Last update:
31-Mar-2011

OBJECTIVE Learning depends on the learners' perceptions about the relevance to them of what is to be learned. The aim of this study was to discover the perceptions of medical students of subject relevance, and to describe a method quantifying perceived relevance.

METHOD An anonymous questionnaire was distributed to 413 medical students at the University of Ioannina, asking them to rank the importance of all core subjects. Median rank and first and third quartiles were calculated.

RESULTS Of the students approached, 188 students (response 46%) ranked subjects from the most to the least important: Anatomy median 1 (first quartile 1, third 4), Physiology 2 (2, 5), Pathophysiology 4 (3, 5), Internal Medicine 4 (3, 6), Pathology 5 (4, 11), Surgery 7 (4, 9), Pharmacology 7 (6, 12), Nosology 8 (5, 13), Orthopedics 12 (9, 15), Pediatrics 12 (9, 16), Microbiology 12 (9, 18), Neurology 13 (10, 16), Biochemistry 13 (6, 22), Ophthalmology 15 (12, 18), Radiology 15 (10, 19), Obstetrics and Gynecology 6 (11, 20), Urology 16 (12, 18), Dermatology 17 (13, 20), Biology 19 (8, 22), Psychiatry 19 (13, 22), ENT 19 (16, 22), Forensic Medicine 21 (16, 24), Hygiene-Epidemiology 21 (16, 24), Medical Psychology 22 (17, 26), Chemistry 25 (21, 26), Medical Physics 26 (23, 27), Foreign Language 27 (22, 29), Biostatistics 27 (25, 29), History of Medicine 28 (26, 29), and Sociology 29 (27, 30).

CONCLUSIONS The medical students perceived some subjects to be less relevant. Perceived relevance does not coincide with the curriculum or curriculum timetabling. Discordance may reduce student enthusiasm and confound students' assessments of their teachers. Students' perceptions should not be ignored.

Key words: Curriculum timetable, Greece, Ioannina, Medical education, Subject relevance/rank/ranking/rate/rating, Teaching and learning, Teacher marking.