Introduction and Back Ground
Lectures are the time tested and the oldest teaching method in a teacher’s repertoire. There is a general view that lectures are not effective teaching learning method. In the first two years of undergraduate medical education, the students attend more lectures and they rarely see patients. By the time they complete their undergraduate course they would have attended many more hours of lectures both in clinical specialties and other specialties(1). Hence effectiveness of this modality of teaching method merits our attention. The students rely substantially on lectures for their learning and this is likely to remain so in future also The effectiveness of lectures is dependent upon topic, the lecturer, the learner involved, the aids used and the time of the session.
In the wrong hands lecture can be boring .They may not fulfill the functions of developing, understanding and motivating students to learn. If the lecture is a monotonous reading of the matter from a text book, then the students will find it easier to learn from the book directly rather than listening to it (1) Various studies done also shows ineffectiveness of lecture as T/L method(2) The student feed- back analysis also shows that lecture is not an effective teaching learning method as opined by 71% of participants in a study(3)
So ultimately out- come of lectures depends upon the lecturer, the listener, the content and the context. But in-spite of all these factors lectures are here to stay
References
1. Lecturing.pdf [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: http://www.bumc.bu.edu/facdev-medicine/files/2010/06/Lecturing.pdf
2. Jarahi L, Najaf najafi M. Evaluation of teaching through lecture with new methods of student-centered teaching in medical students. Future Med Educ J. 2013 Dec 1;3(4):6–9.
3. Lecture as a Mode of Instruction in Undergraduate Medical Education [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: http://jpma.org.pk/full_article_text.php?article_id=3327
4. Prober CG, Heath C. Lecture Halls without Lectures — A Proposal for Medical Education. N Engl J Med. 2012 May 3;366(18):1657–9.
5. Waugh RA, Mayer JW, Ewy GA, Felner JM, Issenberg BS, Gessner IH, et al. Multimedia Computer-Assisted Instruction in Cardiology. Arch Intern Med. 1995 Jan 23;155(2):197–203.
6. E-learning in medical education in resource constrained low- and middle-income countries | Human Resources for Health | Full Text [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: https://human-resources-health.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1478-4491-11-4
7. Thiele JE. Learning patterns of online students. J Nurs Educ. 2003 Aug;42(8):364–6.
8. Twomey A. Web-based teaching in nursing: lessons from the literature. Nurse Educ Today. 2004 Aug;24(6):452–8.
9. SADEGHI R, SEDAGHAT MM, SHA AHMADI F. Comparison of the effect of lecture and blended teaching methods on students’ learning and satisfaction. J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2014 Oct;2(4):146–50.
10. MomeniDanaei S, Zarshenas L, Oshagh M, Khoda O, Maryam S. Which method of teaching would be better cooperative or lecture? Iran J Med Educ. 2011 Apr 15;11(1):24–31.
11. Effect of lecture and cooperative learning strategies on achievement in chemistry in undergraduate classes: International Journal of Science Education: Vol 19, No 8 [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 9]. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0950069970190804
12. Banerjee AC, Vidyapati TJ. Effect of lecture and cooperative learning strategies on achievement in chemistry in undergraduate classes.Int J Sci Educ. 1997 Sep 1;19(8):903–10.
13. Jafari M. Comparison of Lecture and Blended Teaching Methods on Learning and Satisfaction of Medical Students in Biochemistry Course. Iran J Med Educ. 2012 Oct 15;12(7):488–97.
14. Khan I, Fareed A. Problem-based learning variant: transition phase for a large institution. JPMA J Pak Med Assoc. 2001 Aug;51(8):271–4.
15. Anderson WL, Mitchell SM, Osgood MP. Comparison of student performance in cooperative learning and traditional lecture-based biochemistry classes. BiochemMolBiolEducBimonPublInt Union BiochemMol Biol. 2005 Nov;33(6):387–93.
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v5i6.87
