Didactic lectures serve as a primary teaching method of large group teaching for the medical students. In about 50 - 60 minutes delivering vast subject in a lecture is challenging task for teachers, and there is no interaction for students and it encourages passive learning and fails to motivate the students. From the years innovative modalities of learning are being implemented to make the Learning Preference interesting like tutorials, seminars, case-based discussions, small group discussions21. A traditional lecture is generally considered more passive and less effective than problem-based learning; however, when well-organized, it can be a highly effective way to synthesize and present information on complex topics10. Professors exhibit diverse personal learning preferences, which define their individual learning styles. Each student processes and internalizes information uniquely. Students typically possess a primary or preferred learning style. Knowledge acquisition, skill development, and attitude formation occur through active engagement with information and the surrounding environment. Understanding medical students' learning preferences can inform teaching strategies within the curriculum, especially in regards to fostering and maintaining engagement and motivation24. A learning style encompasses the specific manner in which an individual perceives, engages with, and reacts to their educational environment. Recognizing diverse learning styles enables educators to move beyond a "one-size-fits-all" approach, encouraging them to adapt their teaching methods and personalize instruction. Essentially, learning styles represent the unique "manner in which individuals choose to approach learning situation," referring to the distinct behaviours and cognitive processes people employ to acquire new knowledge 7, 17. Learning modality" refers to an individual's preferred or natural way of processing information, encompassing personal characteristics such as cognitive, emotional (affective), and psychological behaviors that influence how effectively they acquire knowledge and engage in an educational setting. It is fundamentally defined as a person's typical patterns for perceiving, retaining, contemplating, and resolving problems.

This study comprised 90 second-year medical students from the RVS Institute of Medical Sciences, Chittoor, in 2018. The participants were randomly assigned to three groups (A, B, and C), each consisting of 30 individuals. All groups first completed a pre-test; an MCQ-based evaluation on "Antigen-Antibody Reactions," a subject already covered theoretically using conventional chalkboard lectures. The same topic was then delivered again, but using varied pedagogical approaches for each specific group, which are detailed below. Table 1: Division of Students Group S.NO Group/Students assigned Method of Teaching 1 Group A - 30 Chalk and Board 2 Group B - 30 Power Point Presentation 3 Group C - 30 Small group teaching (Students divided into 5 small groups of 6 each and made our entire faculty to involve in teaching). The impact of the teaching methodology was subsequently assessed by administering an identical post-test (MCQs) to all 90 students. Concurrently, student feedback was collected using a structured questionnaire, and a separate evaluation of faculty perceptions toward the students was conducted. OBJECTIVES: 1) To include interest in learning the subject for the students 2) To inculcate interest in teaching the subject for the faculty 3) To reduce the gap between the student and the faculty

We observed marked progress in the multiple-choice question (MCQ) performance across the three student batches. Active small-group engagement proved more effective for Group C's academic success than the other two methods. Feedback taken from students revealed that batch of students with small group discussions had more interest in learning and hearing the subject and they recommended this style of learning much than the older methods. Their remembrance power also has been increased. Faculty responses indicated that student engagement and the level of eye contact were enhanced in a small group teaching setting, and instructors expressed high satisfaction with this pedagogical approach. Table 2: Pre and Post test Average marks in All the Groups. Group / Test Group A (n = 30) Group B (n = 30) Group C (n = 30) Pretest 16.25±2.374 16.38±2.462 16.49±2.541 Post test 18.32±2.163 18.55±2.351 20.35±2.428 P value (paired t test) < 0.0008 < 0.0009 < 0.0001 Group A, B, & C students conducted a pretest on MCQ’s questionnaire for 25 marks after a lecture on “Antigen-Antibody Reactions” by chalk and board method. Group A Students got on Average 16.25 marks with 65%, Group B Students got on Average 16.38 marks with 65.5% and Group C Students got on Average 16.49 marks with 65.96%. Group A , B, & C students conducted a post-test on MCQ’s questionnaire for 25 marks after lecture on “Antigen-Antibody Reactions” by Power point presentation and Small group teaching. Group A Students got on Average 18.32 marks with 73.2%, Group B Students got on Average 18.55 marks with 74.2% and Group C Students got on Average 20.35 marks with 81.4%. Table 3: Questionnaire for different Teaching Methods in All the Groups. Feedback Questionnaire for Students Group A (%) Chalk and Board Group B (%) Power Point Group C (%) Small group Is this method of teaching better than the one taught in large group 60% (Y) 40% (N) 73% (Y) 27% (N) 100% (Y) 0% (N) Learning by this method of teaching enhanced my present knowledge of the topic 63% (Y) 37% (N) 77% (Y) 23% (N) 100% (Y) 0% (N) Did the faculty create interest in teaching with this method 37% (Y) 63% (N) 80% (Y) 20% (N) 97% (Y) 3% (N) Would you like to recommend this learning style for future classes 27% (Y) 73% (N) 40% (Y) 60% (N) 100% (Y) 0% (N) Group A (Chalk and Board Teaching Method) 18 students (60%) said “Yes”. Chalk and board teaching method is better than large group, where as 12 students (40 %) said “NO”. for chalk and board teaching method. 19 students (63%) said “Yes” Chalk and board teaching method enhanced knowledge about the topic, where as 11 students (37 %) said “NO” chalk and board teaching method not enhanced knowledge.. 11 students (37%) said “Yes”. Faculty created interest by teaching Chalk and board method; where as 19 students (63 %) said “NO”. Faculty not created interest by chalk and board teaching method. 8 students (27%) said “Yes”. They want to recommend Chalk and board teaching method for future classes; where as 22 students (73 %) said “NO”. They don’t want to recommend Chalk and board teaching method for future classes. Group B (Power Point Presentation Method) 22 students (73%) said “Yes” Power point presentation teaching method is better than large group teaching method, whereas 8 students (27 %) said “NO” Power point presentation mot better than large group teaching method. 23 students (77%) said “Yes” Power point presentation teaching method enhanced knowledge about the topic, where as 7 students (23 %) said “NO” Power point presentation teaching method not enhanced knowledge. 24 students (80%) said “Yes”. Faculty created interest by teaching Power point presentation teaching method; whereas 6 students (20 %) said “NO”. Faculty not created interest by Power point presentation teaching method. 12 students (40%) said “Yes”. They want to recommend Power point presentation teaching method for future classes; whereas 18 students (60 %) said “NO”. They don’t want to recommend Power point presentation teaching method. Group C (Small group Teaching Method) All the 30 students (100%) said “Yes” Small group teaching method is better than large group teaching method. All the 30 students (100%) said “Yes” Small group teaching method enhanced knowledge about the topic. 29 students (97%) said “Yes” Faculty created interest by Small group teaching method. Whereas 1 student (3%) said “NO”. Faculty not created interest by small group teaching method. Table 4: Faculty Questionnaire for Small Group teaching. Feedback Questionnaire to Faculty (%) Small group teaching Strongly Accept Accept Neutral Do not Accept Strongly do not Accept Was this teaching style made you to bring interest in teaching 80% 20% - - - Did you feel any difficulty teaching this style 10% 10% - 10% 70% Were the students keen in listening to the topic by this method 80% 20% - - - Would you like to recommend to teach future classes by this method 100% - - - - In all (100%) the faculty small group teaching style brings interest (80% strongly accepts and 20% accepts), 20 % of the faculty felt difficult in small group teaching but 80 % don’t have difficulty in small group teaching. All (80% strongly accept, 20 % Accepts) the faculty Accepted that students are keen in listening to the topic by small group teaching. All (100%) the faculty like to recommend teaching future classes by small group teaching.

Focusing specifically on the interplay between instructional methods and educational resources, the research aims to gather feedback from medical students and faculty regarding the efficacy of various teaching methodologies and aids in meeting educational goals. These practices necessitate a needs assessment to accurately identify student requirements. In our observational study the pre test was conducted for 25 marks to 90 second year MBBS students in the class, there was a increase in the average of marks from the students taught with chalk and board, power point presentation and small group teaching and also in post test there is significant (P=0.00) increase in the average of marks when compared to pre-test average marks, there is a difference between pre-test and post-test average marks in all the groups (Table 2). 60 - 63% of students accepted the chalk and board teaching method is better than large group teaching8,15 and it will increase the knowledge about the topic taught and 63 - 73 % of faculty not created interest, so, students don’t want to recommend for the future classes18,23. Rajani SN et.. all observed in their study don 2016small group teaching method increases the knowledge and creates interest in students and gets more knowledge compared to other methods of teaching like Chalk and board and power point presentations. 73 - 77 %of the students said Power point presentation method is better than large group teaching and it will increase the knowledge about the topic1,3,4,. 80 % of the faculty created interest in teaching the same topic by power point presentation method, but Still 60 % of the students don’t want to recommend the power point presentation for the future classes13,20,22 (Table 3). All (100%) the students said the small group teaching method is better and it will give better knowledge then the large group teaching method, 97% of the faculty created interest in teaching small group method, so All the (100%) students wants to recommend small group teaching for the futures classes2,5,6 100% of the faculty accepted the small group teaching create interest in teaching and 80 % faculty not felt difficulty in teaching small group, all the faculty accepted (80% strongly accepted, 20% accepted) that tall the students in the class are keen to listening the class by small group teaching method9,11,12,. So, the entire faculty recommended small group teaching method for future classes14, 16,19 (Table 4). Joshi et..al in 2018 in their study suggested most of the students and professors recommended and accepted the small group teaching will create interest in teaching

Small group teaching is a highly effective pedagogical approach or instructional strategy recognized for its benefits to both faculty and students. Other terms for this method include collaborative learning, team-based learning, breakout sessions, or small class instruction. This approach is valued for fostering a supportive learning environment, which in turn helps in building a strong rapport between students and faculty and minimizing the student-faculty divide. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: This project is done as a part of ACME course at MCI Nodal Centre for National Faculty Development at CMC, Vellore. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST - None

1. Ahmed C. PowerPoint versus traditional overheads: which is more effective for learning? Conference for the South Dakota Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation. 1998 [cited December 30, 2020]. Available from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/full text/ED429037.pdf. Accessed May 7, 2021. 2.Alavi, M. S., Khodadadi, E., & Yazdani, M., 2015. Comparison of the effectiveness of traditional lecture and active learning methods in nursing education: A systematic review. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 5(2), 1-8. 3. Ankad RB, Shashikala GV, Herur A, Manjula R, Chinagudi S, Patil S. PowerPoint presentation in learning physiology by under- graduates with different learning styles. Adv Physiol Educ. 2015;39 (4):367–371. doi:10.1152/advan.00119.2015. 4. Baxi SN, Shah CJ, Parmar RD, Parmar D, Tripathi CB. Students’ perception of different teaching aids in a medical college. AJHPE. 2009;1(1):15–16. 5. Bradshaw, P., & Mackenzie, D., 2017. Small group teaching in MBBS: Enhancing clinical skills and knowledge retention. BMC Medical Education, 17(1), 40. 6. Chetana. PH. Effectiveness of Small Group Discussion Sessions in Teaching Biochemistry for Undergraduate Medical Students South East Asian Journal of Medical Education 2014;Vol 8(1):77-81. 7. Gimbel RW, Cruess DF, Schor K, Hooper TI, Barbour GL. Faculty performance evaluation in accredited U.S.I public health graduate schools and programs: a national study. Acad Med. 2008;83:962–968. 8. Granger, B., Schoonover, G., Bonham, A., et al., 2017. Active learning strategies for teaching medical students: A meta-analysis. Medical Education, 51(6), 633-645. 9. Joshi KP, Suhasini P, Robins M. Assessment of educational outcomes of small group discussion versus traditional lecture format among undergraduate medical students Int J Community Med Public Health. 2018 Jul; 5(7):2766-2769 10. Joshi KP, Robins M, Yanadi Reddy M. Perception and preferences of teaching and learning method in community medicine: a cross sectional study Int J Community Med Public Health. 2018 Jul;5(7):2821-2824. 11. Kumar, S., & Sharma, P., 2018. Small group learning in MBBS: Promoting collaborative and independent learning. Indian Journal of Medical Education, 19(2), 101-107. 12. Litchfield, A., & Jones, M.,2016. Impact of small group teaching in MBBS: Improving learning outcomes. Medical Education Journal, 50(4), 392-399. 13. Manjunath SM, Nagesh Raju G, Srinivas TR, Someswara GM. A study on the evaluation of medical students’ perception and feedback of teaching learning of pharmacology in a medical college. IAIM. 2015;2(9):102-110. 14. Mann, K. V., Boelen, C., & Hafferty, F. W., 2009. The role of the medical teacher in improving the educational environment. Medical Teacher, 31(9), 829-834. 15.Michel, M. C., Bischoff, A., & Jakobs, K. H., 2002. Comparison of problem- and lecture-based pharmacology teaching. Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, 23(4), 168-170. 16. Prince, M., & Felder, R. M, 2006. Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123-138. 17. Rao SP, Di Carlo SE. Active learning of respiratory physiology improves performance on respiratory physiology examinations. Adv Physiol Educ. 2001; 25:127–133. 18.Rajani SN, Yogananda R, Rajesh P.Effective physiology teaching method: from the perspective of first year MBBS students Indian J Clin Anat Physiol. 2016; 3(3): 336–338. 19.Schmidt, H. G., Van der Molen, H. T., Te Winkel, W., & Wijnen, W., 2007. Constructivist teaching in medical education: A review. Medical Education, 41(6), 573-581. 20. Singh. Y, Sharma. T, Upadhya. B. Educational Technology: Teaching and Learning. New Delhi (India). APH Publishing Corporation. 2008; pp 1-2. 21. Suhasini. P, Joshi, KP, Yamini D, Swaroopa Chary RS, Sarma D.V.H.S. Educational outcomes of small group discussion versus traditional lecture among first year undergraduate medical students.Journal of Education Technology in Health Sciences 2017;4(3):93-96. 22.Vikas S, Prerna U, Mushtaq A, Vijay M. PowerPoint or chalk and talk: perceptions of medical students versus dental students in a medical college in India. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2010; 1:11–16. doi:10.2147/AMEP.S12154 23. Vikas S, Prerna U, Mushtaq A, Virendra K. An assessment of teachers’ preference for lecture delivery method in medical education Educational Research and Review 2010 Vol. 5 (9), pp. 533-537. 24. Vision2015-Medical council of India. Available at www.mciindia.org/tools/ announcement/MCI_booklet.pdf.