DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20205116

A questionnaire based comparative study on dry lab versus wet lab among second year medical undergraduates in a tertiary care hospital of Bihar

Mukesh Kumar, Soni ., Dheeraj Kumar Singh, Sunil Kumar, Subodh Kumar

Abstract


Background: Objective of the study was to identify whether there is any benefit of integrating dry lab/computer assisted lab (CAL) tool with conventional teaching/wet lab in experimental part of pharmacology.

Methods: A questionnaire based study was conducted among 158 second year medical undergraduates in the department of pharmacology. The questionnaire was distributed among students with proper prior instructions in practical class. Students willing to participate in the study were included.

Results: Total 94.9% were in the favour of replacing conventional teaching with CAL lab learning, 74.7% felt conventional lab to be more complex, 92.4% has the opinion of CAL lab result has less error along with that majority student felt it to be less time consuming, need lesser assistance and enhance learning. 67% student also felt real experimentation can’t be learned by CAL tool and 83.5% have their thought that CAL lab can never help them in exercising real experiment.

Conclusions: Although there is no substitution of conventional teaching methods, in this new era of information and technology CAL lab can be the saviour to students in making better understanding and enhancing the performance without help of experimental animals.


Keywords


Computer assisted lab, Tool, Dry lab, Pharmacology, Wet lab

Full Text:

PDF

References


Bronzino JD, editor. Management of medical technology: a primer for clinical engineers. Butterworth-Heinemann. 2014.

Gandhi P. Clinical research methodology. Indian J Phar Edu Res. 2011;45(2):199-209.

Hughes IE. Computer-based learning–an aid to successful teaching of pharmacology? Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Arch Pharmacol. 2002;366(1):77-82.

Tannenbaum J, Bennett BT. Russell and Burch's 3Rs then and now: the need for clarity in definition and purpose. J Am Asso Laboratory Animal Sci. 2015;54(2):120-32.

Hughes I. Teaching pharmacology in 2010-new knowledge, new tools, new attitudes. Folia Pharmacologica Japonica. 2003;122(5):411-8.

Doke SK, Dhawale SC. Alternatives to animal testing: A review. Saudi Pharmaceutical J. 2015;23(3):223-9.

UG-Curriculum-Vol-I, 2020. Available at: https://www.mciindia.org/CMS/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/UG-Curriculum-Vol-I.pdf Accessed on 23rd June 2020

Miedzybrodzka Z, Hamilton NM, Gregory H, Milner B, Frade I, Sinclair T, et al. Teaching undergraduates about familial breast cancer: comparison of a computer assisted learning (CAL) package with a traditional tutorial approach. European J Human Genetics. 2001;9(12):953-6.

Sengupta P, Sharma A, Das N. Is there any benefit of integrating computer-assisted learning with conventional teaching format in pharmacology to demonstrate the effects of different drugs on mean arterial blood pressure in an anesthetized dog? A comparative study. J Natural Sci Biol Med. 2017;8(2):181.

Hudson JN. Computer‐aided learning in the real world of medical education: does the quality of interaction with the computer affect student learning? Med Education. 2004;38(8):887-95.

Dewhurst D. Computer-based alternatives in higher education-past, present and future. Alt Animal Experimen. 2006;23(3):197-201.

Charan J, Biswas T. How to calculate sample size for different study designs in medical research. Indian J Psychological Med. 2013;35(2):121.