Evaluation of Approach of Teaching delivered to run Emergency Medicine at Department of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, Addis Ababa University, Adds Ababa, and Ethiopia. Challenges and Prospects.

 

Lehulu Tilahun¹*, Getnet Assabu²

¹Wollo University, Department of Emergency and Ophthalmic Health, Dessie, Ethiopia.

²Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital, Emergency Department, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

 

ABSTRACT:

Purpose: To Evaluate Methods of Teaching delivered to run Emergency Medicine at Department of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, Addis Ababa University, Adds Ababa, Ethiopia, 2016G.C. Materials and Methods: A descriptive design was employed. From the total population of 14 instructors and 22 students, all of them were considered for this study. Self-administered written Questionnaires were used for collecting data. Data analyzed through frequency, percentage, mean, average mean and mean difference. Results: The finding revealed that teachers were highly considering age and maturity level of students. Also they consider student’s background knowledge and skills, contents and objectives. Instructors were not used text books, handouts, and other printed materials. Lecture method found the most commonly used method followed by demonstration and discussion. Teaching methods encountered challenges like lack of resources, time constraint, and well organized class room, difficulty of less cooperation of learners.

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

Emergency medicine is a field of medical practice that incorporates knowledge and skills necessary to prevent, diagnose and manage life threatening health problems that affects all age groups of patients physically and behaviorally. Education is a way in which students get cognition, skill and behavioral change (1).

 

From a tertiary level education produce students with behavioral changes to improve the community. Then students of tertiary level should use variety teaching methods (2).

 

Teaching in the Emergency Department (ED) is inherently challenging. The chaotic and unpredictable environment makes it difficult to use traditional methods of teaching.

 

Rao (2003:268) post-secondary educations should equip students with knowledge and practice (3).

 

OBJECTIVES:

·       To identify the teaching methods most commonly employed by teachers at Emergency Department Addis Ababa University 2017.

·       To identify the extent to which teachers consider factors that affect their choice of teaching methods at Emergency Department Addis Ababa.

·       To describe the challenges and prospects in using teaching methods at Emergency Department Addis Ababa University 2017.

 

METHODOLOGY:

Research approach:

Quantitative and Qualitative research approach was used for the present study

 

Research Design:

A descriptive survey design was used from in Nov. 03- 05/2017G.C in Emergency Medicine Department, Addis Ababa University.

Setting:

A government, Addis Ababa University, department of Emergency medicine was used for setting

 

Population:

Emergency department instructors and all masters’ students were considered as study subjects [Table 1].

 

Table 1: Target population, planned and participated respondents of 2^nd yr. emergency medicine Students and Instructors

No	Respondent	Target			planned respondents(all)			Participated
	Category	Population Size						respondents			Response rate (%)
		M	F	total	M	F	total	M	F	total
1	Students	14	8	22	14	8	22	12	7	19	86.4
2	Instructors	6	8	14	6	8	14	6	4	10	71.4

 

Sample:

All Emergency medicine department instructors, all emergency masters’ students and those willing to participate in the study were included. Instructors with work experience of less than a month, 1st yr. emergency masters were excluded from the study.

 

Sample Size:

a total of 36 participants of whom 22 were post Graduate students and 14 were instructors.

 

Sampling Technique:

since all were considered no sampling technique used

 

Data Collection Tool:

Self-administered questioners were used to collect data.

 

Quality Assurance:

Training of data collectors were undertaken. As well data was entered by the principal investigator and was cleaned and completed before analysis carried out.

 

Data Analysis:

The data analysis procedure was performed manually through Microsoft excel spreadsheet. Frequency, Percentage and mean and average mean counts were used to analyze. The data collected were presented with tables and graphs. Data were analyzed with five point Likert scales; interpreted as 5= Strongly Agree, 4= Agree, 3= Undecided, 2= Disagree, and 1= Strongly Disagree.

 

For the purpose of easy analysis and interpretation, mean values from 1.00-2.49 were represented as low, from 2.50-3.49 as moderate, from 3.50-4.49 as high, and from 4.50-5.00 as very high Implementations of the items.

 

Theory:

Teaching profession uses different steps to achieve objectives (Obanya, Shabani and Okebukela, 1996:17). Biadgelign (2010: 99) showed that teaching methods observed as steps (4 and 5).

Clark and Starr (1986) cited from MOE (1994:4) revealed that teaching is a process resulted knowledge, skill and behavioral changes. Fry, H., Ketteridge, S. and Marsshall S., (2003:26) showed teaching support learners to know something unknown. Azeb (1984:74) revealed teaching is an act of facilitating formal and non-formal education (1, 6, 7).

 

Increasing quality of education of teaching in tertiary level education become a big issue in the world (Firdissa, 2009:19). Once instructors not use teaching methods, it will lead to less skilled graduates. In education process teaching methods used have a great effect in education (8).

 

RESULTS:

Background Information

The questionnaires were administered to 22 students and 14 teachers. From these 19 students and 10 teachers returned, of which 19 and 10 papers were used for analysis and representing an overall response rate of 86.4% and 71.4% respectively.

 

Table .2. Backgrounds information of instructors

Background information		Instructors
		Frequency	Percent
Sex	Male	6	60
	Female	4	40
	Total	10	100
Age	21-25	-	-
	26-30	6	60
	31-35	-	-
	36-40	4	40
	above 40	-	-
	Total	10	100
Educational level	MSC in Emergency medicine	6	60
	Sub specialty in EM(MD)	4	40
	Total	10	100
Teaching experience in year	< 2	4	40
	2-5	6	60
	Total	10	100
Workload in credit hour per week	< 6	4	40
	6-11	6	60
	12-18	-	-
	> 18	-	-
	Total		100

 

6(60%) instructors were males and 4(40%) of them were females. These shows that the work environment was male dominated at the study area during the study period. 6(60%) instructors s were between 26 and 30 years and 4(40%) teachers were between 36 and 40 years. 6(60%) teachers were MSC in Emergency medicine and 4(40%) of them were Sub specialty in Emergency medicine (MD).

 

4(40%) teachers had teaching experience of less than two years, and 6(60%) of them had teaching experience between two and five years. 4(40%) instructors had a workload less than six credit hours/week, 6(60%) of them had a workload between six to eleven credit hours per week. None of instructors had a workload between 12 and 18, and above 18 credit hours per week (Table 2).

Table .3. Backgrounds information of 2nd yr. emergency students

Background information		Emergency Masters students
		Frequency	Percent
Sex	Male	12	63.2
	Female	7	36.8
	Total	19	100
Age	15-20	-	-
	21-25	2	10.5
	26-30	11	57.9
	31-35	6	31.6
	Above 35	-	-
	Total		100

 

12(63.2%) of students were males and 7(36.8 %) of them were females. Showing that the learning environment was male dominated.

 

The vast majority 11(57.9%) of the students were between 26 and 30 years. The rest 2(10.5%) of the students were between 21 and 25 years and 6(31.6%) were between 31 and 35 years. This shows that the most of the students were adult aged (Table 3).

 

Considerations in Choosing Teaching Methods:

Table 4. - Conceptualization of emergency students and instructors about considerations in choosing teaching methods

No	Item		Response	SA	A	U	D	SD	Total	Mean	Mean Difference
			In
1	Teachers consider the age and maturity level of students	Instructors	Freq	2	8	-	-	-	10	4.2
			%	20	80	-	-	-	100
		Students	Freq	6	7	2	1	3	19	3.6	0.6
			%	32	37	11	5.3	16	100
2	Teachers recognize students’ background knowledge and existing skills.	Instructors	Freq	8	2	-	-	-	10	4.8
			%	80	20
		Students	Freq	5	7	4	3	-	19	3.7	1.1
			%	26	37	21	16	-	100
3	Teachers consider content of the subject-matter or the instruction.	Instructors	Freq	8	2	-	-	-	10	4.8
			%	80	20	-	-	-	100
		Students	Freq	6	4	5	3	1	19	3.6	1.2
			%	32	21	26	16	5.3	100
4	Teachers consider learning objectives or outcomes to be achieved	Instructors	Freq	8	2	-	-	-	10	4.8
			%	80	20	-	-	-	100
		Students	Freq	8	4	4	2	1	19	3.8	1
			%	42	21	21	11	5.3	100
	Grand Mean	Instructors								4.7
		Students								3.7	1

SA=Strongly Agree, A=Agree, U=Undecided, D=Disagree, SD=Strongly

 

The mean scores of the instructor and student respondents were 4.2 and 3.6 respectively, with mean difference of 0.6. That is, there is no significant difference on agreement between the two groups of respondents towards the item. This shows that both instructors and students have high level of agreement to teachers’ consideration of the age and maturity level of there but there is some variation.

 

The mean scores of the instructor and student respondents for the teachers’ consideration of students’ background knowledge and existing skills were 4.8 and 3.7 respectively with mean difference of 1.1. The two groups of respondents significantly differ in their agreement on the item. This indicates that instructors have very high level of agreement to the item and the students have only high level of agreement.

The mean scores of the instructor and student respondents for the teachers’ consideration of the content of the subject matter or the instruction were 4.8 and 3.6 respectively with a mean difference of 1.2. The two groups of respondents significantly differ in their agreement on the item. This reveals that teachers’ level of agreement to the item was very high and that of the students was only high.

 

Instructors and students were asked to rate on the teachers’ consideration of the learning objectives or outcomes to be achieved. The mean scores of the instructor and student respondents were 4.8 and 3.8 respectively with mean difference of 1.0. This depicts that the two groups of respondents significantly differ in their agreement on the item. It reveals that instructor respondents’ have a very high level agreement on teachers’ consideration of learning objectives or outcomes to be achieved.

 

An overall consideration in choosing methods of teaching was computed by aggregating the responses of the four considerations in choosing methods of teaching items resulted in average mean scores of 4.7 and 3.7 by instructors and students respectively, with a mean difference of 1.0. This shows that there is significant difference between the responses of the two groups of respondents. These results indicate that teachers have very high level of agreement to the items but students have high level of agreement (Table 4).

 

Respondents were asked to give their responses whether teachers consider their teaching characteristics (knowledge, skills, experiences, etc.) before choosing teaching methods.

 

Most respondents 7(70%) responded as teachers consider their teaching characteristics (knowledge, skills, experiences, etc.) before choosing teaching methods and some respondents did not. One of the teacher respondents responded as:

 

“I try to apply my competencies for teaching learning strategies to be pedagogic content oriented based on the knowledge I acquired from higher diploma training.’’

 

Respondents were asked to give their responses whether teachers consider the time, space/class size, facility, and resources before choosing teaching methods. 60% respondents responded as teachers consider the time, space/class size, facility, and resources before choosing teaching methods and a few respondents did not. One teacher respondent responded as:

 

“I look for: references for teaching learning (books, published articles, internet web site. I organize my personal computer, white board, marker, LCD, flip charts…. And I consider for class room management (training center/lecture hole.’’

 

Teachers’ Methods of Teaching:

Table 5: Emergency medicine department Instructors’ and Students’ response results on the Teachers’ Methods of Teaching

No	Item		Response	SA	A	U	D	SD	Total	Mean	Mean difference
			In
1	Teachers teach large number of	Instructors	Freq	-	6	4	-	-	10
	students at a time		%	-	60	40	-	-	100	3.6
		Students	Freq	2	7	4	6	-	19		0.3
			%	11	37	21	32	-	100	3.3
2	Teachers generate learners’ interest, enthusiasm and appreciation.	Instructors	Freq	2	6	2	-	-	10
			%	20	60	20				4
		Students	Freq	4	6	1	6	2	19		0.8
			%	21	32	5	32	11	100	3.2
3	Teachers encourage students’	Instructors	Freq	4	6	-	-	-	10
	participation and success		%	40	60	-	-	-	100	3.2
	in their learning	Students	Freq	8	7	1	3	-	19	4.1	0.9
			%	42	37	5	16	-	100
4	Teachers provide students	Instructors	Freq	2	8	-	-	-	10
	demonstrations to make good			20	80	-	-	-	100	4.2
	observers	Students	Freq	4	11	2	2	-	19		0.3
			%	21	58	11	11	-	100	3.9
5	Teachers enhance students’ critical	Instructors	Freq	2	6	2	-	-	10
	thinking and skills of scientific		%	20	60	60	-	-	100	4
	investigation	Students	Freq	4	7	6	1	1	19		0.3
			%	21	37	32	5.2	5.2	100	3.7
6	Teachers support students to	Instructors	Freq	2	8	-	-	-	10
	learn how to discover and organize		%	20	80	-	-	-	100	4.2
	things	Students	Freq	5	9	3	2	-	19		0.2
			%	26	47	16	11	-	100	4
7	Teachers use textbooks, handouts and	Instructors	Freq	4	4	2	-	-	10
			%	40	40	20	-	-	100	2.2
	students	Students	Freq	6	7	-	3	3	19		1.3
			%	32	37	-	16	16	100	3.5
8	Teachers use audiotapes, videotapes,	Instructors	Freq	2	8	-	-	-	10
	slides, photographs, models,		%	20	80	-	-	-	100	4.2
		Students	Freq	4	11	2	-	2	19
			%	21	58	11	-	11	100	3.8	0.4
9	Teachers use multimedia such as	Instructors	Freq	-	8	2	-	-
	graphics, sound, images,		%	-	80	20	-	-	100	2
	animations and digital video	Students	Freq	1	10	2	4	2	19
			%	5.3	53	11	21	11	100	3.2	1.2
10	Teachers give individual assignments	Instructors	Freq	2	8	-	-	-	10
	and projects									4.2
			%	20	80	-	-	-	100
		Students	Freq	4	11	1	3	0		3.8	0.4
			%	21	58	5	16	-	100
11	Teachers encourage their students to	Instructors	Freq	4	6	-	-	-	10
	develop group learning skills		%	40	60	-	-	-	100	4.4
		Students	Freq	7	3	2	4	3	19
			%	37	16	11	21	16	100	3.4	1
		Instructors								3.7
Grand Mean		Students								3.6	0.1

SA=Strongly Agree, A=Agree, U=Undecided, D=Disagree, SD=Strongly Disagree

 

On Item 1, the mean scores of instructors and student respondents were 3.6 and 3.3 respectively, with mean difference of 0.3. This shows that the two groups of respondents significantly differ in their agreement on the item. That is teachers have high level of agreement to the item and the students support moderate. On item 2 above, the mean scores of instructors and students on teachers’ way of teaching creates learners’ interest, enthusiasm and appreciation were 4 and 3.2 respectively, with mean difference of 1.2. There is significant difference between the responses of the two groups of respondents. This indicates, teachers have high level of agreement to the item while students have moderate.

 

From item 3, the respondents’ agreement to the extent to which teachers encourage students’ participation or involvement and success in their learning was considered. Hence, the mean scores of instructors and student respondents were 3.2 and 4.1 respectively, with mean difference of 0.9. There is difference between the responses of the two groups of respondents. This reveals that teachers’ agreement to the item was moderate and was high to student respondents. On item 4 above, the mean scores of both instructors and students were 4.2 and 3.9 respectively, with mean difference of 0.3. There is no significant difference between the responses of the two groups of respondents. This depicts both groups have high level of agreement even though there is some difference.

 

Regarding item 5, the mean scores of the two groups of respondents were 4 and 3.7 respectively, with mean difference of 0.3. There is no significant difference between the responses of the two groups of respondents. This shows that the two groups have equally high level of agreement but there is some difference. To item 6, the mean scores of instructors and student respondents were 4.2 and 4.0 respectively, with mean difference of 0.2. There is no significant difference between two groups. This shows that both instructors and students have high level of agreement. On item 7, the mean scores of the two groups of respondents were 2.2 and 3.5 respectively, with mean difference of 1.3. There is difference in the task. Instructors rating on teacher’s use of textbooks, handouts and other printed materials to teach their students is low but that of the students is high.

 

From item 8, the mean scores of the instructors and the students were 4.2 and 3.8 respectively, with mean difference of 0.4. This showed that the teachers’ use of audiotapes, videotapes, slide sequences, photographs, models, practical kits and tools in their classroom was high. In relation to item 9, the mean value of instructors and the students were 2 and 3.2, with mean difference of 1.2. There is significant difference between the responses of the two groups of respondents. This revealed that the teachers’ use of multimedia such as text, graphics, motion, sound, images, animations, and digital video while teaching their students was low while that of students was moderate.

 

On item 10, the mean scores of both groups of respondents were 4.2 and 3.8, with mean difference of 0.4. This revealed that teachers’ provision or giving of individual assignments and projects to their students was high even though the teacher respondents have relatively higher level of agreement to the item than the student respondents. Regarding to item 11, the mean scores of both groups of respondents were 4.4 and 3.4, with mean difference of 1.0. There is significant difference between the responses of the two groups of respondents. Means, teachers’ encouragement of their students to develop group learning skills such as discussion and interpersonal skills was high but, that of students was moderate.

 

An overall teachers’ methods of teaching was computed by aggregating the responses of the teachers’ methods of teaching items resulted with an average mean scores of 3.7 and 3.6 by the teacher and student respondents respectively, with mean difference of 0.1. The two groups of respondents have no significant difference. Both groups of respondents tend to have high level agreement on average to all teachers’ methods of teaching items (Table 5).

 

RANK ANALYSIS:

 

Figure 1 showing teaching methods employed with their respective rank order at department of emergency, AAU, Nov, 2017 G.C

Lecture method was found to be ranked as the 1^st mostly employed method of teaching by both group of respondents. This method was rated as rank 1 by all (10) of instructors and 15 of the student respondents

 

Instructors and students also have similar rank to the demonstration method as the 2^nd most employed teaching method with Instructors (8) and majority of students (9). Similarly 3rd most employed teaching method, both groups identifies as discussion with Instructors (8) and students (6). Instructors’ and students’ ranking for the rest ranks were found to be interchangeable. That is, student respondents ranked inquiry as 4^th and instructors ranked it as 5^th. Both groups ranked individualized method as 5^th. And discovery ranked as 5^th by instructors and was ranked at 6^th by students.

 

CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS:

CHALLENGES:

·       Lecture:

8(80%) of respondents were comfortable with this method.

 

·       Demonstration:

6(60%) responded as there was lack of resources/demonstrating materials, time constraint and non-well organized class room.

 

·       Discussion and inquiry:

4(40%) responded as there was less participation /cooperation and motivation on the students side.

 

·       Individualized and discovery:

4(40%) responded as there was less previous experience and less back ground knowledge on the students side.

 

PROSPECTS:

Most instructors 6(60%) responded as there should be availability of enough resources, good class room organization and 4(40%) responded as students should be motive and cooperative. One of instructor respondents responded as:

 

“Teaching learning strategy should be pedagogy oriented and students should apply their competency mostly through active learning. Good teaching strategy with the available resources, class room management, student participation and decision making on teaching learning process, progressive and summative assessments are good and mandatory.”

 

DISCUSSION:

The finding showed an overall consideration in choosing methods of teaching was computed and resulted in average mean scores of 4.7 and 3.7 by instructors and students respectively. This is similar to a study at samara that is 4.25 and 3.57 between teachers and students respectively.

 

7(70%) of instructor respondents replied that teachers were considering their teaching characteristics before choosing teaching methods. Which is similar to study at London by Ramsden showed that teaching method should depend on a variety of elements (9).

 

In relation to the teachers’ methods of teaching, instructors and students responded with their average mean values 3.7 and 3.6 respectively. This is similar to investigations done in Ethiopia that was 3.8 and 3.5 teacher and student respondents (10).

 

Lecture, Demonstration, discussion method, Inquiry, individualized and discovery was found to be the most commonly employed method in orderly fashion as reported by both groups of the respondents.

 

Which is similar in study from Ethiopia finding revealed that most of the respondents considered lecture as best method. But differs from study done in Singapore by Teo, R. and Wong, showed lecture is least practical, more theoretical and memorizing. In London, by Brown, et al. revealed that lecture method, although considered by modern educators as traditional or outdated, is still one of the most widely used methods of teaching. Another study from London by Brown and Atkins also showed that despite many criticisms regarding the lecture method, when carefully planned and skillfully delivered, it is pleasurable to students and teachers (10- 13).

 

A research done at Samara University Ethiopia showed that demonstration method was found to be the 3^rd most commonly employed method as reported by both groups of the respondents. However, our finding revealed as demonstration method as the 2^nd most employed method. This was higher from Samara University since this was due to our study focused on health personnel respondents (Emergency medicine department) in which more demonstration is required (10). Our finding revealed as discussion method as the 3^rd most employed method. But in Samara University research showed that discussion method was found to be the 2^nd most commonly employed method. This might be due to samara university that is due to the study at samara university includes all disciplines for example social sciences in which discussion is more common (10).

 

CONCLUSIONS:

As a conclusion;

1.     Considerations in choosing methods of teaching were highly considered by teachers for effective teaching learning to be ensured.

 

2.     Regarding to the teachers’ methods of teaching;

a.     The provision of the students with demonstrations were high.

b.     Teachers were also highly providing individual and develop group learning skills such as discussion and interpersonal skills.

c.     Teachers’ use of textbooks, handouts and other printed materials to teach their students was low.

This shows that instructors use soft copies rather using printed material.

d.     Teachers’ encouragement of their students to develop group learning skills (discussion and interpersonal skills) was moderate on student respondents.

e.     Teachers encourage students ‘participation/ involvement and success in their learning was moderate. That could negatively affect learning.

f.      Teachers’ way of teaching creates learners’ interest, enthusiasm and appreciation was moderate. This affects quality teaching.

 

3.     With regard to teaching methods employed, lecture, demonstration, and discussion methods were found to be the most commonly employed methods of teaching.

 

4.     In regard to challenges of teaching methods; Lecture was the most comfortable method of teaching. Whereas demonstration was challenged with lack of demonstrating materials, time constraint and no organized class room. And Discussion and inquiry methods were encountered with difficulty of less cooperation and motivation of learners.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Ways be created to adjust instructor-to-student ratio to become proportional to each other. There should enough teaching materials/demonstrating equipment with well-organized class room. Also trainings to facilitate to make teaching learning process pedagogy oriented.

 

Teachers should encourage students ‘participation and encourage for their success to motivate and achieve learning objectives. Also they should encourage of their students to develop group learning skills (discussion and interpersonal skills) was moderate on student respondents. Has implication in learning. Is recommended that students should be active participants, cooperative during the teaching learning process.

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

We want to say thanks to Addis Ababa University for permission to run this research paper.

 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

Author declared as there is no conflict of interest.

 

REFERENCES:

1.        MOE. Teacher Education Handbook. EMPDA; 1994. (Unpublished Material).

2.        Daniel Desta. Observation and Reflection of the Higher Education Teachers on the quality of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education in Ethiopia, the Ethiopia Journal of Education, 2004; Vol. 1, pp. 63-81.

3.        Rao, V. K. Quality Education. New Delhi: A.P.H. Publishing Corporation; 2003.

4.        Obanya, P., Shabani, J. and Okebukela, P. Guide to Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Dakar: UNESCO; 1996.

5.        Biadgelign Ademe. General Learning-Teaching Methods and Techniques. Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University Press; 2010.

6.        Fry, H., Ketteridge, S. and Marshall, S. A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Great Britain: Bell and Bain Limited, Glasgow; 2003.

7.        Azeb Desta. Elements of General Methods of Teaching (Knowledge and Competencies for Teachers). Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University; 1984 (Unpublished).

8.        Firdissa Jebessa. Teachers’ Roles in Quality Management Systems at Universities. Dialogue 4th Series; 2009. Vol. 1, Oct. 2009, pp. 15-35.

9.        Ramsden, P. Learning to Teach in Higher Education. (2nd ed.). London: Rutledge Flamer Publishers; 2003.

10.     Anbessa Bekele Nora. Methods of Teaching and their Implications for Quality of Student Learning At Samara University‖; 2012.

11.     Teo, R. and Wong, A. “Does Problem Based Learning Create A Better Student: A Reflection? “Paper presented at the 2nd Asia Pacific Conference on Problem Based Learning: Education across Disciplines; 2000; December 4-7, Singapore.

12.     Brown, et al. Curriculum and Instruction: An Introduction to Methods of Teaching. London: The Macmillan Press Ltd; 1992.

13.     Brown, G. and Attkins, M. Effective Teaching in Higher Education. London: Biddles Ltd.; 1988.

 

 

Received on 22.04.2020          Modified on 10.05.2020

Accepted on 30.05.2020      ©AandV Publications All right reserved