Indian Journal of Pharmacology Home 

[Download PDF]
Year : 2004  |  Volume : 36  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 327-


G Sivagnanam 
 Department of Pharmacology, Chengalpattu Medical College, Chengalpattu - 603 001, India

Correspondence Address:
G Sivagnanam
Department of Pharmacology, Chengalpattu Medical College, Chengalpattu - 603 001

How to cite this article:
Sivagnanam G. Reply.Indian J Pharmacol 2004;36:327-327

How to cite this URL:
Sivagnanam G. Reply. Indian J Pharmacol [serial online] 2004 [cited 2023 Mar 23 ];36:327-327
Available from:

Full Text


We thank S.K. Srivastava for his interest in our article and comments. Our explanations to his comments are given here:

1. It is pointed out that the title is misleading "as the knowledge of student has not been evaluated" - As regards the word 'knowledge' we have reproduced the Merriam-Webster's dictionary meaning. We think we need not elaborate further on this point since we can't think of a more apt title. The relevant 'knowledge' of the students was assessed only after completion of the concerned topic e.g. General Pharmacology. Novel because, as per our information, such a method has not been tested earlier.

The dictionary statement for 'knowledge': "the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2): acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique b (1): the fact or condition of being aware of something (2): the range of one's information or understanding c: the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning"

2. The dictionary statement for 'novel': "1: New and not resembling something formerly known or used 2: original or striking especially in conception or style". This answers part of the second query "i.e. on what basis the authors are concluding that it is a novel TLM".

3. It would be better "If this (crossword puzzle) TLM was compared with other standard TLMs". Agreed, but our intention was not to compare our method with standard procedures nor do we claim that ours is the sole or superior TLMs. The fact that it was not compared with a standard procedure doesn't mean that our method is 'irrelevant' or 'meaningless'. But we agree that such a comparison would have added strength.

4. "Whether the crossword puzzle as a method of evaluation can be compared with evaluation by MCQ test". A good idea but each method has its own advantages and limitations.

5. Further, we have not claimed it as an 'Evaluation' method despite the fact that the TLM involves assessment of knowledge. Our main purpose was to gauge the interest evoked by this method among the students and testing the 'knowledge' was secondary.