Published: 2017-05-23

Computer assisted learning versus conventional teaching: a questionnaire based study

Shipra Jain, Kopal Sharma, Pushpawati Jain, Sakshi Singh


Background: Animal experiments have ethical concerns thus practical sessions mean demonstration classes. Incorporation of novel teaching methods in pharmacology is the need of the hour when there is extensive use of computers among students. The present study was conducted to analyse and compare the knowledge gained by students through traditional demonstration lectures versus Computer assisted learning (CAL) sessions.

Methods: This study was done on 112 second professional MBBS students after taking informed consent. They were divided in 2 groups viz. CAL group and Traditional teaching group and were taught experimental pharmacology topics using different teaching methods. The performance of the students in the two groups was then compared based on questionnaire. Student’s perception on use of CAL was also assessed.

Results: A statistically significant difference in performance was seen among the students in the traditional teaching group and CAL group. In CAL group, the average scores for the Rabbit’s eye, Dog’s blood pressure, Animals used in Experimental Pharmacology and Screening methods sessions were 9.07, 8.3 and 3.8 respectively while in traditional teaching group the scores were 8.4, 7.8 and 3.4 respectively. Similarly, in frog’s heart session, CAL group scored higher (7.14) than traditional group (6.79). 76.8% students strongly agreed that CAL sessions were useful and 100% students strongly agreed that traditional lectures are difficult to retain.

Conclusions: The study concludes that CAL is a promising teaching option when compared to traditional demonstration lectures for undergraduate practical pharmacology classes.


Animal experiments, Computer assisted learning, Demonstrations, Undergraduate, Practicals

Full Text:



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

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

Hughes IE. Do computer simulations of laboratory practicals meet learning needs? Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2001;22:71-4.

Sharma D, Malhotra P. A comparison of computer assisted learning and practical animal experiments for undergraduate medical students in pharmacology curriculum- a questionnaire based study conducted in a medical college of North India. Int J Basic Clin Pharmacol. 2016;5:2581-4.

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

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

Dewhurst D. Computer-based alternatives to using animals in teaching physiology and pharmacology to undergraduate student. Altern Lab Anim. 2004;32:517-20.

Nettah S. Computer assisted learning (CAL) as ateaching learning method in teaching experimental pharmacology. Int J Basic Clin Pharmacol. 2014;3:63-5.

Govindaraja C, Prakash HJ, 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.

Gaikwad N, Tankhiwale S. Interactive E-learning module in pharmacology: a pilot project at a rural medical college in India. Perspect Med Edu. 2014;3(1):15-30.

Tikkoo D, Gupta M. Student’s perception and experience of computer assisted learning as a teaching method in experimental pharmacology. Int J Basic Clin Pharmacol. 2015;4:1168-74.

Hounshell PB, Hill SR. The microcomputer and achievement and attitudes in high school biology. J Res Sci Teaching. 1989;26:543-9.

Wiecha JM. Collaborative online learning (COL): A new distance education methods. Essential Drug Monitor. 2003;33:36.

Hughes IE. Computer-based learning-an aid to successful teaching of pharmacology? Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 2002;366:77-82.

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.

Baby LT, Kavalakkat JC, Abraham S, Sathianarayanan S. CAL: A modern tool for Pharmacology. Internet J of Medical Simulation. 2009;2:2.

Markham T, Jones SJ, Hughes I, Sutcliffe M. Survey of methods of teaching and learning in undergraduate pharmacology within the UK higher education. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 1998;19:257-62.

Hughes I. Changes in the technological methods of teaching and learning in undergraduate pharmacology in UK Higher Education. J Biosci Edu. 2003;1(1):1.

Kamath A. A review of use of eLearning in pharmacology. Int J Integr Med Sci. 2015;2(9):157-62.

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. Am J Physiol. 1994;267:S95-104.

Leathard HL, Dewhurst DG. Comparison of cost effectiveness of a computer assisted learning program with tutored demonstration to teach intestinal motility to medical students. ALT-J. 1995;3:118-25.