A Lecture in Medical Physiology- PowerPoint versus Chalkboard.

Background and objectives: Various teaching methodologies have been utilized in medical education, chalk board once was a staple of classrooms, but PowerPoints are now standard in most medical schools. Objectives were a) to understand the student perspective on the use of different teaching modes in Medical Physiology b) to rate the effectiveness of lectures by different modes of teaching. Method: A lecture in physiology was delivered to two batches of First year of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of surgery (I MBBS) students. For one batch of students the lecture was delivered using PowerPoint, for the second batch of students, the same content was taught using a chalk board. A multiple choice question examination was conducted before (Pre-test) and after (Post-test) delivering the lecture. The students were given a questionnaire to choose between the chalkboard (CB) or PowerPoint (PPT) method for the various attributes. Results: It was observed that students scored better in the post-test examination, and no significant difference in score was seen between PowerPoint or chalkboard. According to the students, the attributes ―clarity of words‖ (67%), ―stress on important points‖ (52%) and ―summarizations‖ (80%) were best dealt with PowerPoint and chalk board based lectures gave better ―clarity of concepts‖ (71%), ―learning to draw diagrams‖ (67%), ―better understanding of the subject‖ (59%), ―easier note taking‖ (55%). The preferred method for delivering lectures was CB (51%). Conclusion: Lectures could be improved by utilizing a combination of both chalkboard and PowerPoint, as they each have their own advantages.

N-[2-Naphthyl]-glycine hydrazide, a potent inhibitor of DNAdependent RNA polymerase of Mycobacterium tuberculosis H37Rv.

N-[2-Naphthyl]-glycine hydrazide has been shown for the first time as a potent inhibitor of the DNA-dependent RNA polymerase (EC 2.7.7.6) of Mycobacterium tuberculosis H37Rv. At a concentration of 10–9 M, the compound shows maximum inhibition of the enzyme, the inhibition being less at higher concentrations. It is suggested that the novel type of inhibition pattern may be due to hydrophobic interactions occurring between the molecules of the compound at higher concentrations. The finding that there is a shift in the λmax of the compound could also account for this phenomenon. The effect of this compound was also tested on DNA-dependent RNA polymerases from an eukaryotic fungus, Microsporum canis. At a concentration of 10–9 Μ it inhibits RNA polymerase II (32%) but not RNA polymerases I and III.