Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

Genel cerrahi dersinde görsel-işitsel araçların kullanılmasında öğrenci tercihleri

The Preferences of Medical Students in Audio-Visual Tool used in General Surgery Lecture

Journal Name:

  • Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2005

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
In the present study, we aimed to determine medical students' preference regarding visual tools used at the lecture and lecture handouts. A questionnaire was applied third, forth and sixth year students (n=114,58male, 56 female). It was determined that, using visual tool in the lecture was preferred by almost all students. Reflector is widely used visual tool. But almost no students were preferred reflector. However majority of the students wish handouts concerned the lecture.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu çalışmada tıp fakültesi öğrencilerinin derste kullanılan görsel araçlar ve ders notları hakkındaki tercihlerinin incelenmesi hedeflenmiştir. Dönem IV, V ve VI öğrencilerine (n=114,58 erkek, 56 kadın) anket uygulanmıştır. Ders anlatımında görsel araç kullanımının öğrencilerin hemen tamamı tarafından tercih edildiği saptanmıştır. Tepegöz (reflektör) yaygın olarak kullanılan bir görsel araçtır. Ancak öğrencilerin hemen hiç biri tepegözü tercih etmemektedir. Bununla birlikte öğrencilerin büyük çoğunluğu anlatılan dersle ilgili ders notu verilmesini istemektedir.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-genel-cerrahi-dersinde-gorsel-isitsel-araclarin-kullanilmasinda-ogrenci-tercihleri.pdf
  • 2
26-29
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Jonson D, Johnson R. Learninmg Together and Alone. Anglewood Cliffs. NJ Prentice-Hall 1974.
2. Brown J, Collins A, Daguid P. Situated cognition and culture oflearning. Educational Researcher 1989; 18(1):32-42
3. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbuilt. Anchored instruction and its relation to situated cognition. Educationalresearcher 1990; 19(6) 2-10.
4. O'Donnel A, Dansereau D. Learning from lectures: Effects of cooperative review. Journal of experimental education 1994;61(2):116-125.
5. Saroyan A, Snell LS, Variations in lecturing styles. HigherEducation 1997; 33: 85-104.
6. Copeland HL, Longworth DL, Hewson MG, Stoller JK. Successful lecturing: a prospective study to validate attributes of the effective medical lecture. J Gen Intern Med. 2000; 15(6):366-71.
7. Copeland HL, Stoller JG, Hewson MG, Longworth DL. Making the continuing medical education lecture effective. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 1998;18:227-34.
8. Tom F, Cushman H. The cornel diagnostic observation and reporting system for student description of college teaching. Search 1985;5(8):1-27.
9. http://www.orscu.8m.com/, Mayıs 2004'de ulaşıldı
10. Amato D, Quirt I. Lecture handouts of projected slides in a medical course.
MedTeach. 1990; 12(3-4):291-6.
11. http://training.ifas.ufl.edu/deft/produce/ppart.htm Mayıs 2004'de ulaşıldı.
12. Voss D, Kefe DD, Willett JD, Lanius C, McDonald K. PowerPoint in the classroom.
Cell Biol Educ. 2004 Fall; 3(3):155-61.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com