Indian Journal of Pharmacology Medknow Publications on behalf of Indian Pharmacological Society ISSN: 0253-7613 EISSN: 1998-3751 Vol. 36, Num. 5, 2004, pp. 327-328

Indian Journal of Pharmacology, Vol. 36, No. 5, October, 2004, pp. 327-328

Correspondence

Students' opinion on prevailing teaching methods in pharmacology and changes recommended

Srivastava SK, Desai A

Department of Pharmacology, Surat Municipal Institute of Medical Education and Research, Nr. Bombay Market, Umarwada, Surat - 395 010
Correspondence Address:Department of Pharmacology, Surat Municipal Institute of Medical Education and Research, Nr. Bombay Market, Umarwada, Surat - 395 010 sachendra_ks@yahoo.co.in

Code Number: ph04115

Sir,

This is related with the above article (Indian J Pharmacol 2004;36:155-8) published under the category of research paper. On reading this paper, we could not avoid the temptation to send our comment on such an article as follows.

The basis/mainstay of this study is the questions asked to the students. The idea of work is to improve the teaching but authors failed in their purpose and the paper published does not offer significant contribution to improve the teaching. The majority of the questions asked are bizarre, purposeless and irrelevant except few questions (question no. 8, 9, 14, 18 and 19) with regard to teaching because teaching cannot be modified based on the students′ responses on such questions. For the purpose of comments on the paper, the questions are categorized and pointwise comments on relevance of the questions are mentioned below.

A. Comment on the questionnaire

1. Subject of pharmacology: How can the teaching be modified on the basis of responses to Q. No. 1, 2, 3, 11 and 12? The II M.B.B.S. students are not competent enough to comment on the subject. Moreover, since their opinion is sought just before the examination, this itself will lead to biased answers. For example, how can the students answer whether some of the topics should be taught in final M.B.B.S. (Question 19)?

2. Useful topics: How can the teaching be modified based on Q. No. 4, 5, 6 and 7? For example, if students opine that a particular area (such as ANS or CNS) is not interesting or useful for future practice, do the authors suggest that it may be omitted from the curriculum? A lopsided curriculum would emerge if this proposition were to be followed. Topics are often complementary to each other and all of them are important and useful in varying degrees irrespective of what the students think.

3. Rating of pharmacology as a subject: Q. No. 13, 16, and 17 are in very poor taste. We believe they demean pharmacology as a subject. Had the results been otherwise do the authors propose to stop teaching pharmacology as a subject?

4. Rating of teachers: In our opinion, Q. No. 20, 21, 22 and 23 are also in bad taste. There are both good as well as bad teachers in all subjects. How can the responses of the students be extrapolated to modify the teaching of pharmacology? If a teacher′s rating is below par would that teacher be asked to stop teaching? Also the opinion of the students regarding the head of department would always be biased (as they have to pass the examination).

5. Questions 10, 11, 12: These are related to the sources from which students learn, their pattern of study and their grasping power. How relevant are the questions and the comments by the students?

6. Teaching methods: These are the only questions (Q. No. 8, 9, 14, 18 and 19) which appear to have any relevance to the initial aim of study.

B. Comment on minor mistakes in spelling / grammar / references.

1. In the abstract, the results mention that "only few students have opted for the dosage calculation and drugs used in special situations" while the text of the paper says "most of the students felt that these should be taught".

2. In question 4 - option (b) both the CVS and the ANS are clubbed as one option.

3. Results: In para 3, lines 2, 3 and 4 are repeated in lines 6, 7 and 8.

4. Q. 15 (e) should be ′sexual dysfunction′ instead of ′sexual function′.

5. Reference 3 and 4 are not appropriate, as these references are mentioned with regard to the sentence "Many attempts have been made by various colleges all over India and abroad". Reference No. 3 deals with the WHO model curriculum and 4 is on MCI regulations on teaching and not related with medical colleges.

6. The year mentioned should be 1999 instead of 1993 for reference no. 8.
Based on the above comments this paper is irrelevant. However, it would have been a good study, if opinion of interns were taken mainly for
(a) Improvement of teaching methodology
(b) Assessing the coverage and depth of certain topics such as general anaesthetics, antidysrrhythmic drugs and anticancer drugs.

The comments thus obtained from interns may be valuable, unbiased and appropriate and serve to make the teaching of pharmacology more interesting and appealing facilitating self-learning.

Copyright 2004 - Indian Journal of Pharmacology