Synopsis

Cardiovascular Physiology Teaching: Computer Simulations vs. Animal Demonstrations

Samsel Richard W., Schmidt Gregory A., Hall Jesse B., Wood Lawrence D. H., Shroff Sanjeev G, and Schumacker Paul T.. Advances in Physiology Education, Volume 11 : Number 1, June 1994, S37 - S39

Here is my synopsis of this article. I have a few reprints and will send them out one at a time, as requests are received via email, while my supply lasts.--Nancy L. Harrison, MD

Faculty at the University of Chicago, in the Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care within the Department of Medicine, undertook a formal comparison of animal labs with computer labs in the teaching of cardiovascular physiology. No objective evaluation was performed, but the paper describes the study design, faculty and student responses, and the authors' impression of the relative merits of each teaching modality. The abstract states that students rated both teaching modalities highly, but the computer-based session received a higher rating.

The authors refer to open discussion of how the animals are treated but do not volunteer the source of the dogs. The authors acknowledge the expense of animal labs. Given that the software was developed "in conjunction with" the company that now sells it commercially, one wonders if the authors were fundamentally involved in design of the simulator.

A class of 110 students was divided into groups of 8-12, and each group attended both an animal laboratory and a computer session. One half attended the 2-hour animal lab first, while the other groups attended a 2-hour computer session first. Instructors anesthetized the dogs prior to students' arrival, and performed all maneuvers themselves. "Although students were encouraged to look and touch, direct management of the preparation was carried out primarily by the instructors." The usual venous, arterial and Swan-Ganz lines were employed to examine cardiac and systemic vascular function.

"The demonstration concluded with a brief discussion of the clinical signs evident in a patient with pericardial tamponade." No further detail about the dog's death is provided. Arithmetic indicates that 11 dogs were killed for these "preparations." [In personal communication the author recalls using a total of six dogs per year- see Dr. Samsel's letters in the Forum section of this web site.] The students also attended a computer session led by a faculty member, "carried out in a manner designed to involve the students directly through questions and answer interactions." The content of material reviewed in the two exercises was identical.

Questionnaires were given to students after they had completed both sessions, and results were tabulated anonymously. The computer model received a higher overall rating, was recommended more highly for retention in the curriculum, and was favored 2 to 1 over the animal lab when students were given a hypothetical choice of attending only one or the other. The authors' interpretation: "The significant minority of students who either objected to animal use in principle, or were distracted by it in practice, accounts for much of the apparent student preference for the computer over the animal laboratory. Of the remainder, one distinct group seemed to prefer the computer lab because it was simpler, and another preferred the animal lab because it was more challenging."

The authors then discuss the advantages and disadvantages of animal labs and of computer simulations. Interestingly, they also compare advantages and disadvantages of laboratory demonstrations led by an instructor as opposed to independent student laboratories in which students perform their own "hands on" work. The University of Chicago chose the demonstration format, and authors note that this is both more time efficient and that the technical aspects (e.g. how much air to put in the Swan-Ganz balloon) are a relatively minor aspect of the educational experience.

Finally, the authors conclude that "computer-based simulations may provide a less costly and equally effective teaching tool in the future, which may also be preferred by the students."

[top of page]