Comparison of computer simulation and graphical illustration for teaching experimental pharmacology to undergraduate students


  • Gurleen Kaur Department of Pharmacology, Gian Sagar Medical College and Hospital, Banur, Punjab, India
  • Preeti Garg Department of Pharmacology, Gian Sagar Medical College and Hospital, Banur, Punjab, India
  • Vidushi Sharma Department of Pharmacology, Gian Sagar Medical College and Hospital, Banur, Punjab, India
  • Jaspreet Singh Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Rajpura, Punjab, India
  • Prithpal Singh Matreja Department of Pharmacology, Teerthanker Mahaveer Medical College and Research Centre, Moradabad, India
  • P. M. L. Khanna Department of Pharmacology, Gian Sagar Medical College and Hospital, Banur, Punjab, India



Computer assisted learning, Experimental pharmacology, Faculty, Feedback, Graphical illustration, Students


Background: Nowadays, medical schools all over the world are incorporating newer methods of teaching experimental pharmacology like computer simulation, besides using graphs, charts, didactic lectures. The present study compared the effectiveness and acceptance of two commonly used methods, namely, computer simulation and graphical illustration in teaching experimental pharmacology to undergraduate medical students.

Methods: 90 students of 2nd Prof MBBS were divided into 2 groups and were given either computer simulation or graphical illustration via a cross-over design at two settings, which was followed by a post-test for that particular session. Feedback was taken from the students and the faculty. The data obtained was analyzed using descriptive statistics.

Results: The average marks scored by the students in sessions using CAL (67.8%) was significantly high (p=0.008) as compared to teaching by graphical illustrations (60.4%). 71% of students found CAL improved their learning skills better than graphical illustrations. 85% students and 80% faculty agreed that there should be a judicious mixture of CAL and graphical illustrations for a better understanding of drugs.

Conclusions: CAL is a beneficial and effective learning tool in teaching experimental pharmacology. For better understanding, graphical illustrations should be used as an adjuvant to CAL.


Vasundara K, Kanchan P, Pundarikaksha HP, Girish K, Prassana S, Jyothi R. An imperative need to change pharmacology curriculum: A pilot survey. Indian J Pharmacol. 2010;42(6):420.

Bhosale UA, Yegnanarayan R, Yadav GE. Attitude, perception and feedback of second year medical students on teaching-learning methodology and evaluation methods in pharmacology: A questionnaire-based study. Niger Med J. 2013;54(1): 33-9.

Achike FI, Ogle CW. Information overload in the teaching of pharmacology. J Clin Pharmacol. 2000; 40(2):177-83.

Gitanjali B, Shashindran CH. Curriculum on clinical Pharmacology for medical undergraduates of India. Indian J Pharmacol. 2006;38:S108-14.

Badyal DK, Modgill V, Kaur J. Computer simulation models are implementable as replacements for animal experiments. Altern Lab Anim. 2009;37:191-5.

Akbarsha MA, Zeeshan M, Meenakumari KJ. Alternatives to animals in education, research and risk assessment: An overview with special reference to Indian context. ALTEX Altern Anim Ex. 2013; 2:5-19.

John LJ. A review of computer assisted learning in medical undergraduates. J Pharmacol Pharmacother 2013;4(2):86-90.

Sharma R, Verma U, Kapoor B, Chopra VS. Novel teaching approaches in Pharmacology. JK Science 2004;6(3):172-3.

Colbert-Getz JM, Baumann S. Changing medical students' perception of the evaluation culture: Is it possible? J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2016;13:8.

Kuruvilla A, Ramalingam S, Bose AC, Shastri GV, Bhuvaneswari K, Amudha G. Use of computer assisted learning as an adjuvant to practical pharmacology teaching: Advantages and limitations. Indian J Pharmacol 2001;33:272-5.

Greenhalgh T. Computer assisted learning in undergraduate medical education. BMJ. 2001;322: 40-4.

Hansen LA, Boss GR. Use of live animals in the curricula of US Medical Schools: Survey results from 2001. Acad Med 2002;77(11):1147-9.

Naeem SS, Rizvi W, Kumar A. Revisiting undergraduate practical pharmacology. J Pharmacol Pharmacother 2012;3(1):76-9.

Medical Council of India, New Delhi. Amendment notification on 8 July 2009 in the Minimal Standard Requirements for the Medical College with 150 admissions annually, Regulations;1999.

Badyal DK, Desai C. Animal use in pharmacology education and research: The changing scenario. Indian J Pharmacol. 2014;46(3):257-65.

Vasundara K, Pundarikaksha HP, Vijendra R, Girish K, Jyothi R, Srinivasa P. Existing and expected practical medical pharmacology curriculum - A survey. J Clin Diagnostic Res. 2011;5(2):340-3.

Satish GR, Kamath L, Jayanthi CR. Reassessment of dispensing pharmacy and animal experiments in undergraduate practical pharmacology curriculum: feedback from students. Int J Basic Clin Pharmacol. 2016;5(2):285-92.

Sharma D, Malhotra P. A comparison of computer assisted learning and practical animal experiment for undergraduate medical students in pharmacology curriculum- a questionnaire based study conducted in a medical college of North India. JK Sci. 2016; 18(2):116-9.

Govindaraja C, Jaiprakash H, Annamalai C, Vedhavathy SS. Computer assisted learning: Perceptions and knowledge skills of undergraduate medical students in a Malaysian medical school. Natl J Physiol Pharm Pharmacol. 2011;1(2):63-7.

Dewhurst DG, Hardcastle J, Hardcastle PT, Stuart E. Comparison of a computer simulation program and a traditional laboratory practical class for teaching the principles of intestinal absorption. Adv Physiol Educ. 1994;12(1):S95-104.

Dewhurst D. Is it possible to meet the learning objectives of undergraduate pharmacology classes with non-animal models? AATEX 2008;14:207-12.

Pukhta MA, Bhat MY, Singh Z. A questionnaire based study of prevailing teaching methods in pharmacology and its efficacy/evaluation by second professional MBBS students. Int J Res Med Sci. 2016;4(6):2218-23.

Moss S. Computer technology in education. Pharm J. 1993;251:491.

Desai M. Changing face of pharmacology practicals for medical undergraduates. Indian J Pharmacol. 2009; 41:151-2.

Haq I, Dacre J. Computer-assisted learning in undergraduate and postgraduate rheumatology education. Rheumatology. 2003;42:367-70.

Kaufman M, Mann V. Achievement of students in a conventional and problem based learning (PBL) curriculum. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 1999; 4:245-60.

Sharma T, Bala S, Garg R, Kalra J. Use of Computer Assisted Learning as an Alternative to Experimental Pharmacology Teaching: Student's Opinion. JK Science 2016; 18(2): 116-19.

Saurabh MK, Agrawal J. The opinion of undergraduate medical students on current curriculum and teaching methodology of pharmacology in four medical colleges of India: a questionnaire based study. Int J Basic Clin Pharmacol. 2015;4(5):970-75.

Babu KR, Singh AH, Palla J. Computer Assisted Learning: Perception And Acceptability Of Undergraduate Medical Students In Pharmacology Experiments. JEMDS 2015;102(4):16761-4.

Ahirwar M, Sinha A, Shakya A, Kumar V. Computer assisted learning in pharmacology: an update. 1-34.




How to Cite

Kaur, G., Garg, P., Sharma, V., Singh, J., Matreja, P. S., & Khanna, P. M. L. (2017). Comparison of computer simulation and graphical illustration for teaching experimental pharmacology to undergraduate students. International Journal of Basic & Clinical Pharmacology, 6(4), 788–794.



Original Research Articles