Untitled Document
   
You are from : ( )  
     
Untitled Document
Untitled Document
 

International Journal of Information Technology & Computer Science ( IJITCS )

Abstract :

Advances in technology have led to the replacement of animal based laboratories with computer based simulations. This pedagogical approach has the advantages of being less costly in terms of time and money, more accessible for self study, ability to repeat intervention, ability to access and alter variables in isolation and needing less expert time for implementation. As Medical Educators we need to look beyond benefit s of this intervention in terms of cost or time required for implementation and look closely at the educational impact of this change. This paper looks at the educational advantages of computer simulations on the basis of principles of teaching and learning

Keywords :

: Animal experiments; Computer simulations ; Undergraduate Medical Education

References :

  1. David Dewhurst. Is it possible to meet the learning objectives of undergraduate pharmacology classes with non-animal models? Alternatives to Animal Testing and Experimentation 2007; 14: 207-212
  2. Alice W. Ra’anan. The evolving role of animal laboratories in physiology instruction Advan in Physiol Edu 2005; 29:144-150,
  3. Raveendran R. Alternatives to animals in teaching: Experience in an Indian medical school. Proceedings  of the ALTEX 8th World Congress, Montreal, 2011.28:206
  4. The evolving role of animal laboratories in physiology instruction. Advan in Physiol Edu 2005; 29:144-150.
  5. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Medical school dog labs:torture, not teaching. Animal Times. http://www.caringconsumer.com/animaltimes/at-fall2000/doglab.html.
  6. Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. Doctors AnnounceVictory As UCSD Finally Stops Killing Dogs For Medical Training. Pressrelease August 29, 2005. http://www.pcrm.org/news/issues030829.html.
  7.  Ammons SW. Use of live animals in the curricula of U.S.medical schools in 1994.Acad Med 1995.70:739-7
  8.  Balcombe JP. Dissection: The scientific case for alternatives. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 2001;4(2): 117-126
  9. Medhi .B,Sukhija .M, Upadhaya.S  , Bhatia A, Anuradha K .Experimental teaching and Interactive Computer Assisted Learning: The Student’s Viewpoint. JK SCIENCE 2005; 7(4):220-222
  10. Atkinson, R.C.; Shiffrin, R.M. "Chapter: Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes". In Spence, K.W.; Spence, J.T. The psychology of learning and motivation New York: Academic Press; 1968.
  11. Perry, B. Workshop: 2nd Annual Southwest Family Violence Conference presented by the Alternatives to Domestic Violence and Prevent Child Abuse Council of Southwest Riverside County, CA, October 8, 2003
  12. Samsel RW, Schmidt GA, Hall JB, Wood LDH,Shroff SG, Schumacker PT. Cardiovascular physiology teaching: Computer simulations vs. animal demonstrations. Am J Physiol1994; 266:S36–S46
  13. Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. Understanding a brain based approach to learning and teaching." Educational Leadership1990; 48(2):66-70.
  14. Caine, R., & Caine, G. Making connections: Teaching and the human brain. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development; 1991.
  15. Medhi .B,Sukhija .M, Upadhaya.S  , Bhatia A, Anuradha K .Experimental teaching and Interactive Computer Assisted Learning: The Student’s Viewpoint. JK SCIENCE 2005; 7(4):220-222
  16. Modell HI. Can technology replace live preparations in student laboratories?Adv Physiol Educ 1989;256: 18–20
  17.  Samsel RW, Schmidt GA, Hall JB, Wood LDH,Shroff SG, Schumacker PT. Cardiovascular physiology teaching: Computer simulations vs. animal demonstrations. Am J Physiol1994; 266:S36–S46
  18. DewhurstD & Jenikson L. The impact of computer based alternatives on the use of animals in undergraduate teaching: a pilot study. ATLA 23:521-530
  19. Gardner, H. Frames of mind: Theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books; 1983
  20. Knight A. The effectiveness of humane teaching methods in veterinary education. ALTEX: Alternatives to Animal Experimentation 2007; 24(2):91-109
  21. Lalley  JP, Piotrowski PS, Battaglia B, Brophy K, Chugh K. A comparison of V-Frog© to   physical frog dissection .International Journal of Environmental &Science Education 2010; 5(2):189-200
  22. Dewhurst, D. G., Hardcastle, J., Hardcastle,P. T. and Stuart, E. Comparison of a computer simulation program with a traditional laboratory practical class for teaching the principles of intestinal absorption. American Journal of Physiology 1994, 267:95-103
  23. Greehalgh T. Computer assisted learning in undergraduate medical education. BMJ 2001; 322: 40-44.
  24. Dewhurst D. Is it possible to meet the learning objectives of undergraduate pharmacology classeswith non-animal models? Proc. 6th World Congress on Alternatives & Animal Use in the Life Sciences,Tokyo,AATEX 14, 2007, 207-212
  25. Van der Valk J,Dewhurst D,Hughes I et al.Alternatives to the use of animals in higher education:the report and recommendations of ECVAM(European Centre for thye Validation of Alternative Methods) Workshop 33.Alternatives to laboratory animals1999;27(1)39-52.
  26. Brooks, J. and Brooks, M. In Search of Understanding: The Case for Constructivist Classrooms: ASCD; 1993
  27. Washington University of St. Louis, Cornerstone-The Center for Advanced Learning. Learning Styles Assessment, http://cornerstone.wustl.edu/learningstyles.htm
  28. Modell HI. Can technology replace live preparations in student laboratories?Adv Physiol Educ 256: 18–20, 1989

Untitled Document
     
Untitled Document
   
  Copyright © 2013 IJITCS.  All rights reserved. IISRC® is a registered trademark of IJITCS Properties.