Back

Medical students in India favor reforms in teaching-learning, clinical training, and evaluation methods

Jha, A.; Goyal, P.; Erry, A.; Renjhen, P.; Jha, R. P.; Gupta, A.; Rajvanshi, U.; Singh, S.

2025-07-17 medical education
10.1101/2025.07.16.25331640 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundDespite the implementation of Competency-Based Medical Education (CBME) in India, there is limited data on the perspectives of students regarding prevailing educational methodologies. MethodsAn observational cross-sectional study was conducted to assess the perception and satisfaction of Indian medical students towards current teaching-learning and assessment methods. Data were collected via an electronic questionnaire, stratified by academic year, and analysed using SPSS. Results(N=413) 45% students expressed a neutral response to the curriculum, with greater satisfaction in the clinical years (44.9%) than pre/para-clinical years (30.7%). Lectures were rated neutral by 53%. Tools like clinical demonstration videos (68.8%) and animated videos (56.7%) were favoured over traditional methods. Outpatient and bedside learning were the preferred practical instruction modes (58.9%), though poor departmental coordination was cited as a significant barrier to clinical learning by 42.5%. Students favoured MCQ-based assessments, complemented by viva-cum-practical (78% in clinical years, 68.8% in pre/para-clinical years), while written long essay-type questions were less preferred. ConclusionsStudents prefer interactive, clinically integrated teaching and MCQ-based assessments. However, as of now, preferences of students seem to differ from reality, especially in developing countries like India. Addressing these concerns and feedback from students can guide in-depth discussions for medical education curriculum reforms in resource-limited settings.

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.