{"title":"Evaluation of a novel method for teaching drawing of histology diagrams to first year MBBS students.","authors":"Srividya Sreenivasan, Manisha Sandeep Nakhate","doi":"10.25259/NMJI_852_2022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Background The challenge faced by an undergraduate medical student to draw factually correct histology diagrams needs to be addressed by the use of innovative teaching strategies. We introduced a new method to teach drawing of histology diagrams and compared its outcome with two preexisting methods. We obtained feedback from the students and faculty. Methods We introduced an innovation (method 3): A validated hand-drawn pencil sketch of a histology diagram was provided to the students. Students drew on the pencil sketch with haematoxylin and eosin (H&E) pencils and coloured it. They then drew the same diagram afresh. Three diagrams of systemic histology were chosen and the evaluation criteria shared with students. The students drew all three diagrams once, each by a different method. The scores of method 3 were compared with the other two methods, copying from standard atlas (method 1) and from hand-drawn colour chart made by teacher (method 2). Feedback was sought from students and faculty by means of a google form. Results A total of 112 students (of 167 who volunteered) completed the study. The mean (SD) score obtained by method 3 (4.83 [0.298]) was higher than the mean score by method 1 (3.91 [0.95]) and method 2 (4.82 [0.27]). There was a statistically significant difference between method 3 and method 1 (p<0.01), and method 2 and method 1 (p<0.01). However, the difference in scores between methods 3 and 2 was not statistically significant (p>0.05). Conclusion We found method 3 (the innovation) to be better than one of the pre-existing methods (method 1) but not better than method 2. The quality of diagrams produced by methods 2 and 3 were better than those by method 1, and equally so. The ease of drawing and time taken to draw were the best for method 2. Hence, overall, method 2 may be adjudged the best method.</p>","PeriodicalId":519891,"journal":{"name":"The National medical journal of India","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The National medical journal of India","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25259/NMJI_852_2022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background The challenge faced by an undergraduate medical student to draw factually correct histology diagrams needs to be addressed by the use of innovative teaching strategies. We introduced a new method to teach drawing of histology diagrams and compared its outcome with two preexisting methods. We obtained feedback from the students and faculty. Methods We introduced an innovation (method 3): A validated hand-drawn pencil sketch of a histology diagram was provided to the students. Students drew on the pencil sketch with haematoxylin and eosin (H&E) pencils and coloured it. They then drew the same diagram afresh. Three diagrams of systemic histology were chosen and the evaluation criteria shared with students. The students drew all three diagrams once, each by a different method. The scores of method 3 were compared with the other two methods, copying from standard atlas (method 1) and from hand-drawn colour chart made by teacher (method 2). Feedback was sought from students and faculty by means of a google form. Results A total of 112 students (of 167 who volunteered) completed the study. The mean (SD) score obtained by method 3 (4.83 [0.298]) was higher than the mean score by method 1 (3.91 [0.95]) and method 2 (4.82 [0.27]). There was a statistically significant difference between method 3 and method 1 (p<0.01), and method 2 and method 1 (p<0.01). However, the difference in scores between methods 3 and 2 was not statistically significant (p>0.05). Conclusion We found method 3 (the innovation) to be better than one of the pre-existing methods (method 1) but not better than method 2. The quality of diagrams produced by methods 2 and 3 were better than those by method 1, and equally so. The ease of drawing and time taken to draw were the best for method 2. Hence, overall, method 2 may be adjudged the best method.