Efficacy of teaching methods: an Evaluation by the Sifundzani High Learners

Year 2019, Volume: 3 Issue: 1, 6 - 15, 30.06.2019

Hena Yasmin

Abstract

The study was undertaken to elicit the perception of the High School students of Sifundzani, Swaziland, regarding
the prevailing system of teaching methods, to evaluate the extent to which they are benefited by these and to obtain
the views and suggestions of students about various aspects of the current Science Education. 115 students were
selected from grade 10, grade 11 and grade 12 in the second term of the year 2018 for this study. A set of
questionnaires were administered and directed to choose the appropriate option as per the likert scale. The response
were collected and analyzed. 43.96% of the total respondents agreed that the presentation of the topics during
normal lectures were interesting. Surprisingly 76 % students stated that lecture method is the most effective
method of teaching followed by tutorials, 59 % and group discussion, 56%. Reasons given for lecture being one
of the best methods was that the teacher provides all knowledge related to topic, time saving, students attentively
listen lecture and take notes. The group discussion was rated as the second best method of teaching because of;
more participation of students, the learning is more effective, the students don’t have to rely on rote learning, and
this method develops creativity among students. Sifundzani students stated that 67.07% of the teachers have good
communication skill and 62.96% of them found that the teachers are easily approachable, 82.83% of the
participants agreed that white board teaching as the better mode of teaching, and in the opinion of 55.87% students,
audio visual aids is the useful mode of teaching presentation for auditory and visual learners, 56.10% of the
participants agreed that the number of practical classes should be more than the theory classes. Students’
perception and ratings about the interesting and effective teaching methods is a way to suggest improvements in
teaching/ learning process. One interesting finding was that none of the Method can be 100% effective because
sometimes they just don’t want to learn. Few interesting results regarding misbehaviour during class learning time
was also revealed. 

Keywords

Teaching Method, Evaluation, Communication Skill, Audio-visual aids

References

• A.Garg, P. V. Rataboli, K. Muchandi Students’ opinion on the prevailing teaching methods in pharmacology and changes recommended Indian J Pharmacology, June 2014, Vol 36 , Issue 3, 155-158 Arreola, R. A. (2000). Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing. Benson, L., Schroeder, P., Lantz, C., and Bird, M. (n.d.). Student Perceptions Of Effective Professors. Retrieved Jan 24, 2019, from www.usfca.edu/ess/sym2001/PDFbooks/ Bland CJ, Wersal L, VanLoy W, Jacott W. Evaluating faculty performance: a systematically designed and assessed approach. Acad Med. 2012; 77:15–30. Bhavsar V.H., Vajpayee S.K., Joshi N.J., Mistry S.D., Kantharia N.D., Sharma A.K. et al. () Training during practical pharmacology sessions for undergraduate medical students: An experience with a modified teaching programme, Indian Journal of Pharmacology, 31, pp. 176-186, 2013. Braskamp, L. A. (2000). Toward a more holistic approach to assessing faculty as teachers. In K. E. Ryan (Ed.), Evaluating teaching in higher education: A vision for the future. New directions for teaching and learning, 83, 109-123. San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass. Braskamp, L. A., & Ory, J. C. (2002). Assessing faculty work: Enhancing individual and instructional performance. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.Centra, J. A. (2001). Reflective faculty evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Chang, T.S. (2001). The effect of system administration on faculty attitudes toward student ratings. Hualien, Taiwan: National Hualien Teachers College. Cross PK. Teaching for learning. Am. Assoc Higher Educ Bull 39: 3–7, 1998. Cuseo, J. (n.d.). The case for student evaluation of college courses. Policy Center on the First Year of College. Retrieved Jan 27, 2019, from http://www.brevard.edu/fyc/fya/CuseoLink.htm Davis. B. G. (2003). Tools for Teaching. Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco D’Lvernois, J.F. Evaluation by students of programmes, teaching techniques and teachers, In: Guilbert J.J. (ed.) Educationalhandbook for health personnel, 6th ed. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2009; pp. 4.15- 4.19. Gimbel RW, Cruess DF, Schor K, Hooper TI, Barbour GL. Faculty performance evaluation in accredited U.S.I public health graduate schools and programs: a national study. Acad Med. 2012; 83:962–968. Hamm, P.H. (Rev.2008). Teaching and Persuasive Communication: Class Presentation Skills. The Harriet W. Sheridan Center for Teaching and Learning: Retrieved July 24, 2009, from http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Sheridan_Center/publications/preskils. html Kaushik Bhowmick et al. Assessment of perception of first professional students in India about a teaching learning activity in Biochemistry South East Asian Journal of Medical Education Vol. 3 no. 2, 2010 International Technology and Education Journal Vol. 3, No. 1; 2019 15 Kochkar, S.K. (2000). Methods and Techniques Of Teaching. New Delhi: Sterling. McCarthy, P. (2012). Common Teaching Methods. Retrieved July 24, 2008, from http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/teachtip/ comteach.htm Ory, J. C. (2015). Faculty thoughts and concerns about student ratings. In K. G. Lewis (Ed.), Techniques and strategies for interpreting student evaluations. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 87. (pp.3- 15). San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass. Pratt, D. (2000). Reconceptualizing the evaluation of teaching in higher education. Higher Education, 34, 23-44. Rao SP, Di Carlo SE. Active learning of respiratory physiology improves performance on respiratory physiology examinations. Adv Physiol. Educ 25: 127–133, 2001. Rosenbaum ME, Ferguson KJ, Kreiter CD, Johnson CA. Using a peer evaluation system to assess faculty performance and competence. Fam Med. 2015; 37:429-33. Sahin, M. (2009). Correlations of students’ grades, expectations, epistemological beliefs and demographics of problem-based introductory physics course. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(2), 169-184. Scriven, M. (2005). Student ratings offer useful input to teacher evaluations. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 4(7), 1-5. Retrieved Jan 24, 2019 from http://ericae.net/pare/getvn.asp?v=4&n=7 Singh, U.K and Sudarshan, K.N. (2015).Teacher Education. New Delhi: Discovery Publishing House Shea, A. (2009). Making the Grade: College Teaching. Retrieved October23, 2009, from gradschool.about.com/library/weekly/aa051301a.htm. Sullivan, RL & McIntosh, N. (2006). Delivering Effective Lectures. Retrieved July 24, 2008 from http://cte.umdnj.edu/traditional_teaching/traditional_lecture.cfm Tebabal, A. & Kahssay, G. (2014), “The effects of student-centered approach in improving students’ graphical interpretation skills and conceptual understanding of kinematical motion,” Lat. Am. J. Phy. Edu, 5(2): 374- 381. Theall, M. (2018). Students Ratings: Myths vs. Research Evidence. Retrieved 24 July, 2019, from https://studentratings.byu.edu/info/faculty/myths.asp