6
GROUP
BIOMEDICAL SCIENCE
Lecture Effectiveness by
Lecturers from Biomedical
Science Department,
FSKB UKM
Supervisor:
Puan Rifina Arlin binti Drs. Haji Zainal Arifin
PM Dr Ahmad Rohi bin Ghazali
INTRODUCTION
•The study is mainly conducted to provide an
useful framework in improving lecture delivery
effectiveness among 1st year Biomedical Science
lecturers in FSKB, UKM.
•Since most of the studies on lecture delivery
effectiveness use only one source of information
that can create bias and unreliability, it has
initiated us to conduct this study using multiple
sources.
The research is done based on the background
reference to two research articles:
a) The
Colleague Developmental Program: a
multidisciplinary program of peer observation
partnerships (Maree et al, 2009)
b)Using the 360o multisource feedback model
to evaluate teaching and professionalism
(Ronald, 2009)
These two articles are referred to obtain
information regarding the multisource of
lecturing evaluation.
Is the lecture given by lecturers
from Biomedical Science
Department, FSKB UKM effective?
Lecture given by lecturers from
Biomedical Science Department, FSKB
UKM is effective.
To evaluate the lecture delivery
effectiveness given by 1st year
Biomedical Science Department,
FSKB UKM lecturers.
i) To determine students’ understanding
level.
ii) To compare the effectiveness of various
teaching methods.
iii) To determine the association between
lecturers self-preparation with students’
understanding.
iv) To determine the association between the
effectiveness of lectures and students’
academic performance.
Research
Location:
UKMKL
Study
Design:
Cross Sectional
Study
Study Pop:
Target Pop:
All lecturers in
UKMKKL
1st year to 3rd year
biomedical
student and all the
1st year
biomedical
lecturers
Sample Sizes :
Student Sample
Size = 160
Lecturer
Sample Size = 7
Demographic Data :
Percentages of Gender For 1st, 2nd and 3rd Biomedical Science
Students and 1st year Biomedical Science lecturers.
90.00%
Percentages (%)
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
81.30%
40.00%
n = 135
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
18.70%
n = 31
0.00%
Male
Female
Genders
Demographic Data :
Percentages of Different Races among 1st, 2nd and 3rd Biomedical
Science Students and 1st year Biomedical Science lecturers.
70.00%
Percentages (%)
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
67.50%
n = 112
20.00%
24.10%
10.00%
n = 40
6%
n = 10
0.00%
Malay
Chinese
Indian
Races
2.40%
n=4
Others
Demographic Data :
Percentages of 1st, 2nd and 3rd Biomedical Science Students and 1st
year Biomedical Science lecturers.
35%
Percentages (%)
30%
25%
20%
15%
32%
n = 53
32%
32%
n = 53
n = 53
10%
5%
4%
n=7
0%
1st Year
2nd Year
3rd Year
Years
Lecturer
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1
To Determine Students’
Understanding Level
Questionnaires Used
I am able to summarize the main points after
every lecture.
 Lecturers using terms and explanation that I
am able to understand.
 I am able to understand every lecture given
by the lecturers.

Test Used
Descriptive
Statistic
Descriptive Statistic:
Comparison of Students' Understanding Level
After Lecture Delivery
60.00%
Percentages (%)
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
41.60%
20.00%
n = 87
n = 69
10.00%
0.00%
52.40%
1.80%
n=3
Poor
4.20%
n=7
Moderate
Good
Very good
Students’ Understanding Level
Specific objective 1
52.4% of the students have good
understanding level after every lecture
delivered.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2
To Determine The
Effectiveness of Various
Teaching Methods
Questionnaires Used






By giving assignment can help me understand well the
certain topic studied.
By doing case study can help me understand well the
certain topic studied.
By having an individual/group presentation can help
me understand well the certain topic studied.
By accessing E-SPIN learning can help me understand
well the certain topic studied.
By conducting a tutorial can help me understand well the
certain topic studied.
By having Problems Base Learning can help me
understand well the certain topic studied.
Test Used
1. Kruskal Wallis
2. Mann Whitney
Test
Normality Testing
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Sig. Value
<0.0005**
Proceed to Kruskal-Wallis since
data is not normally distributed.
KRUSKAL-WALLIS
Kruskal-Wallis
Sig. Value
<0.0005**
Highly significant difference between the 6 groups of
teaching methods.

PROCEED to Mann-Whitney test, to know
where the significance lies.
Mann Whitney Test
Assignment Case
study
Assignment
-
0.677
Individual/ e-SPIN
Tutorial
group
presentatio
n
0.223
<0.0005** 0.198
Case study
0.677
-
0.079
<0.0005** 0.085
0.832
Individual/
0.223
group
presentation
e-SPIN
<0.0005**
0.079
-
<0.0005** 0.858
0.102
<0.0005** <0.0005**
-
<0.0005**
Tutorial
0.198
0.085
0.858
<0.0005** -
0.109
Problem
0.801
base learning
0.832
0.102
<0.0005** 0.109
-
<0.0005**
Problem
base
learning
0.801
Median value for each teaching methods,
Teaching Methods
Median
Assignment
22
Tutorial
18
Case Study
17
PBL
14
Individual / Group
presentation
13
e-SPIN
2
Effective Way of
Teachings
Assignments are the most effective
teaching method because:
 Prepares
students to seek out appropriate
learning resources
 enable students to work in groups and improve
their interactive and leadership skills

Written assignments help in organization of
knowledge, assimilation of facts and better
preparation of examinations. It emphasizes on
individual pupil work and the method that helps
both teaching and learning processes (Kochhar,
2000, p.358)
e-SPIN is the least effective
teaching method because :

Unmotivated learners or those with poor
study habits may fall behind.

Lecturers may not always be available on
demand.

Specific objective 2

Assignments are the most effective
teaching method while e-SPIN is
the least effective teaching method.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3
To determine the
association between
lecturers’ self-preparation
and lecture delivery
effectiveness
Questionnaires Used







Lecture notes or related informations are given by
lecturers before every lecture.
Lecturers deliver lectures based on “Student Guide Book''.
Lecturers mentioned his/her objective and simple outline
of the topic before delivering the whole topic.
Lecturers uses flow charts and diagrams for teaching
purposes.
Lecturers update his/her notes with the latest information
frequently.
Lecturers discuss the recent development and researches
with students during the lecture.
Lecturers provide additional information (articles, journal,
website address) related to the topic.
Test Used
Spearman
Correlation
Normality Testing
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Sig. Value
Lecturers’ self preparation
<0.0005**
Students’ Understanding
<0.0005**
Proceed to Spearman Correlation
since data is not normally
distributed.
Spearman correlation
Spearman Correlation
Sig. Value (2-tailed)
r Value
<0.0005**
0.263**
 Specific
objective 3
Lecturer’s self preparation have a
weak correlation with lecturers
delivery effectiveness

Cox and Rogers (2005) described a wellprepared lecture as an interactive experience that
actively engages students in the process of learning
and can support diverse student learning.

When the objective is to communicate basic facts,
introduce intitial concepts or convey passion about
a topic, a well prepared lecture is very useful (Cox
& Rogers, 2005, Gleitman, 2006)

Self-preparation of teachers in US tends to increase
personal teaching efficacy (Hoy & Woolfolk,
1990; Wenner, 2001)
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4
To determine the association
between effectiveness of
lecture and students’
academic performance
during 1st year 1st semester
Test Used
Spearman
Correlation
Normality Testing
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Sig. Value
Effectiveness of lectures
<0.0005**
GPA
<0.0005**
Proceed to Spearman correlation
since data is not normally
distributed.
Spearman correlation
Spearman Correlation
Sig. Value (2-tailed)
r Value
0.819
0.018

Specific objective 4
Effectiveness of lecture delivery
does not influence students’ academic
performance during first year first sem
study.

This might be due to students not depending solely
on the lecturer’s lecture delivery and lecture notes.

Students may find other sources to perform
academically besides lecture notes only, which is also
known as active learning.

Active learning refers to situations where students
are involved in the educational process instead of
passively listening to lectures (Hermanson, 1994)

Students not paying full attention during lecture or
being absent for a particular lecture.

Cox (1994) suggests that, ideally lectures are only
there to lay foundations, show the way, and ease the
passage, as the student works through the subject.
General conclusion
Lecture delivery given by 1st year
Biomedical Science Department, FSKB
UKM lecturers is effective but there is no
correlation between the effectiveness of
lectures and students’ academic
performance.
Reference

Naoto I. 2000. A cross-sectional study on constipation by
questionnaire to students in Meiji University of Oriental
Medicine. Journal of Meiji University Of Oriental Medicine 27(2):
47-53.

Guimaraes E.V. 2001. Dietary fiber intake, stool frequency and
colonic transit time in chronic functional constipation in
children. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
34(9): 1147-1153.

Williams J.. 2008. A study to determine actual consumption,
awareness of health benefits and factors influencing fruit and
vegetable consumption in first-year undergraduate students.
Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics 13(5): 363-371.

Morais M.B. 1999. Measurement of low dietary fiber intake as a risk
factor for chronic constipation in children. Journal of Pediatric
Gastroenterology and Nutrition 29(2): 132-135.

M. Galisteo. 2009. Effects of dietary fibers on disturbances clustered
in the metabolic syndrome. The Journal of Nutritional
Biochemistry 19(2): 71-84.

Warren TK. 2007. Increased prevalence of constipation in preschool children is attributable to under-consumption of plant
foods: A community-based study. Journal of Paediatrics and Child
Health 44(4): 170-175.

Garrigues V. 1991. Prevalence of constipation: Agreement among
several criteria and evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of
qualifying symptoms and self-reported definition in a
population-based survey in Spain. American Journal of
Epidemiology 159(5): 520-526.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We want to thank to all biostatistics
lecturers especially Puan Rifina Arlin
binti Drs. Haji Zainal Arifin & PM Dr
Ahmad Rohi bin Ghazali for being our
supervisor. We also would like to express
our appreciation to all Biomedical Science
students first, second and third years that
had participated in answering
questionnaires to assist our study.
THANK YOU