Successful experience of using experimental model in the practical training of gastrointestinal physiology in medical students

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Medical Toxicology and Drug Abuse Research Center Department of Physiology, School of Medicine, Birjand University of Medical Sciences, Birjand, Iran

2 Cardiovascular Diseases Research Center, Department of Physiology, School of Medicine, Birjand University of Medical Sciences, Birjand, Iran

3 Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Health Education and health Promotion Department, Health School, Birjand University of Medical Sciences, Birjand, Iran

Abstract

Background: The aim of present study was to determine the effect of using the experimental model of induction of structural-functional disorder in the practical training of gastrointestinal (GI) physiology on the level of knowledge and attitude of medical students.
Methods: The present study was a descriptive studyconducted on medical students for three consecutive semesters. Initially, students were divided into groups of 15 people and the experimental models of stress and peptic ulcer induction were explained theoretically using PowerPoint software. Then, for each group of students a rat, which was prepared on the same day as the stress ulcer model, was described after induction of anesthesia. At the end, students were asked to complete a researcher-made questionnaire consisting of 7 questions in a 5-point Likert scale.
Results: The participants were 187 medical students with mean age of 20.28 ± 1.82 years. Students agreed “high” and “very high” with holding the laboratory for raising knowledge (90.4%), changing their attitude towards GI physiology (68.5%), enhancing their skills (54.5%), being interesting and innovative (89.9%), increasing their interest in learning the topics of GI physiological theory (75.7%), identifying "stress ulcer and peptic ulcer" (79.2%), as well as holding the sessions of the laboratory for the future courses (84.5%).
Conclusion: Findings indicated that experimental work on live animals greatly enhanced students’ knowledge and learning. It seems that using animals should not be replaced entirely by virtual experiments; however, the combination of several teaching methods such as blended laboratories is recommended for some concepts and physiological processes including in GI physiology.

Keywords

References

1.Quiroga MDM, Choate JK. A virtual experiment improved students' understanding of physiological experimental processes ahead of a live inquiry-based practical class. Adv Physiol Educ. 2019;43(4):495-503.
2. Kolb AY, Kolb DA. Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of management learning & education. 2005; 4(2):193-212.
3. Practical work. In: Good Practice in Science Teaching: What Research Has to Say(2nd Ed.), Osborne J Dillon J (Eds). Berkshire, UK: McGraw Hill Open University Press; 2010, 108–34.
4. Hmelo-Silver CE. Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educ Psychol Rev. 2004;16(3):235-66.
5. Lewis DI. The pedagogical benefits and pitfalls of virtual tools for teaching and learning laboratory practices in the biological sciences. The Higher Education Academy: STEM. 2014.
6. Del Mar Quiroga M, Price NS. Simulated in vivo Electrophysiology Experiments Provide Previously Inaccessible Insights into Visual Physiology. J Undergrad Neurosci Educ. 2016;15(1):A11.
7. John LJ. A review of computer assisted learning in medical undergraduates. J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2013;4(2):86.
8. Durand MD, Restini CB, Wolff AC, Faria Jr M, Couto LB, Bestetti RB. Students’ perception of animal or virtual laboratory in physiology practical classes in PBL medical hybrid curriculum. Adv Physiol Educ. 2019;43(4):451-7.
9. Goyal R, Garg R, Goyal PR. Need for changes in the practical physiology curriculum of medical undergraduates. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research: JCDR. 2017;11(6):CC06.
10. Ra'anan AW. The evolving role of animal laboratories in physiology instruction. Adv Physiol Educ. 2005;29(3):144-50.
11. Rochelle AB, Pasian SR, Silva RH, Rocha MJ. Perceptions of undergraduate students on the use of animals in practical classes. Adv Physiol Educ. 2016;40(3):422-4.
12. Meena DK, Jayanthi M. In-Vivo Models Used for Pre-Clinical Evaluation of Anti-Ulcer Activity. Austin Pharmacol Pharm. 2018;3(2):1017.
13. Azer SA, Hasanato R, Al-Nassar S, Somily A, AlSaadi MM. Introducing integrated laboratory classes in a PBL curriculum: impact on student’s learning and satisfaction. BMC Med Educ. 2013;13(1):1-2.
14. John LJ. A review of computer assisted learning in medical undergraduates. J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2013;4(2):86.
15. Feijó AG, Sanders A, Centurião AD, Rodrigues GS, Schwanke CH. Análise de indicadores éticos do uso de animais na investigação científica e no ensino em uma amostra universitária da área da saúde e das ciências biológicas. Sci Med. 2008;18(1):10-19. Portuguese.
16. Capaldo T. The psychological effects on students of using animals in ways that they see as ethically, morally or religiously wrong. Altern Lab Anim. 2004;32(1_suppl):525-31.
 
Future of Medical Education Journal
Volume 10, Issue 3
September 2020
Pages 31-34

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics