Background: Electives are student-centered learning components within the competency-based medical education (CBME) curriculum, designed to enhance clinical competence, professional development and self-directed learning. Although well-established globally, electives are relatively new in the Indian medical education context. This study aimed to assess faculty and student knowledge, perceptions and experiences regarding elective rotations to identify implementation gaps and optimize their integration with evolving educational needs. Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted at a tertiary care teaching hospital in Tumkur, Karnataka, involving 165 Phase III Part II MBBS students and 60 faculty members. After Institutional Ethics Committee approval, data were collected using a pre-validated online questionnaire. Responses were analyzed using Microsoft Excel and JASP software. Results: Faculty awareness of electives was high, with 100% awareness among preclinical/para-clinical faculty and 93.3% among clinical faculty. However, discrepancies were observed regarding scheduling, duration and compulsory block requirements. Student engagement was high, with 99.4% maintaining ≥75% attendance, 97.6% receiving preceptor guidance and 98.8% understanding learning objectives. Post-elective Likert scores exceeded 4.2 across all assessed domains including active participation (4.47), professional development (4.40), supervision (4.39) and perceived program benefit (4.40). Conclusions: Electives were positively perceived by faculty and students and demonstrated potential to enhance professional development, clinical preparedness, active participation and reflective learning. Improved communication, structured faculty orientation, adequate resources and periodic program review in accordance with evolving NMC guidelines may facilitate uniform and effective integration of electives within the CBME framework.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nandini et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: