Essential medical education, Teachers training, G.N. Prabhakara (Mehta Publishers, New Delhi). 2003. pages: 334. Price Rs.325/-ISBN 81-88039-17-9

At first sight, the book appears quite impressive in its size and coverage. Several areas of Educational Science and Technology, both old and new, have been included. Materials from several sources have been complied. Had the sources been properly cited, the value of the book could have been much more. The sections on Management, Principles and Technique are vast in scope but written in a sketchy manner. The section on microteaching is written in detail.

Since the aim is to cater to educators of various health sciences, it is important to highlight the deficiencies of the book, which need to be corrected in later editions. In the current era of knowledge explosion and scientific advances, it is difficult for a single author to do justice to such vast areas as covered in this book. The manuscript could have done well with professional help from an English language consultant and also subject experts from different medical disciplines as well as educational science. This book, though extensive in its coverage, is found to be full of errors. Some of the prominent errors in this book are as follows:

The word AIDS has been wrongly expanded as ‘Auto Immune Deficiency Syndrome (page vi). QRS is not “An ECG reading” but a “Component of ECG record” (page vii). In chapter 1, “Affective Domain” is not an adjective as mentioned; it is a term and therefore a noun. The explanations for cybernetics and group discussions are partly wrong and need correction. ‘Halo effect’ and Objective” have been explained in a confusing manner in chapter 1, though in other sections, these are correctly described. A non-expert and even a computer can do Item Analysis; but the book says otherwise. The terms validity and accuracy are mixed up and the definition of workshop is vague. In chapter 3, the essence of ethics is lost. This chapter could have been made cohesive by competent editing and erudite write-up. On page 79, humane has become human and career has been spelt as carrier”. In section 3.3 on Pedagogy (page 24), Table 2, listing the distinction between lecturing and teaching is totally misleading and needs to be deleted. The concept attainment model has been ignored and the diagram 3 on page 27 needs correction. The diagram 7 on page 37 on P.G. Research in also incorrect.

Section 3.7 on ROME Programme 1977 is written in great detail and is laudatory. However, the reasons for its failure are left out. Table 7 on Total Quality Management TQM in Health Care is wrongly put up as (TQM) in Medical Education. section 3.15, Evidence Based Medicine is one of the ongoing revolutions in medical practice and not confined to medical education. It is discussed very superficially. Table 9 on page 75 is erroneous on differences between educational and training institution. (Training focuses mainly on skills whereas the education is holistic and includes inculcation value system that is relevant to learners). Figure 3 1 on page 76 in ‘Educational spiral’ shows teaching and learning in diametrically opposite positions. Teaching and learning should go hand in hand.

Some examples of objectives on page 78 are wrongly classified. For example, “conduct of normal delivery” is said to be a specific objective; but “ECG reading” is said to be a departmental objective. Such misclassified examples are bound to confuse the readers. Another example in Table 12, ‘to develop clinical skills and logical reasoning’ is, according to author, relevant only for tertiary care. However, it is equalK important for primary and intermediate health care. Tables 10, 11 and 12 need to be reconstructed after eliminating several such errors that have crept in. Examples on problem based and topic based modules on page 94 overlap and are confusing. Table 20 differentiating between curriculum and syllabus is misleading and needs deletion or re-writing. The Model Eesson Plan on page 127 is planned for 60 minutes but planned activities total for 70 minutes. Fig. 51 on page 147, labelled as’Dale’s cone of experience’ is wrong. In the section of Simulated Patient Management Problem (SPMP) on pages 160 and 161, the author has written a set of hypothetical scores and attempted to calculate various indices. These are full of mistakes and will mislead the readers. In section 7.5. problem based learning and problem solving exercises are mixed up. It is essential to differentiate between these two. The case study for problem solving exercises is quite detailed and may be useful for teachers of community medicine. Chapter 8 on Teaching-Learning (T-L) methods lists obsolete methods like ‘teaching slide programme’ under new methods. The chapter also lists microteaching as a T-L method which is not correct. The “Bowing effect” of learner attention in class room is described well on page 1 80 but has not been taken into account for the model lesson plan on page 126. The model plan includes no activity to arouse learner’s attention in mid lecture. Under Section 8.4, computer-assisted learning is full of outdated facts and statements. This section needs to be re-written based on rapid developments in the field. section 9 on T-L Media is quite detailed. However, epidiascope is repeatedly misspelt as epedeoscope. Table 48 on page 227 on Advantages and Disadvantages of Laptop is full of errors and needs professional help for corrections. No web link has been cited in the whole book. There are excellent internet sites, which offer learning resource materials of great value in all aspects of medical education. These Internet links could have been very useful. Section 11 on Education-Evaluation is written in some detail. It needs editing to correct some mistakes like the upside down ECG printed in page 268.