|
Indian Journal of Pharmacology
Medknow Publications on behalf of Indian Pharmacological Society
ISSN: 0253-7613 EISSN: 1998-3751
Vol. 36, Num. 5, 2004, pp. 328-329
|
Indian Journal of Pharmacology, Vol. 36, No. 5, October, 2004, pp. 328-329
Correspondence
Reply
Garg A
Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Goa Medical College, Bambolim- Goa
Correspondence Address:Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics,
Goa Medical College, Bambolim- Goa drag_dragon@yahoo.com
Code Number: ph04116
Sir,
It is very heartening to see that our article has been read in great
depth and the readers in fact acknowledged that the steps are being taken
in the right direction.
At the outset let me clarify again (mentioned in the article also but
overlooked by the readers) that the identity of the students were not
revealed in
the questionnaire thus ruling out the possibility of bias. Who would be
better than students themselves to tell us whether they understood the
subject and if not then how and what can be done?
Each question of Appendix I was framed with a specific purpose kept
in mind, but as predicted, it failed to touch the same strings in all
the
readers.
Q. no- 1-3 : Since this questionnaire was only for II MBBS students,
the opinion of students formed by studying as well as interacting with
juniors
and seniors before entering, during, and after leaving II MBBS was ascertained.
These questions were to evaluate the general impression created by the
subject in the mind of the student. The reader should realise that not
all questions asked may lead to a conclusion.
Q. no- 4, 5, 6, and 7: Instead of asking students which topics are
boring, we asked them which topics they find interesting (Q. no 4 and
5). Based
on their responses we expected to know whether low interest level is the
reason for students to score less marks. Following up on this, we planned
to stress more on these topics to bring the grades up. Another reason was
to collect a list of ′not so hot′ topics and plan
to conduct seminars, project work, group discussions, and presentations
as appropriate (Q. no 6 and 7).
Q. no-11: What interest cannot achieve, force can. In case the response
was ′b′ or′d′ i.e. students study only for tests or vivas, it is always better to split the course in much shorter sections and evaluate the students′ performance on a more regular basis.
Q. no- 12: This question was asked keeping in mind some excellent teachers
of our department who cannot teach to satisfaction because of time constraint.
In case most of the students have problem in grasping the subject or
can only cram, instead of loading them in one hour, they can always be
taught
to retain few important points.
Q. no- 13 and 16: In case students liked our methods of teaching we
would have continued and if we would have incorporated teaching methods
followed
in other departments.
Q. no- 17: This question does not demean the subject as pointed out.
The purpose of this question is to find out whether the balance between
theory
and practical is maintained. We believe that there is a necessity
to start problem based- clinical pharmacology.
Q. no- 20 - 23: These set of questions were to assess the taste of
students and what the students expected from teachers in general.
Still, if some
of them wanted to comment on an individual, he or she was free
to do so. We can always improve ourselves if we heed to constructive
criticism.
The suggestion of including interns is good but does not hold much
importance in our setup because our department trains them during
the first few
days of internship. They are reoriented with the subject, taught
clinical importance
of the theory they have learnt so far and are made aware of the
trade names of drugs available in our hospital pharmacy.
For the comments on minor mistakes in spelling/ grammar there is
nothing more to say than sorry. Next time a more thorough
editing check-up will be undertaken. Finally, I would like to
thank you for sharing
your critical comments with me.
Copyright 2004 - Indian Journal of Pharmacology
|