Structured, functional histology practical modules: An answer to medical students' histology nightmare and the way forward for relevant histology instruction in the Indian undergraduate medical curriculum?

Background: . It is often a challenge to make histology instruction relevant and interesting. We assessed whether structured, worksheet-based histology practical modules with emphasis on functional histology and clinical application, would improve the learning experience and help students focus on relevant functional and clinical correlates. Methods: . In eight practical sessions, 100 students worked as two groups, one group undergoing new intervention practical modules and another group undergoing the routine laboratory practical exercises as a control group. For every pair of laboratory practical exercises, the groups alternated. Spot tests administered in the following week assessed identification ability as well as application of knowledge. Feedback was collected in the form of written questionnaires from faculty and students, student focus group discussion and in-depth interviews. Analysis of test scores as well as feedback was done. Results: . Test scores were better following the intervention method when comparing the overall score as well as its subcomponents of identification and analysis-type questions (p<0.001). The weaker performers in the class as well as high achievers showed better test scores with the intervention method (p<0.001). Feedback from faculty and students reflected better student experience with the intervention method. Suggestions were made to improve the approach further. Conclusion: . Studying histology through structured modules, which emphasize functional and clinical correlates, appears to improve the identification and application ability of the student as well as the student experience.

Anatomy education in a changing medical curriculum in India: medical student feedback on duration and emphasis of gross anatomy teaching.

Authors report here a survey of medical student feedback on the effectiveness of two different anatomy curricula at Christian Medical College, Vellore, India. Undergraduate medical students seeking the Bachelor in Medicine and Bachelor in Surgery (M.B.B.S.) degrees were divided into two groups by the duration of their respective anatomy curriculum. Group 1 students had completed a longer, 18-month curriculum whereas Group 2 counterparts followed a shorter, 12-month curriculum. Students' responses to a questionnaire were studied. Analysis of feedback from Groups 1 and 2 contrasted the effectiveness of the two anatomy curricula. The coverage of gross anatomy was rated adequate or more than adequate by 98% of Group 1 and 91% of Group 2. A desire for greater emphasis on gross anatomy teaching was expressed by 24% of Group 1 and 50% of Group 2 (P = 0.000). Two-thirds of all students felt that the one-year program was not adequate, and 90% of Group 1 and 74% of Group 2 felt that clinically oriented anatomy teaching required more emphasis. Dissection was helpful or very helpful for 94% of Group 1 and 88% of Group 2. This study suggests that a better understanding of gross anatomy was gained from a course of longer duration (18 months with 915 contact hr vs. 12 months with 671 contact hr). Students who completed the longer anatomy course had greater appreciation of the need for clinically oriented anatomy teaching and dissection.