A QUESTIONNAIRE-BASED STUDY TO ASSESS FEEDBACK ON CURRENT TEACHING-LEARNING METHODS AND THEIR OPINION FOR PERSPECTIVE CHANGES AMONG SECOND-YEAR MBBS STUDENTS

Authors

  • G. MUTHUKAVITHA Department of Pharmacology, Government Thiruvarur Medical College, Thiruvarur, Tamil Nadu, India
  • KUMARAN R. Department of Pharmacology, Government Medical College, Nagapattinam, Tamil Nadu, India
  • C. UMAMAHESHWARI Department of Pharmacology, Government Villupuram Medical College https://orcid.org/0009-0000-6872-4396

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22159/ijcpr.2026v18i1.8046

Keywords:

Feedback, Assignment, Self-directed learning, Lectures

Abstract

Objective: To collect and analyze feedback from second-year MBBS students about commonly used teaching-learning methods and to summarize their perspectives for potential changes.

Methods: A validated 25-item questionnaire covering five domains (Assignments, Seminars, Small Group Discussions, Lectures, Self-Directed Learning) was administered to second-year MBBS students. Responses are recorded in a five-point Likert scale (Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree) and were summarized with descriptive statistics.

Results: Assignments, small group discussions and lectures received predominantly positive responses. Seminars showed moderate acceptance with varying neutrality, while self-directed learning elicited mixed responses, suggesting the need for clearer guidance and structure.

Conclusion: A blended approach that retains high-quality lectures and assignments while expanding small group activities and improving the scaffold for self-directed learning is recommended.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Bligh DA. What’s the use of lectures? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2000.

2. Kumar S. Impact of assignments on medical student learning. Int J Med Educ. 2018;9:123-8.

3. Harden RM, Laidlaw JM. Essential skills for a medical teacher: an introduction to teaching and learning in medicine. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2017.

4. Steinert Y. Student perceptions of effective small group teaching. Med Educ. 2004;38(3):286-93. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2004.01772.x, PMID 14996338.

5. Prince M. Does active learning work? A review of the research. J Eng Educ. 2004;93(3):223-31. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x.

6. Spencer J. Learning and teaching in the clinical environment. BMJ. 2003;326(7389):591-4. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7389.591, PMID 12637408.

7. Dolmans DH, De Grave W, Wolfhagen IH, Van Der Vleuten CP. Problem-based learning: future challenges for educational practice and research. Med Educ. 2005;39(7):732-41. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02205.x, PMID 15960794.

8. Brown G, Manogue M, Rohlin M. Assessing attitudes in dental education: is it worthwhile? Br Dent J. 2002;193(12):703-7. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4801665, PMID 12529727.

9. Harden RM. Ten key features of the future medical school-not an impossible dream. Med Teach. 2018;40(10):1010-5. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2018.1498613, PMID 30326759.

Published

15-01-2026

How to Cite

MUTHUKAVITHA, G., et al. “A QUESTIONNAIRE-BASED STUDY TO ASSESS FEEDBACK ON CURRENT TEACHING-LEARNING METHODS AND THEIR OPINION FOR PERSPECTIVE CHANGES AMONG SECOND-YEAR MBBS STUDENTS”. International Journal of Current Pharmaceutical Research, vol. 18, no. 1, Jan. 2026, pp. 109-11, doi:10.22159/ijcpr.2026v18i1.8046.

Issue

Section

Original Article(s)