Teachers used video projector in the classroom training. The aim of this research was to compare the students’ attitude, knowledge and practice about food health laboratory in conventional lecture and Video projector methods. In this quasi-experimental study; we grouped 40sophomore students of Environmental Health School, Islamic Azad University, and Tehran Medical Sciences Branch in Iran Country into two groups in April 2014. We collected the data by a researcher-made questionnaire including demographic (5) and food health laboratory (29) questions that used four-point Liker scales. We collected and measured the students’ knowledge and practice about food health laboratory in two groups by using pre and post-test. We analyzed the collected data by SPSS 18 software. The mean scores of the lecture and video projector groups were 10.95±5.28 (2-21), and 11.7±5.21 (6-24), respectively; the difference between the pre-test scores of the two groups was statistically significant (p=0.001). Knowledge scores of the two groups was statistically significant (p=0.001). Students’ practice in video projector method was higher than lecture method. The results indicated that the video projector was more efficacious, and more economic in enhancing the students' knowledge rate. This method led to increasing the students’ knowledge, and practice, it might be applied as a surrogate for traditional training such as lecture method in universities of medical sciences in the country.

1. Comparison of the effect of lecture and video projector teaching methods on students’ attitude, knowledge and practice
IRJTE
Comparison of the effect of lecture and video projector
teaching methods on students’ attitude, knowledge and
practice
Giti Kashi*1
, Karim Karim Doost2
*1,2
Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental Health, School of Health, Islamic Azad University, Tehran Medical
Sciences Branch, Khaghani St, Shariati Ave, Tehran, Iran.
Teachers used video projector in the classroom training. The aim of this research was to
compare the students’ attitude, knowledge and practice about food health laboratory in
conventional lecture and Video projector methods. In this quasi-experimental study; we grouped
40sophomore students of Environmental Health School, Islamic Azad University, and Tehran
Medical Sciences Branch in Iran Country into two groups in April 2014. We collected the data by
a researcher-made questionnaire including demographic (5) and food health laboratory (29)
questions that used four-point Liker scales. We collected and measured the students’
knowledge and practice about food health laboratory in two groups by using pre and post-test.
We analyzed the collected data by SPSS 18 software. The mean scores of the lecture and video
projector groups were 10.95±5.28 (2-21), and 11.7±5.21 (6-24), respectively; the difference
between the pre-test scores of the two groups was statistically significant (p=0.001). Knowledge
scores of the two groups was statistically significant (p=0.001). Students’ practice in video
projector method was higher than lecture method. The results indicated that the video projector
was more efficacious, and more economic in enhancing the students' knowledge rate. This
method led to increasing the students’ knowledge, and practice, it might be applied as a
surrogate for traditional training such as lecture method in universities of medical sciences in
the country.
Keywords: Food health, knowledge, learning, lecture, video projector
INTRODUCTION
Practical learning in health engineering fields, especially
food safety laboratory, was considered as an essential
factor of and promotion in students. A number of
psychologists emphasized on key parameters that
provided a quick transmitting for an effective practical
teaching: teacher knowledge, laboratory activities,
appraisement laboratory activities, effectual feedback,
good interaction between the teacher and the student,
educational circumstances, student interest, and student
intrinsic aptness (Zolfaghari et al., 2007; Gurney,
2007).Teaching was mainly divided to two major groups
of methods; namely the teacher-centered(such as
lecture) and pupil-centered (Problem base learning). The
education methods were lecture, panel discussions, role
play, drama, observations, film, and video projector.
Lecture, as a traditional method, is an efficient method to
present the many subjects to the many students.
*Corresponding Author: Dr. Giti Kashi, Assistant
Professor, Department of Environmental Health, School
of Health, Islamic Azad University, Tehran Medical
Sciences Branch, Khaghani St, Shariati Ave, Tehran,
Iran, Email: g.kashi@yahoo.com, Tel.:+982122006667,
Fax: 98-21 22600714
International Research Journal of Teacher Education
Vol. 2(3), pp. 030-035, August, 2015. © www.premierpublishers.org, ISSN: 2326-7221
Research Article

2. Comparison of the effect of lecture and video projector teaching methods on students’ attitude, knowledge and practice
Kashi and Doost 030
However, low time of discussing, and fast forgetting of
subject were some of the disadvantages of the above
method (Golafrooz Shahri and Khaghanizade, 2010;
Norouzi et al., 2011).Video projector, also known as a
digital projector, pointed to an educational method that
information could easily be communicated from teacher
to student via equipment, and tools(W.H.O., 2010).
Equipment such as video projector was the key to the
quality education. The knowledge, and attitudes of
teacher and his/or her skill in using of video projector led
to more progressing students than any other parameter,
including laboratory size, composition, and background,
along with life style (Gonzalez and Riboli, 2010).Food
health laboratory embodied a set of issues that provided
a framework within which food health laboratory tests
were planned, performed, recorded, and reported. These
tests were undertaken to generate information that could
be assessed the residues of food pharmaceuticals (such
as antibiotics, antioxidants, and hormones), food
additives (color, taste, and pesticides), food borne
diseases (bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and helmets), food
agrochemicals, food canned, and food sampling. The
results of food health tests were a true reflection of the
results obtained during the performance and could
therefore be relied upon when making risk/safety
assessments (W.H.O., 2010). Kaddoura (2011)
suggested that case-centered teaching offered students
opportunities to make meaning of their own world of
nursing through active partnership in their own educating,
developing inquiring minds and awareness of knowledge
(Kaddoura, 2011). Popil (2011) suggested that the
learner was inactive in the lecture method (Popil,
2011).Familiar to the concepts of the food health practical
unit such as the performance method of tests was an
intervention in the increasing students’ attitude,
knowledge and practice to the performance method of
tests. The students’ weak attitude, knowledge and
practice led to students’ incorrect informing about food
quality. The educational planning was one of the learning
principals in the different parts of environmental health
including food health. Therefore, correct planning in
education needed to be chosen optimum method. The
organoleptic tests were one of the most conventional
laboratory practices in the diagnostic of the food
adulteration and decay that could be led to generating
incorrect results. Therefore, it was essential to generate
the environmental heath students’ attitude, knowledge
and practice about food health laboratory. The aim of this
research was to compare the students’ attitude,
knowledge and practice about food health laboratory in
conventional lecture and Video projector methods.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Study Setting and Sample
The food health laboratory course was planned to
present for sophomore students of Environmental Health
School. 40 sophomore students of Environmental Health
School, Islamic Azad University, Tehran Medical
Sciences Branch in Iran Country left to choose the food
health laboratory course. Therefore, in this quasi-
experimental study, 40 sophomore students of
Environmental Health School, Islamic Azad University,
Tehran Medical Sciences Branch in Iran Country in April
2014 were grouped into two groups. To sample, random
sampling were used. The data were collected by a
researcher-made questionnaire including demographic
(5)and food health laboratory (29) questions that used
four-point Liker scales. The questionnaire was given to
the students in the first and the last session of food health
laboratory. Students filled the questionnaires
approximately 40 minutes. The limitation of the students’
knowledge about food health laboratory questions was
used four-point Liker scales and grouped in to three-layer
including correct (equal to 1 degree), false (equal to 0
degree), and unknowing (equal to 0 degree). According
to four-point Liker scales, the limitation of the students’
knowledge about food health laboratory score was
grouped in to four-layer including excellent (22-29), good
(15-21), moderate (7-14), and weak (0-6). We decided to
use four-point Liker scales because none of students
were chosen the neutral option.
The limitation of the students’ attitude and practice about
food health laboratory questions was used four-point
Liker scales and grouped in to four-layer including fully
agreed (equal to 4 degree), agreed (equal to 3 degree),
disagreed (equal to 2 degree), and fully disagreed (equal
to 1 degree). According to four-point Liker scales, the
limitation of the students’ attitude and practice about food
health laboratory score was grouped in to four-layer
including very agreed (25-32), agreed (17-24), disagreed
(9-16), very disagreed (0-8). The demographic questions
were: age, sex, marriage status, employment, and years
of service. The students’ knowledge about food health
laboratory questions were: food sampling (3
questions),area sampling (1question), flour tests (7
questions), diagnostic tests of canned food (2 questions),
diagnostic tests of corn pest (3 questions), diagnostic
tests of food additives (3 questions), diagnostic tests of
food persistent residue (5 questions), and diagnostic
tests of food microbiology (5 questions). The students’
practice about food health laboratory questions was 8
questions. The education methods in two laboratories
were lecture method (20 students), and video projector
along with power point method (20 students) that
performed by teacher during eight 75-minute sessions
about food health laboratory via installing of
administrative order, and PowerPoint slides, respectively.
Teaching of both groups was performed by the same
teacher, and educational content was similar in both
groups. The students’ knowledge and practice about food
health laboratory in two groups was collected and
measured by using pre and post-test.

3. Comparison of the effect of lecture and video projector teaching methods on students’ attitude, knowledge and practice
Int. Res. J. Teach. Educ. 031
Figure 1. Demographic characteristics of the lecture method group
Figure 2. Information source in lecture method group vs. Video projector
method group
Statistical Analysis
The collected data was analyzed by SPSS 18 software
using paired t-test (for categorical variables), independent
t-test, ANOVA and descriptive statistics. A p≤0.05 was
considered as significant. The statistical analysis was
done based on quantitative variables after transforming
all of quantitative and qualitative variables into
quantitative. To validate the questionnaire, content
validity were used by ten faculty members. To reliable the
questionnaire, test-retest method reliability were used by
4 students in the pilot test. Its reliability was obtained and
confirmed using Kuder-Richardson (r=0.80) (Ghafourifard
et al., 2013).
RESULTS
The results obtained from this study were shown below
as tables and figures. The results of the demographic
part in the lecture method indicated that of 20 sophomore
students who completed questionnaires,
90%(18students)were female, 95% (19 students) were
single, 80% (16 students) were jobless, and 85% (17
students)were 0 year of service (Figure 1). The mean of
students' age in the lecture method was 21.5±4.33. The
mean knowledge scores of students in the before and
after lecture method were 10.95±5.28 (moderate level,
equal to answering to 37%), and 17.40±4.66 (good level,
equal to answering to 60%), respectively (Table 1). The
most important source of information gain in students in
the lecture method was the media (90%, 18) (Figure 2).
The mean practice scores of students in the before and
after lecture method were 16.65±5.01 (disagreed level,
equal to 52%), and 23.10±5.29 (agreed level, equal to
72%), respectively (Table 2).
The results of the demographic part in the video projector
method indicated that of 20 sophomore students who
completed questionnaires, 65% (13 students) were
female, 90% (18 students) were single, 90% (18
students) were jobless, and 90% (18 students) were 0
year of service (Figure 3). The mean of students' age in

4. Comparison of the effect of lecture and video projector teaching methods on students’ attitude, knowledge and practice
Kashi and Doost 032
Table 1. Frequency of environmental health students’ knowledge about food health laboratory in the lecture and video projector
methods
Knowledge Lecture method Video projector
Weak
(0-6)
Moderate
(7-14)
Good (15-
21)
Excellent
(22-29)
Weak
(0-6)
Moderate
(7-14)
Good
(15-21)
Excellent
(22-29)
Pre-test 6 (30%) 9 (45%) 5 (25%) 0 (0%) 3 (15%) 12 (60%) 5 (25%) 0 (0%)
Post-test 0 (0%) 7 (35%) 10 (50%) 3 (15%) 0 (0%) 1 (5%) 8 (40%) 11 (55%)
Table 2. Frequency of environmental health students’ performance about food health laboratory in the lecture and video
projector methods
Performance Lecture method Video projector
Very
disagree
d
(0-8)
Disagree
d (9-16)
Agreed
(17-24)
Very
agreed
(25-32)
Very
disagreed
(0-8)
Disagree
d (9-16)
Agreed
(17-24)
Very
agreed
(25-32)
Pre-test 1 (5%) 19 (95%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (15%) 17
(85%)
0 (0%)
Post-test 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 20 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 20
(100%)
Figure 3. Demographic characteristics of the video projector method group
the video projector method was 20.2±1.23. The mean
knowledge scores of students in the before and after
lecture method were 11.70±5.21 (moderate level, equal
to answering to 40%), and 22.35±3.66 (excellent level,
equal to answering to 77%), respectively (Table 1). The
most important source of information gain in students in
the lecture method was the media (95%, 19) (Figure 2).
The mean practice scores of students in the before and
after video projector method were 17.4±5.28 (agreed
level, equal to 54%), and 27.80±5.08 (very agreed, equal
to 87%), respectively (Table 2).
In the lecture, and the video projector methods, between
knowledge scores and demographic variables: age, sex,
marriage status, employment, and years of service in the
before and after learning were not seen meaningful
statistic relationship (P>0.05). Also, in the lecture, and the
video projector methods, between performance scores
and variables: age, sex, marriage status, employment,
and years of service in the before and after learning were
not seen meaningful statistic relationship (P>0.05). In the
lecture, and the video projector methods, between mean
knowledge scores, and before and after learning were

5. Comparison of the effect of lecture and video projector teaching methods on students’ attitude, knowledge and practice
Int. Res. J. Teach. Educ. 033
Table 3. The mean and standard deviation of environmental health students’ knowledge about food health laboratory in the
lecture and video projector methods
Knowledge Lecture Video projector
Mean±Standarddividation Maximum Minimum Mean±Standarddividation Maximum Minimum
Pre-test 10.95±5.28 21 2 11.70±5.21 24 6
Post-test 17.40±4.66 27 10 22.35±3.66 29 13
Paired t-test t=27.47, df=44, p=0.001 t=9.06, df=30, p=0.001
Table 4. The mean and standard deviation of environmental health students’ performance about food health laboratory in the lecture
and video projector methods
performance Lecture Video projector
Mean±Standarddividation Maximum Minimum Mean±Standarddividation Maximum Minimum
Pre-test 16.65±5.01 17 8 17.4±5.28 24 16
Post-test 23.10±5.29 24 17 27.80±5.08 32 25
Paired t-test t=25.79, df=42, p=0.001 t=7.49, df=27, p=0.001
Table 5. Correlations among study variables
Knowledge Variable Lecture Video projector
P value R
2
P value R
2
Pre-test Age 0.264 0.033 0.253 0.038
Gender 0.347 0.023 0.336 0.028
Marriage status 0.207 0.042 0.194 0.047
Employment 0.605 0.007 0.594 0.012
Years of service 0.435 0.016 0.424 0.021
Post-test Age 0.814 0.001 0.792 0.010
Gender 0.482 0.013 0.460 0.022
Marriage status 0.126 0.06 0.104 0.07
Employment 0.414 0.018 0.392 0.027
Years of service 0.879 0.001 0.857 0.010
seen meaningful statistic relationships (P<0.001) (Tables
3-5).
DISCUSSION
In this research, the efficacy of these educational
measures such as the traditional lecture, and the video
projector methods on students’ attitude, knowledge and
practice was compared. In lecture, and the video
projector methods, it could be concluded that the mean
students’ knowledge about food health laboratory
enhanced from 10.95 to 17.40, and from 11.7 to 22.35,
respectively, after the education compared to before.
Therefore, it could be concluded that the higher efficiency
with video projector method on students’ knowledge
might be due to its greater attractiveness characteristic.
The students’ knowledge about food health laboratory
sharply increased in the video projector method in
comparison with the lecture method during education.
This finding supported that education efficiency was a
function of learning method. In the lecture, and the video
projector methods, between mean knowledge scores,
and before and after learning were seen meaningful
statistic relationships. These finding were in agreement
with other studies. Warnell et al. report the observation,
and drama methods result in enhancing the medical
students' knowledge, and performance scores (Warnell et
al., 2005). Unal reports the web, and classroom methods
result in enhancing knowledge scores (Unal, 2005). Koch
et al. report the web, and traditional methods result in
enhancing knowledge scores (Koch et al., 2005).
Khatooni et al. indicate that the lecture, and e-learning
methods culminate in exceeding the nurses' knowledge
about the influenza disease (Khatooni et al., 2011).The
higher efficiency with the lecture, and the video projector
methods might be due to their greater effectiveness
characteristic of these learning methods. Momeni et al.
indicate that in the traditional, the active, and pupil-
centered methods, between mean knowledge scores,
and before and after learning are not seen meaningful
statistic relationships (P>0.05) (Momeni et al., 2011).
Anderson et al. indicate that in the cooperative learning,
and traditional lecture-centered methods, between the
mean performance scores of biochemists, and before
and after learning are not seen meaningful statistic
relationships (P>0.05) (Anderson et al., 2005). Jafari
indicate that in the lecture, and traditional and blended
teaching methods, between the mean learning scores of
medical students about biochemistry, and before and

6. Comparison of the effect of lecture and video projector teaching methods on students’ attitude, knowledge and practice
Kashi and Doost 034
after learning are not seen meaningful statistic
relationships (P>0.05) (Jafari, 2012). Hugenholtz et al.
show that the e-learning, and traditional methods lead to
increasing occupational physicians’ knowledge, and there
are not seen meaningful statistic relationships between
them (Hugenholtz et al., 2008).It was concluded that the
video projector method was more effective due to
increasing students’ knowledge scores and retention
rates in comparison with the lecture method. This finding
was in agreement with other studies. Namnabati et al.
show the highest efficiency at nurses with lecture method
in comparison with the problem-centered learning
methods. Also they conclude that the lecture method
leads to the mean of the highest nurses’ learning scores
and retention rates while the problem-based learning
method leads to the mean of the lowest nurses’ learning
scores and retention rates (Namnabati et al., 2010).
Fattahi et al. indicate that the blended teaching and pupil-
centered methods are more efficiency in laboratory
science students in comparison with traditional lecture
method (Fattahi et al., 2007).Razvi and Avizhgan indicate
that the blended teaching and pupil-centered methods
are more efficiency in anatomical sciences students in
comparison with traditional lecture method (Razvi and
Avizhgan, 2012). Hassanpour et al. indicate thatthe
problem-centered method is more efficiency in nurses’
attitude, knowledge, and performance (Hassanpour et al.,
2006). Bahadorani et al. indicate that the scores of the
medical students' knowledge and performances in
blended teaching method are more than those in the
online education, and face to face methods (Bahadorani
et al., 2006).It was concluded that effect of education
methods on health environmental students’knowledge,
and performance was dealt with a variety of reasons
including differences in students, teachers, and how
thecurriculum in food health laboratory was arranged.
The circumstances, resources and educating aims of the
curriculum in food health laboratory were essential to
effective education. According to finding of this research,
the lecture, and video projector methods led to enhancing
the students' knowledge, and performance scores
although the students' knowledge, and performance
scores were higher in the video projector method. This
finding was agreement with other studies. Momeni et al.,
Jafari, and Kermaniyan et al. confirm that the students’
scores in pupil-centered and blended methods arehigher
than that in the lecture method (Kermaniyan et al., 2008;
Momeni et al., 2011; Jafari, 2012).Students in video
projector method were faced the most recent kind of
education method that resulted in more motives, present
and practice. Also increasing the students’ knowledge led
to producing their performances. Students would be
stimulated strongly to take part in the attainment of need
knowledge by applying the video projector, and students
had more performances with this method in comparison
with the other methods. The application of recent
teaching methods including video projector, as a helpful
and efficient educational instrument, was a positive
perspective of this research. It was purposed that other
researchers could use this high technology due to saving
time and cost-effectiveness.
CONCLUSIONS
Both lecture and video projector methods considerably
increased the environmental health and students’
knowledge, and practice about food health laboratory.
Due to the students’ performance and cost-effectiveness
in the video projector method was more than lecture
method, we purposed that the teachers applied video
projector to compose theoretical education methods.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thanked the Department Environmental
Health of Islamic Azad University, Medical Sciences
Branch for financial and instrumental supports. The
authors acknowledged the contributions of Anna
Kourtesopoulou, Angela Carvalho and Dr. Chung Chin
Hung for donating their time, critical evaluation,
constructive comments, and invaluable assistance toward
the improvement of this very manuscript.
REFERENCES
Anderson WL, Mitchell SM, Osgood MP (2005).
Comparison of student performance in cooperative
learning and traditional lecture-based biochemistry
classes. Biochem. Molecul. Biology Educ. 33(6)387-
393.
Bahadorani M, Yousefy AR, Changiz T (2006).The
effectiveness of three methods of teaching medline to
medical students: online, face to face and combined
educational methods. Iranian J. Med. Educ. 6(2)35-
43.
Fattahi BA, Karimi H, Anvari MH, Barzegar K (2007).
Comparison of the effect of lecture and group
discussion methodson learning of laboratory science
students. Strides in Development Med. Educ. 4(1)51-
56.
Ghafourifard M, Haririan HR., Aghajanloo A (2013).
Case-based Teaching Method and Comparison with
Lecture. Future Med. Educ. J. 3 (1) 8-12.
Golafrooz Shahri H, Khaghanizade M (2010). Introduction
to oral presentation teaching method. Educ.
Strategies J.2(4)161-166.
Gonzalez CA, Riboli E (2010). Diet and cancer
prevention: Contributions from the European
Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition
(EPIC) study. Eur. J. Cancer. 46(14)2555-2562.

7. Comparison of the effect of lecture and video projector teaching methods on students’ attitude, knowledge and practice
Int. Res. J. Teach. Educ. 035
Gurney P. (2007).Five factors for effective teaching. New
Zealand J. Teachers’ Work.4 (2) 89-98.
Hassanpourv DA, Kheiri S, Shahrani M (2006). The effect
of teaching using problem based learning and lecture
on behavior, attitude and learning of nursing BSc
students. Shahrekord University of Med. Sciences J.
3(8)76-82.
Hugenholtz NIR, De Croon EM, Smits PB, Van Dijk FJH,
Nieuwenhuijsen K (2008). Effectiveness of e-learning
in continuing medical education for occupational
physicians. Occup. Med.58(5)370-382.
Jafari M (2012). Comparison of lecture and blended
teaching method son learning and satisfaction of
medical students in biochemistry course. Iranian J.
Med. Educ.12(7)488-497.
Kaddoura MA (2011). Critical thinking skills of nursing
students in lecture-based teaching and case-based
learning. Inter J. Scholar. Teach. Learn. 5(2)1-18.
Kermaniyan F, Mehdizadeh M, Iravani S, Markazi
Moghadam N, Shayan Sh (2008). Comparing lecture
and problem-based learning methods in teaching
limb anatomy to first year medical students. Iranian J.
Med. Educ.7(2)379-388.
Khatoni A, Nayery ND, Ahmady F, Haghani H (2011).
Comparison the effect of web-based education and
traditional education on nurses knowledge about bird
flu in continuing education. Iranian J. Med. Educ.
11(2)140-148.
Koch S, Townsend CD, Dooley KE (2005). A case study
comparison between web-based and traditional
graduate level academic leadership instruction. J.
Assess. Educ. 46(4)72-82.
Momeni DanaeiSh, Zarshenas L, Oshagh M, OmidKhoda
SM (2011).Which method of teaching would be
better; cooperative or lecture. Iranian J. Med.
Educ.1(1)24-31.
Namnabati M, Fathi AE, Valizadeh S, Tazakori Z (2010).
Lecturing or problem-based learning: comparing
effects of the two teaching methods in academic
achievement and knowledge retention in pediatrics
course for nursing students. Iranian J. Med.
Educ.10(4)474-482.
Norouzi HM, Mohsenizadeh SM, Jafary Suny H,
Ebrahimzadeh S (2011). The effect of teaching using
a blend of collaborative and mastery of learning
models, on learning of vital signs: an experiment on
nursing and operation room students of Mashhad
University of Medical Sciences. Iranian J. Med.
Educ.11(5)544-553.
Popil I (2011). Promotion of critical thinking by using case
studies as teaching method. Nurs. Educ. Today. 31
204-207.
Razvi S, Avizhgan M (2012). Comparison of lecture and
group discussion methods on learning anatomical
sciences: A study in PhD students. Iranian J. Med.
Educ.11 (6)580-591.
Unal Z (2005). A comparative study on learning
outcomes of web based Vs. classroom based
instruction. J. College Teach. Learn. 2(3)1-6.
Warnell R, Duk A, Christison G, Haviland G (2005).
Teaching electoconvalsive therapy to medical
students: Effects of instructional method on
knowledge and attitudes. Academic Psychiatry. 29
433-436.
World Health Organisation. Retrieved. Prevention of food
borne disease: Five keys to safer food. 2010.
Zolfaghari M, Mehrdad N, Parsa YZ, Salmani BN,
Bahrani N (2007). The effect of lecture and e-learning
methods on learning mother and child health course
in nursing students. Iranian J. Med. Educ. 7(1)31-39.
Accepted 13 July, 2015.
Citation: Kashi G, Doost KK (2015). Comparison of the
effect of lecture and video projector teaching methods on
students’ attitude, knowledge and practice. International
Research Journal of Teacher Education, 2(3): 030-035.
Copyright: © 2015. Kashi and Doost. This is an open-
access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original author and source are cited.