Classroom Observation Result

Classroom Observation Result

* Process of instructional delivery

Table 6 shows the extent to which the process of delivery of each instructional method was appropriate. Among three deliveries, lecture was given the highest score 98%. SGD was given the lowest 69.35%, the mixed method scored 86.4% (an average of SGD and lecture components).

Table 6: Scoring of the Process of delivery through use of Likert Scale

S.No	Statements	Lecture	SGD	SGD in Mixed	Lecture in Mixed
1	Setting arrangement	5	5	5	5
2.	Gaining attention	4	4	4	4
3.	Motivation of the students	5	4	4	5
4.	Structuring of the lesson	5	4	4	5
5.	Time spent on different content area	5	3	3	5
6.	Use of visual aids/real objects	5	3	3	5
7.	Voice audible	5	5	5	5
8.	Handling different type of students	5	5	5	5
9.	Emphasizing the important points	4	3	3	4
10.	Confident in subject matter	4	3	3	4
11.	Clarifying doubts	4	2	2	4
12.	Promoting active participation	5	3	3	5
13.	Feedback given	4	3	3	4
14.	Evaluating the students	4	2	2	4
15.	Summarize at the end of class	5	3	3	5
15.	Total	69 (98.5%)	52 (69.35%)	52 (69.35%)	69 (98.5%) average 86.4%

Note: Total highest possible score from 15 items is 75 (15´ 5). Note: Two observers scored similar evaluation in this Table 6. The key to Likert scale as follows; 1= poor,2= needs improvement,3= satisfactory,4= very satisfactory and 5= excellent.

1. Feedback from observers

Table: 7 shows written feedback from the two independent observers about the extent to which the process of delivery was appropriate. Data from classroom observation report supports the positive impact of the lecture method through proper organization of seating arrangements, motivation of the students, structuring of the lesson, management of time, use of visual aids, audible voice, handling different types of students, promoting active participation and summarizing the session at the end. Therefore the Lecture session got the highest score 98.5% (Table 6).

The positive impact of the lecture method are expressed through 'managed time very well', 'explained objectives' and 'gave related examples', whereas, weak part on behalf of the teacher was that she did not check transparency before the session.

The small group discussion session received excellent scores in relation to the seating arrangement, audible voice and the handling different types of students. Small group discussion got 69.3% score (Table 6) . This score is much smaller compared to the other two methods. The positive impact of the small group method is also implied by the strength of teacher identified in terms of 'good voice', 'equal division of content for three group of students' during the delivery. Major weaknesses of the teacher were that she did not explain the objectives clearly and did not summarize the session at the end.

The teacher needs to improve further in terms of time management for the content, explaining the objectives before the session, demonstrating confidence in the method, giving clear feedback, correcting the mistakes and summarizing the session.

The positive impact of the small group discussion in 'mixed' method is also implied by the strength of teacher identified in terms of 'good voice' during the delivery. Weakness of the teacher was not explaining clear objectives and not summarizing the session at the end.

Data from classroom observation of the lecture part in mixed group shows that first half of the session received excellent score in seating arrangements, motivation of the students, structuring of the lesson, management of time, use of visual aids, audible voice, handling different types of students, promoting active participation and summarizing the session. The scores were marked excellent.

Mixed method got on an average 86.4% score ( Table 6). The positive impact of the mixed method is also implied by the strength of teacher identified in terms of 'explained objectives' and 'gave relative examples' during the delivery, whereas, the weakness of the teacher was that she did not check transparency before the session ( Appendix A).

Table 7: Strength and weakness in the delivery of instructional methods

S.No	Strength	Weakness
Lecture	managed time very well explained objectives gave related examples	no checking of transparency before the session
Small Group Discussion	good voice equal division of content for three group students	no management of teaching materials no confidence in SGD method not conscious of time did not explain objectives clearly did not clarify mistakes during the session did not summarize the session did not prepare transparency for the difficult content
Lecture in Mixed SGD in Mixed	managed time very well explained objectives gave related examples Good voice	transparency not checked before class teaching no confidence in SGD method no conscious of time did not no explain objectives clearly did not clarify mistakes during the session did not summarize the session

Note: Two observers gave similar feedback in the process of instructional delivery of methods in the Table 7.

* Session evaluation from students

In Table 8 an overview is given of session evaluation from the students’ result in the area of interesting, useful, relevant, clear objective, understand ,learned a lot and sufficient time using Likert scale from 1=strongly disagree to 5= strongly disagree. All the responses are showed in percentage. This Table 8 students’ session evaluation proved that 14 (82.3%) out of 17 students in the lecture group marked excellent in terms of to what extent subject matter was understandable. None of the students responded either 'strongly disagree' or’ disagree’(Table 8). It is also found that 15 (83.3%) out of 18 students in the SGD group responded excellent in terms of to what extent subject matter was understandable. None of the students marked 'disagree'.

In the ‘mixed’ group 16 (84.2%) out of 19 students in the 'mixed 'group marked excellent in terms of useful ness of the session. None of the students responded either 'strongly disagree' or' disagree'(Table 9).

Table 8: Session evaluation analysis chart

S.N.	Statements	Lecture					SGD					Mixed
S.N.	Statements	1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5
1.	interesting			1 (5.8%)	4 (23.5%)	12 (70.5%)				12 (66.6%)	6 (33.3%)				6 (31.5%)	13 (68.4%)
2.	useful			1 (5 .8%)	4 (23.5%)	12 (70.5%)				12 (66.6%)	6 (33.3%)				3 (15.7%)	16 (84.2%)
3.	relevant			1 (5.8%)	8 (47.1%)	8 (47.1%)				6 (33.3%)	12 (66.6%)				7 (36.8%)	12 (63.1%)
4.	clear objective			1 (5.8%)	8 (47.1%)	8 (47.1%)	1(5.5%)	1(5.5%)	1(5.5%)	5 (27.7%)	10 (55.5%)	1(5.2%)	1(5.2%)		13 (68.4%)	4 (21.0%)
5.	understand			1 (5.8%)	2 (11.7%)	14 (82.3%)	1(5.5%)		1 (5.5%)	1 (5.5%)	15 (83.3%)	1(5.2%)	1(5.2%)		6 (31.5%)	11 (57.8%)
6.	learned a lot			2 (11.7%)	6 (35.3%)	9 (52.9%)	1(5.5%)	1(5.5%)		4 (22.2%)	12 (66.6%)	1(5.2%)	1(5.2%)		10 (52.6%)	7 (36.3%)
7.	sufficient time				8 (47.1%)	9 (52.9%)	1(5.5%)	1(5.5%)		6 (33.3%)	10 (55.5%)	1(5.2%)	1(5.2%)	2 (11.1%)	6 (31.5%)	9 (47.3%)

Note: Total no. of respondents in lecture group – 17, SGD group – 18, Mixed group –19

1. - Strongly disagree, 2 – disagree, 3 – agreed not disagree (neutral option) 4 – agree

5 – strongly agree.

Suggestions from students

In this Table 9 shows that lecture group 3 (17.8%) students suggested that teacher need to show more audiovisual aid . In this SGD group 7 (38.8%) students suggested that teacher need to increase time. In the mixed 'group 4 (21.2%) students suggested that teacher need to explain objectives clearly (Table 9).

Table 9: Suggestions given by the students

Methods	Suggestions	No of studs
Lecture	Need to demonstration of ORS	1 (5.8%)
	Need to show more audio visual aids	3 (17.6%)
	Very interesting & useful session	13 (76.4%)
SGD	Advice to discuss new subject like AIDS in future	1 (5.5%)
	Limit time	7 (38.8%)
	Need to show real object & visual aids	1 (5.5%)
	Need to implement in different faculty as soon as possible	2 (11.1%)
	Not responding	6 (33.3%)
	Need to make clear objectives	1 (5.5%)
Mixed	Need to provide book at the time of discussion	1 (5.2%)
	Need more time in future	2 (10.5%)
	Need to do demonstration of ORS	1 (5.5%)
	Need more pre planning	3 (15.7%)
	Objective was not clear	4 (21.0%)
	Not responding	8 (42.1%)