• Users Online: 661
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 
Table of Contents
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 116-119

Hands-On workshop on museum and plastination techniques, at the national postgraduate medical college of Nigeria, Ijanikin: An objective impact assessment of participants


1 Department of Morbid Anatomy, University of Benin Teaching Hospital, Benin City, Edo State, Nigeria
2 Department of Academic, National Postgraduate Medical College of Nigeria, Ijanikin, Lagos State, Nigeria

Date of Web Publication21-Feb-2018

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Dele Eradebamwen Imasogie
Department of Morbid Anatomy, University of Benin Teaching Hospital, P.M.B 1111, Ugbowo Lagos Road, Benin City, Edo State
Nigeria
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/atp.atp_28_17

Get Permissions

  Abstract 

Introduction: Pre- and post–assessment examinations are invaluable to evaluate the knowledge base of participants in educational programs or workshops. It is plausible that there is no significant effect on the knowledge base of participants at the end of the hands on workshop. The aim of this study is to test this hypothesis by determining the effect of the hands-on workshop on the knowledge gained by the participants. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective study. The targets were all participants who partook in both the pre - and post-assessment examinations of the hands on workshop on museum and plastination techniques, organized by the National Postgraduate Medical College of Nigeria (NPMCN), held from, 21st to 25th of August, 2017. The effect of the hands-on workshop was tested, using self-pairing of data obtained from the scores of the pre- and post-test assessment. The self-paired data were analyzed with the Statistical Package for Social Sciences, version 16 (SPSS 16, SPSS Inc. Chicago, Illinois, United States of America) using the paired t-test, with the level of statistical significance set at P ≤ 0.05. The critical t value was obtained from the tables of critical values of t distribution[4] at P = 0.05 and the degree of freedom (df) = n-1, where n is the sample size. Result: The result showed a substantial increase in the knowledge gained by the participants. Statistically, there was a significant difference between the mean percentage pre- and post-assessment test scores at P = 0.03 for museum techniques, P ≤ 0.0001 for plastination techniques and P ≤ 0.0001 for the overall assessment. Discussion: This workshop has significantly improved the knowledge of participants in museum and plastination techniques, hence, we reject the aforementioned hypothesis. Conclusion: It brings to fore the usefulness of hands-on techniques in passing knowledge from tutors to tutees.

Keywords: Hands-on, Pre-test, Post-test, Overall assessment, tutees, tutors


How to cite this article:
Imasogie DE, Adeteye OV. Hands-On workshop on museum and plastination techniques, at the national postgraduate medical college of Nigeria, Ijanikin: An objective impact assessment of participants. Ann Trop Pathol 2017;8:116-9

How to cite this URL:
Imasogie DE, Adeteye OV. Hands-On workshop on museum and plastination techniques, at the national postgraduate medical college of Nigeria, Ijanikin: An objective impact assessment of participants. Ann Trop Pathol [serial online] 2017 [cited 2019 Nov 22];8:116-9. Available from: http://www.atpjournal.org/text.asp?2017/8/2/116/225913


  Introduction Top


The presentation of an educational workshop is now regarded as a scholarly work.[1] The workshop provides the forum for mentors or tutors to share knowledge with a wide range of audience,[1] while, hands-on relates to providing direct practical experience in the operation or functioning of something,[2] which in this case were museum and plastination techniques. Plastination is long-term tissue preservation using polymers.[3] It is plausible that there is no significant effect on the knowledge base of participants at the end of the hands-on workshop. The aim of this study, therefore, is to test this hypothesis by assessing the impact of the workshop on the knowledge base of the participants.


  Methodology Top


This was a retrospective study. The targets were all participants who partook in both the pre and postassessment test of the hands-on workshop on museum and plastination techniques organized by the National Postgraduate Medical College of Nigeria held from August 21st to 25th, 2017 at the college premises. The pre- and post-test question/answer papers for each participant were identified using an assigned corresponding serial number in place of their written names on the question/answer papers. Each participant in the cohort is given a preworkshop assessment test of 30 main questions. Each of these questions has five options that require either a true (T) or false (F) answer, making it a total of 150 questions/answers. Of these, 9 main questions were on museum techniques, while, 21 main questions were on plastination, giving it a total of 45 and 105 subquestions, respectively. At the end of the workshop, a postworkshop assessment test using the same questions as the preworkshop assessment was administered to the participants. The pre- and the post-test result were converted to a hundred per cent. The effect of the hands-on workshop was tested, using self-pairing of data obtained from the scores of the pre- and post-test assessment. The self-paired data were analyzed with the Statistical Package for Social Sciences, version 16 (SPSS 16, SPSS Inc. Chicago, Illinois, United States of America) using the paired t-test, with the level of statistical significance set at P ≤ 0.05. The critical t value was obtained from the tables of critical values of t distribution [4] at P = 0.05 and the degree of freedom (df) = n-1, where n is the sample size.


  Results Top


Twenty participants sat for the pre- and the post-workshop assessment test, thus making them eligible for this study. Of these, 15 were male, while, 5 were females [Table 1]. Their age distribution and educational qualifications are shown in [Table 1].
Table 1: The sex, age, and educational qualification of the participants in the study

Click here to view


Museum techniques

The pre- and post-assessment test for the museum techniques were 65 (13 participants) and 100 (20 participants) percentage pass, respectively, [Table 2]. The percentage scores were higher in the posttest than the pretest. The minimum pretest score was 8.80%, while, that for the post test was 53.28%. The maximum percentage scores of 82.14% and 91.02% for the pre- and post-assessment test, respectively, were recorded. The range of 73.3% and 37.74% was noted for the pre- and post-assessment test, respectively. The mean percentage scores for the pre- and post-assessment test were 56.64% (standard deviation (SD) = 25.13) and 74.31% (SD = 10.18), respectively [Table 3]. There is a statistical significant difference between these two means at P = 0.03, df = 19, calculated t, tcalculated= 3.436 and critical t value, tcritical(t0.05(2),19) = 2.093, [Table 4].
Table 2: Percentage pre-, post- and overall-assessment test scores

Click here to view
Table 3: The minimum and maximum test scores, range, and mean percentage scores

Click here to view
Table 4: The P value, degree of freedom, calculated, and critical t

Click here to view


Plastination techniques

Eighteen participants (90%) passed the postassessment test for plastination technique, while none of the participants (0%) passed the preassessment test, [Table 2]. The minimum pretest score was 3.80%, while, that for the posttest was 41.80%. The maximum percentage scores of 35.15% and 95.00% for the pre- and post-assessment test, respectively were observed in this study. The range of 31.35% and 53.20% was noted for the pre- and post-assessment test, respectively. The mean percentage scores for the pre- and post-assessment test were 22.42% (SD = 10.88) and 69.26% (SD = 12.54), respectively [Table 3]. The difference between these two means is statistical significant at P ≤ 0.0001, df = 19, calculated t, tcalculated= 10.808 and critical t value, tcritical(t0.05(2),19) = 2.093, [Table 4].

Overall pre- and post-assessment test for museum and plastination techniques

Eighteen participants (90%) passed the overall postassessment test, while none of the participants (0%) passed the overall preassessment test [Table 2]. The percentage scores were higher in the overall postassessment test than the preassessment test. The minimum overall preassessment test score was 5.36%, while, that for the overall postassessment test was 45.56%. The maximum percentage scores of 49.58% and 88.44% for the overall pre-and post-assessment test, respectively, were observed in this study. The range of 44.22% and 42.88% were noted for the pre- and post-assessment test, respectively. The mean percentage scores for the overall pre- and post-assessment test were 32.13% (SD = 15.09) and 71.02% (SD = 10.50), respectively [Table 3]. The difference between these two means is statistically significant at P ≤ 0.0001, df = 19, calculated t, tcalculated= 8.613 and critical t value, tcritical(t0.05(2),19) = 2.093, [Table 4].


  Discussion Top


Learning objectives according to the University of Guelph Teaching Support Services includes, but, not limited to the objectives, been measurable.[5] The pre- and post-assessment test in this study provides an avenue for measuring the knowledge acquired by participants at the end of this workshop. The result of these assessments showed that there is a significant difference between the pre- and post-test scores at P = 0.03 for museum techniques, P ≤ 0.0001 for plastination techniques and the overall assessment encompassing both museum and plastination techniques. The hypothesis that “it is plausible that there is no significant effect on the knowledge base of participants at the end of the hands-on workshop” is therefore rejected. This rejection is further reinforced since the calculated t (tcalculated) value is greater than the critical t (tcritical) value for museum techniques, plastination techniques, and the overall assessments encompassing both museum and plastination techniques as shown in [Table 4]. Engaging tutees in learning activities are invaluable to the understanding of what is being taught. Factors that can affect tutees engagement in the learning process include but not limited to boredom during lectures and the techniques of imparting knowledge. These factors can lead to a gap in the engagement of tutees during learning (engagement gap), if not addressed. More than two-thirds of tutees in high schools in the United States were exited and engaged by techniques of imparting knowledge in which playing a role in learning activities; active participation in the learning processes; performing group project during learning; discussions and debate among peers, were employed.[6] They are however least engaged in lectures in which they do not play active roles.[6] During this workshop, groups were formed that actively participated in group projects, thus allowing for maximum engagement of participants. This was reflected in group discussion, workshop tutor, and peer-review reenforcement of task or activity. These were invaluable during the hands-on-sections. Engaged tutees consciously make efforts to understand what is being taught and they are more likely to get better scores or grades when faced with standardized test.[6] In the same vain, the grades of the participants at the end of the index hand-on-workshop were better than that of the pretest. Hands-on learning is a double-edge sword. On the one hand, it helps tutees to gain substantial knowledge of what has been taught, while on the other hand, it boosts tutors confidence.[7] Hands-on activities are connections between routine lectures on the one hand, and visualizing what has been taught using real objects on the other hand.[8] Using pre- and post-test to assess the impact of knowledge acquired is not novel to this study. Lee et al.[8] in their study used pre- and post-test assessment over the school year to measure the impact of fidelity of implementation of science achievement. They noted that there was no significant difference between the pre- and post-test assessments scores; hence, they concluded that none of their interventions (i.e., teachers' self-reports or classroom observations) had significant effects on science achievement gains. The importance of hands on as a veritable tool in impacting knowledge has also been acknowledged in several previous studies.[9],[10],[11],[12],[13] Hands-on activities help tutees acquire knowledge and the ability to think.[14] It also inspires an enduring affection for learning and at the same time motivate learners to search and learn new things.[15]


  Conclusion Top


This study has shown a statistically significant effect or gains on the postworkshop knowledge of participants. This piece of information serve as a feedback to the organizers of the hands-on workshop on how they have fared, thus, giving room for reappraisal and improvement in subsequent workshops. It also bring to fore the usefulness of hands-on techniques in passing knowledge from tutors to tutees.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
  References Top

1.
Spagnoletti CL, Spencer AL, Bonnema RA, McNamara MC, McNeil MA. Workshop preparation and presentation: A valuable form of scholarship for the clinician-educator. J Grad Med Educ 2013;5:155-6.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]    
2.
Merriam-Webster.com. “Hands-on.” Available from: http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/hands%E2%80%93on. [Last accessed on 2017 Oct 09].  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Riederer BM. Plastination and its importance in teaching anatomy. Critical points for long-term preservation of human tissue. J Anat 2014;224:309-15.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Ogbeibu AE. Biostatatistics: A Practical Approach to Research and Data Handling. Benin City: Mindex Publishing Co. Ltd.; 2005. p. 203-5.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
University of Guelph. University of Guelph Teaching Support Services Learning Objectives: A Basic Guide; c2003. Available from: http://www.tssuoguelphca/resources/idres/learningobjectives1pdf. [Last accessed on 2017 Oct 09].  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Fredricks J, Wendy M, Jane M, Bianca M, Joy M, Kathleen M. United States Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Education Laboratory Southeast Measuring Student Engagement in Upper Elementary through High School: A Description of 21 Instruments Washington, D.C.: US Department of Education; c2011. Available from: http://www.iesedgov/ncee/edlabs. [Last accessed on 2017 Dec 02].  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Basista B, Susann M. Integrated science and mathematics professional development programs. Sch Sci Math 2002;102:359-70.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Lee O, Penfield R, Maerten-Rivera J. Effects of fidelity of implementation on science achievement gains among English language learners. J Res Sci Teach 2009;46:826-59.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Belgin I. The effects of hands-on activities incorporating a cooperative learning approach on eight grade students' science process skills and attitudes toward science. J Baltic Sci Educ 2006;9:27-37.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Bredderman T. Activity science-the evidence shows it matters. Sci Child 1982;20:39-41.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Furlan PY. Engaging students in early exploration of nanoscience topics using hands-on activities and scanning tunneling microscopy. J Chem Educ 2009;86:705-11.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Satterthwait D. Why are 'hands-on' science activities so effective for student learning? Teach Sci 2010;56:7-10.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Wallace CS. An illumination of the roles of hands-on activities, discussion, text reading, and writing in constructing biology knowledge in seventh grade. Sch Sci Math 2004;104:70-8.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Hmelo-Silver CE. Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educ Psychol Rev 2004;16:235-66.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Bass KM, Yumol D, Hazer J. The Effect of Raft Hands-on Activities on Student Learning, Engagement, and 21st Century Skills (RAFT Student Impact Study); c2011. Available from: http://www.raftnet/public/pdfs/Rockman-RAFT-Reportpdf. [Last accessed on 2017 Dec 25].  Back to cited text no. 15
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Methodology
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed841    
    Printed55    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded60    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal