| [Download PDF]
|Year : 2004 | Volume
| Issue : 5 | Page : 328--329
Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Goa Medical College, Bambolim- Goa, India
Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Goa Medical College, Bambolim- Goa
|How to cite this article:|
Garg A. Reply.Indian J Pharmacol 2004;36:328-329
|How to cite this URL:|
Garg A. Reply. Indian J Pharmacol [serial online] 2004 [cited 2022 Jun 29 ];36:328-329
Available from: https://www.ijp-online.com/text.asp?2004/36/5/328/12664
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.