sep. 13, 2014;
Accepted: Sep. 23, 2014;
Published: Feb. 2, 2015
Views 2840 Downloads 213
Mohammed Elimam Ahamed Mohammed, Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia; Nuclear Applications in Biological Sciences, Sudan Atomic Energy Commission, Sudan
From biochemical education point of view, it is so difficult to make the biochemistry more interesting by adopting one teaching method. The aim of this article is to investigate the perceptions of the undergraduate students of the department of chemistry at king Khalid university about three teaching methods; lectures, practical and problem based learning sessions. A second objective is to compare the students perceptions to their performance in three different exams depending on the information gained from the three teaching methods. 63 students were registered for the basic biochemistry course at the faculty of science- King Khalid University. At the end of the course and before the final exam, the students perceptions about the three teaching methods were investigated through a simple questionnaire composed of four best answer Questions. However, 59 students responded to the questionnaire. The questionnaire was analyzed and its results were compared to the students performance results in the three different final exams. Regarding the students perceptions about the three teaching methods; 22 students (37.3%)stated that the practical sessions were the best teaching method for them followed by the problem based learning sessions (19, 32.2%), 7 students (11.9%) preferred the lectures while 11 students (18.6%) expressed that the three teaching methods were not their favorite methods. Concerning the recalling of the information; 24 (40.6%) expressed that the information of the problem based learning sessions was easy to recall and difficult to forget followed by the information of the practical sessions (17, 28.8%) and lectures (9, 15.3%)and 9 (15.3%) stated the information of all the three methods was difficult to recall and easy to forget. The performance of the students in the final exams and their perceptions were comparable since the success percentage in the practical and problem based learning sessions and lectures were 95.2%, 82.5% and 82.5% respectively. Although the practical and the problem based learning sessions were the best teaching methods for the bulk of the students (41, 69.5%), it is better to follow more different teaching methods to satisfy the majority of the students and to obtain better student performance.
Mohammed Elimam Ahamed Mohammed,
Perceptions of Undergraduate Students about Three Teaching Methods; Lectures, Practical and Problem Based Learning Sessions, Education Journal.
Vol. 4, No. 1,
2015, pp. 15-19.
William L. Anderson, Steven M. Mitchell, and Marcy P. Osgood. Comparison of Student Performance in Cooperative Learning and Traditional Lecture-based Biochemistry Classes. BIOCHEMISTRY AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY EDUCATION, 2005, 33, 6, pp 387–393.
Michael F. Mascolo. Beyond student-centered and teacher-centered pedagogy: Teaching and learning as guided participation. Pedagogy and the Human Sciences, 2009, 1, 1, pp 3-27.
Dee U. Silverthorn. A Mid lecture Student Seminar: an Activity to Break the Monotony. Advances in Physiology Education, 2006, 30, pp 262- 263.
Angela C. M. Figueira, Joao B. T. Rocha. A Proposal for Teaching Undergraduate Chemistry Students Carbohydrate Biochemistry by Problem-Based Learning Activities. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education , 2013, pp 81- 87. DOI 10.1002/bmb.20745.
Laura Lowe Furge, Adele Wolfson, Rodney Boyer. Innovation in the Biochemistry/Molecular Biology Laboratory. BIOCHEMISTRY AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY EDUCATION, 2013, 41,1, 11.
Coral Pepper. Implementing problem based learning in a science faculty. Issues in Educational Research , 2008, 18, 1, pp 60- 71.
Howard S. Barrows, Robyn M. Tamblyn. Problem based learning: An approach to medical education. Springer series on medical education. Vol,1, 1980. ISBN 13: 9780826128416.
Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver. Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn?. Educational Psychology Review, 2004, 16 , 3, pp 235- 266.
Jiqin Lian, Fengtian He. Improved Performance of Students Instructed in a Hybrid PBL Format. BIOCHEMISTRY AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY EDUCATION, 2013, 41,1, pp 5–10.
Andis Klegeris and Heather Hurren. Impact of problem-based learning in a large classroom setting: student perception and problem-solving skills. Adv Physiol Educ, 2011, 35, pp 408–415.
Harold C. Smith. A Course Director’s Perspectives on Problem-based Learning Curricula in Biochemistry. Acad. Med , 2002, 77, pp 1189–1198.
Harold B. White. What Do Students Say About Problem-based Learning. BIOCHEMISTRY AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY EDUCATION, 2007, 35, 3, pp 211–212.
Harold B. White. Cultivating Students’ Curiosity Quotient with Problem-based Learning. BIOCHEMISTRY AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY EDUCATION, 2009, 37, 4, pp 249.
Y. Guven F. Bal2, H. Issever, S. Can Trosala. A proposal for a problem-oriented pharmacobiochemistry course in dental education. Eur J Dent Educ, 2014, 18, pp 2- 6.
Khoshnevisasl P, Sadeghzadeh M, Mazloomzadeh S, Hashemi Feshareki R, Ahmadiafshar A. Comparison of Problem-based Learning With Lecture-based Learning. Iran Red Crescent Med J , 2014, 16, 5, e5186.
Mani Naiker, Lara Wakeling, Peter Aldred. THE RELEVANCE OF CHEMISTRY PRACTICALS - FIRST YEAR STUDENTS’ PERSPECTIVE AT A REGIONAL UNIVERSITY IN VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA. Proceedings of the Australian Conference on Science and Mathematics Education, Australian National University, Sept 19th to Sept 21st, 2013, page 169-173.
Alexandre B. Se´, Renato M. Passos, Andre´ H. Ono, Marcelo Hermes-Lima. The use of multiple tools for teaching medical biochemistry. Adv Physiol Educ , 2008, 32, pp 38–46.