Mahindra Kumar ANAND, Chintan Jayantkumar LAKHANİİ, Mayankkumar Devajibhai JAVİA

The role of medical student's feedback in undergraduate gross anatomy teaching

Objectives:Teaching gross anatomy to undergraduate students has always been challenging as it lays the foundation forsubsequent understanding of clinical teaching. Constant evaluation and re-evaluation, along with updating and remodelingis required to prepare an appropriate and effective clinical based, integrated gross anatomy curriculum. Feedback obtainedfrom students is an essential tool in the process of evaluation of teaching and learning in any institution. Analysis of feedback from students along with inputs from teachers and reflections of teaching bodies can help to achieve appropriate modifications in the course content and teaching methods. Methods: This study was conducted in the form of an anonymous survey. Six hundred medical students from the 2nd to 9thsemesters participated in this study. A questionnaire was circulated amongst them during college hours. The questions in thequestionnaire were based on the course content, methods of teaching, quality of teaching, teaching tools, mode of assessmentof students, and suggestions to improve the quality of the curriculum in relation to gross anatomy. Results: Majority (99%) of the students were willing to participate in the survey and gave their honest opinion. It was noted that,though majority of the students liked the subject and the course content, they did not like the methods and tools of teaching. Alarge number of students (89%) suggested that evaluation should be conducted for each course at the end of the semester. Conclusion:Feedback by students can play an important role in modification, reconstruction and delivery of an effective, integrated gross anatomy course. Student's feedback in gross anatomy teaching suggests that learning process can be improved ifbetter teaching methods are adopted; latest teaching tools are used along with more interactive teaching sessions between students and faculty.

PDF

___

Aleamoni LM. Student ratings of instruction. In: Millman J, edi- tor. Handbook of teacher evaluation. Beverly Hills: Sage; 1981. p. 110-45.

Hoyt DP, Pallett WH. Appraising teaching effectiveness: Beyond student rating, IDEA paper no. 32. Manhattan: Kansas State University, Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development; 1999.

Aleamoni LM. Typical faculty concerns about student evaluation of teaching. In: Aleamoni LM, editor. Techniques for evaluating and improving instruction: New directions for teaching and learn- ing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1987. p. 25-31.

Feldman KA. Identifying exemplary teachers and teaching: Evidence from student ratings. Perry RP, Smart JC, editors. The Scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evi- dence-based perspective. Dordrecht: Springer; 2007. p. 93- 129.

Kulik JA. Student ratings: Validity, utility, and controversy. In: Theall M, Abrami PC, Mets LA, editors. The student ratings debate: Are they valid? How can we best use them? New Directions for Institutional Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2001. p. 9-25.

Svinicki M, McKeachie WJ. McKeachie's teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers. 13th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth; 2011.

Theall M, Feldman KA. Commentary and update on Feldman's (1997) 'Identifying exemplary teachers and teaching: Evidence from student ratings'. In: Perry RP, Smart JC, editors. The teach- ing and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspec- tive. Dordrecht: Springer; 2007. p. 130-43.

Marsh HW, Dunkin MJ. Students' evaluations of university teach- ing: A multidimensional perspective. In: Smart JC, editor. Higher education: Handbook of theory and research. New York: Agathon Press; 1992.

Kulik JA, McKeachie WJ. The evaluation of teachers in higher education. In: Kerlinger FN, editor. Review of research in educa- tion. Itasca: Peacock; 1975. p. 210-40.

McKeachie WJ. Student ratings of faculty: A reprise. Academe, 1979;65:384-97.

Centra JA. Reflective faculty evaluation: Enhancing teaching and determining faculty effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1993.

Benton SL. Student ratings of teaching: A summary of research and literature, IDEA paper no. 20. Manhattan: Kansas State University, Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development; 1988.

Cashin WE. Defining and evaluating college teaching. IDEA paper no. 21. Manhattan: Kansas State University, Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development; 1989.

Cashin WE. Student ratings of teaching: A summary of the research. IDEA Paper No. 20. Manhattan: Kansas State University, Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development; 1988.

Cashin WE. Student ratings of teaching: The research revisited. IDEA paper no. 32. Manhattan: Kansas State University, Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development; 1995.

Victroff KZ, Hogan S. Student's perception of effective learning experiences in dental school; a quantitative study using a critical incident technique. J Dent Edu 2006;70: 124-32.

Overall JU, Marsh HW. Students' evaluations of instruction: A longitudinal study of their stability. J Educ Psychol 1980;72:321-5.

Arora N, Kumar A. Student feedback on teaching and evaluation methodology in human anatomy, Int J Med App Sci 2014;3:258- 63.

Larvalmawi F, Banik U, Anita Devi M. Feedback of medical stu- dents on teaching and evaluation methodology in physiology. Natl J Physiol Pharm Pharmacol. 2015;5:36-8.

Rafique S, Rafique H. Student's feedback on teaching and assess- ment at Nishta Medical College, Multan. J Pak Med Assoc 2013;63: 1205-9.

Nagar SK, Malukar O, Kubavat D, Prajapati V, Ganatra D, Rathwa A. Students' perception on anatomy teaching methodolo- gies, Natl J Med Res 2012;2:111-5.

Rani A, Rani A, Chopra J, Diwan RK, Pankaj AK, Verma RK, Sehgal G. Students' feedback on the utility of gross anatomy man- ual in learning anatomy. IJMHS 2014;4:62-3.