Evaluation of a novel method for teaching drawing of histology diagrams to first year MBBS students.

Srividya Sreenivasan, Manisha Sandeep Nakhate
{"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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估向医学学士一年级学生教授绘制组织学图表的新方法。
背景 医学院本科生在绘制符合事实的组织学图表方面面临挑战,需要采用创新的教学策略加以解决。我们引入了一种教授绘制组织学示意图的新方法,并将其结果与之前已有的两种方法进行了比较。我们获得了学生和教师的反馈意见。方法 我们引入了一种创新方法(方法 3):向学生提供经过验证的组织学图手绘铅笔草图。学生们用血红素和伊红(H&E)铅笔在铅笔草图上作画并上色。然后,他们重新绘制相同的图表。我们选择了三幅系统组织学图,并与学生分享了评价标准。学生们用不同的方法将三幅图都画了一遍。将方法 3 的得分与其他两种方法进行了比较,即根据标准图集临摹(方法 1)和根据教师手绘的彩色图表临摹(方法 2)。通过谷歌表格征求学生和教师的反馈意见。结果 共有 112 名学生(167 人自愿参加)完成了研究。方法 3 的平均得分(标清)(4.83 [0.298])高于方法 1(3.91 [0.95])和方法 2(4.82 [0.27])。方法 3 与方法 1 之间的差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 我们发现方法 3(创新)优于先前存在的一种方法(方法 1),但不优于方法 2。方法 2 和方法 3 所绘制图表的质量优于方法 1,且不相上下。方法 2 的易绘制性和绘制时间最好。因此,总体而言,方法 2 可被评为最佳方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Mid-level healthcare providers: Making a fresh case for modern Indian healthcare. Palbociclib: A novel and effective therapy for advanced liposarcoma. Regional patterns in minimum diet diversity failure and associated factors among children aged 6-23 months in India. Scrub typhus presenting as mitral valve infective endocarditis. Scrub typhus presenting with massive splenomegaly and lobar pneumonia.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1