Home|Journals|Articles by Year|Audio Abstracts
 

Original Research

Natl J Physiol Pharm Pharmacol. 2023; 13(2023, Vol: 13, Issue: 8): 1704-1709


Comparative study of the performance of second MBBS students – old curriculum versus new curriculum – in pharmacology subject in their internal examination

Naseem Begum, Manikanta Mondithoka, Sampath Dulam.




Abstract

Background: Competency-based medical education (CBME) has been introduced by the national medical council for all the undergraduate medical students in all the medical colleges throughout India. This study aims at comparing the performance of second MBBS students in their internal assessment belonging to two consecutive batches with old curriculum (2018–2019 batch) comprising of 146 students and new curriculum (2019–2020 batch) comprising of 142 students. The impact of new MBBS curriculum on 2nd-year MBBS students in pharmacology subject was also assessed in this study.

Aim and Objectives: The objective of this study was to compare the performance of the students in their internal assessment in two consecutive batches with old (2018–2019 batch) and new curriculum (2019–2020 batch). A questionnaire-based survey was done among (2019–2020) batch second MBBS students to find out the impact of new MBBS curriculum on second MBBS students in pharmacology subject.

Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective, record-based, and comparative study done in the Department of Pharmacology, at Shadan Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, during September 2022–November 2022. The internal assessment marks were collected by retrieving the records of students and a questionnaire to assess the impact of new second MBBS curriculum on 2nd-year MBBS students in pharmacology subject was circulated among 142 students belonging to (2019–2020 batch) following the new curriculum. Out of 142 students, 111 students responded to this questionnaire.

Results: The mean marks obtained by old curriculum (2018–2019 batch) in theory were 66.7 and in practical were 72.2, whereas the mean marks obtained by new curriculum (2019–2020 batch) in theory were 68.4 and in practical were 74.1. Nearly 60 (54.1%) students disliked and 51 (45.9%) students liked the shortening of second MBBS duration. Ninety-four (84.7%) students liked and 18 (16.2%) disliked skills laboratory and computer aided learning into the new curriculum, 52 (46.8%) students liked small group discussion, tutorials, seminars, and self-directed learning, whereas 61 (55%) students disliked them. Questions based on clinical problems and attitude, ethics, and communication were liked by 94 (84.7%) students and disliked by 17 (5.3%) students. Thirty-one (27.9%) students liked and 81 (73%) students disliked the new curriculum question paper. Seventy-six (68.5%) students liked and 36 (32.4%) students did not like the increase in duration of pharmacology question paper. Seventy-eight (70.3%) students preferred new curriculum, whereas 38 (34.2%) students preferred old curriculum.

Conclusion: This study revealed relatively better performance of (2019–2020 batch), that is, new curriculum batch students in their internal assessment compared to (2018–2019 batch), that is, new curriculum batch students. To improve the performance of students in their internal as well as final summative examinations, there is a need to emphasize on assessment of attitude, communication skills, ethics, and faculty development program.

Key words: Performance; National Medical Council; Internal Assessment; Curriculum; Impact






Full-text options


Share this Article


Online Article Submission
• ejmanager.com




ejPort - eJManager.com
Refer & Earn
JournalList
About BiblioMed
License Information
Terms & Conditions
Privacy Policy
Contact Us

The articles in Bibliomed are open access articles licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.