Article Sidebar

Download
PDF (فارسی)
Statistic
Read Counter : 39 Download : 30

Main Article Content

Abstract

Pharmacology is one of the applied science subjects taught in Veterinary Medicine, Human Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmacy Faculties. The subject enables students to understand drugs, their effects, the fate of drugs in the body, and their safe use in the treatment process. The learning process in higher education in our country has traditionally been passive, relying on lecturing methods that focus mainly on theoretical knowledge. This method prioritizes the teacher’s access to learning rather than student engagement. Given that the pharmacology course encompasses various branches, an active learning method is essential. Active learning, which involves student participation, is necessary to enhance the learning experience. Some of these methods include Case-Based Learning (CBL), Problem-Based Learning (PBL), brainstorming, discussions, role-playing, student participation, and PowerPoint presentations. In conclusion, transferring knowledge through active learning is more effective.

Keywords

Active Learning Learning Methods Pharmacology Course Review Student Participation

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Reserved for Kabul University.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Sadaat, S. S. S. . (2025). Review of Active Learning Methods in Pharmacology Course. Journal of Natural Sciences – Kabul University, 5(1), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.62810/jns.v5i1.244
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Bonwell, C. Eison, J. Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom AEHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, D.C. Jossey-Bass. ISBN 978-1-87380-08-1. 2016-20 .. Pp 3-4.
  2. Bloom, B. S., Karathwohl, D. R., & Masia, B. B. Taxonomy of the educational objectives: The classification of educational goal. New York, NY: David Mckay Company. 1956, 7:11. 1955.
  3. Renkl, Alexander; Atkinson, Rebert K; Maier, Uwe H.; Staley, Richard. From Example Study to Problem Solving: Smooth Transitions Help Learning. The Journalm of Experimental Education. 2002; 70 (4): 293-315.
  4. Bonweel & Eison, p. 3. 1991.
  5. Bean, John C. Engaging Ideas: The Professor~s Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking and Active Learning in the Classroom, (2nd ed). , John Wiely & Sons. ISBN 978-1-118-06233-3. P. 6. 2011.
  6. Gsrvey, T., O`Sullivan, M and Blake, M. Multidisplinary Case-Based Learning For Undergraduate Students. Eur J De4nt Educ; 4(4): 165-8. 2007.
  7. Kyriacou, Chris. Active Learning in Secondary School Maathematics. British Educational Research Journal. 18 (3): 309-318. 1992.
  8. Urrutia-Aguilar, M.E., Adrian, M.G and Rodolf, R. Measuring the Effectiveness of Pharmacolgy Teaching in Undergraduate Medical Students J Patient Saf. 8(1):26-9. 2012.
  9. Warren, G and Crape, D. A Student Guide ti Active Learning. Landover, MD, University Press of America . pp. 422-430. 1996.
  10. Riviere , J. E. and Sandlof, S. F. Chemical residues in tissues of food animals. In Riviere , J. E, veterinary pharmacology and therapeutics. (9th ed, pp 1453-1457). 2009.
  11. Barnes, Douglas. Active Learning. Leeds University TVEI Support Project, P 19. 1989
  12. Grabinger, Scott; Dunlap, Joanna. Rich environment for active learning: a definition. Research in learning technology. 3 (2): 5-34. 1995.
  13. Pantiz, Theorye. Collaborative versus cooperative learning: a comparison of the two concepts which will help us understand the underlying nature of interactive learning. p 10. 1999
  14. Jarnawi, D. Performance, Mental Effort, and Efficiency of Multimedia-Based Discovery Learning in Mathematics Learning. pp41-89. Nishad Deshmuk, career publication. 2009.
  15. Brandt, B.F. Effective Teaching and Learning Strategies. Pharmacotherapy; 20:307S-316WS, 2000.
  16. Michael, J. Wher`s the Evidence that Active Learning Works? Adv physiol Educ; 30:156-167. 2006.
  17. McGlynn, M. Successful Beginnings for College Teaching. Atwood: Madison, Pp 11-12. 2001.
  18. VanGundy, A. 101 Activities for Teaching Creativity and problem Solving. Pfeffer: San Frasncisco. 2005.
  19. Watkins, R. 75 e-Learning Activities: Making Online Learning interactive. Sav Francisco: pfeffeer. 2005.
  20. Shmidt, H. Assumptions Underlying Serlf-Directed Learning May Be False. Med Edu; 34(4):243-5. 2000.
  21. . Freeman, Scott; Eddy, Sarah L.; McDonough, Miles; Smith, Michelle K.; Okoroafr, Nnadozie; Jordt, Hannah; Wenderoth, Mary Path. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceddings of the National Bibcode: 10. 2014.
  22. . Kosslyn, Stephen. Kosslyn, Stephn M.; Nelson, Ben (eds). Building the Intentional University: Minerva and the Future of Higheer Education. The MIT Press. Pp 10-16). 2017.
  23. Dorestani, Alireza. Is Intereactive/Active Learning Superior to Traditional Lecturing in Economics Courses? Humanomics. 21 (10: 1-20. 2005.
  24. Kapur, Manu; Bielaczyc, Katerine. Classroom-based experiments in productive failure. Expanding the space of cognitive science: Proceeding of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the gognititive Sceince Socity, Boston, Massachusetts, 2 july 20-23, 2011. Cognitive Science Society pp. 2812-2817. 2011.
  25. .Van Gog, T., and Paas, F. Instructional efficiency: revisiting the original construct in educational research. Journal: Educational Psychologist, 43, 16-26. Copyright Taylor & Francis. 2008.
  26. Butler & Roediger. Eliciting the generation effect: requiring recall of relevant information. P. 15. 2007.
  27. Brown, Roediger, & McDaniel. Engaging in deliberate practice: promoting practice focused on learning from errors. pp. 4-5. 2017.
  28. Moreno & Valdez. Inducing dual coding: presenting information both verbally and visually. P. 5. 2005.
  29. Erk et. al. Evoking emotion: generating feelings to enhance recall. p. 6. 2003.
  30. McDaniel, Brown, Roediger,. Promoting chunking:: collecting information into organized units. Pp. 11-12. 2014.
  31. Mayer. Building on prior associations: connecting new information to previously stored information. P. 12. 2001.
  32. Bransford, Brown, & Cocking. Presenting foundational material first: providing basic information as a structural spine onto which new information can be attached. Pp 16-17. 2000.
  33. Hakel & Halpern. Exploring appropriate examples: offering examples of the same idea in multiple contexs. Pp. 14. 2005.
  34. Olde, & Klettke. Creating associative chaining: sequencing chunks of information into stories. Pp. 10-11. 2002.
  35. Van Merrienboer et al., Establishing different contexts: associating material with a variety of settings. Pp. 8-9. 2006.
  36. Anderson & Neely. Avoiding interference: incorporating distinctive retrieval cues to avoid confusion. P. 12. 1996.
  37. Schwartz , Daniel L.; Barnsford, John D. “A time For Telling”. Cognition and Instruction. 16 (4): 475-522. 1998.
  38. Kapur, Manu. “Productive failure in mathematical problem solving” Instrucional Science. 38 (6) 532-550. 2010.
  39. Kapur, Manu. “Productive Failure”. Cognition and Instruction. 26 (3): 379-424. 2008.
  40. (Kapur, Manue. Productive failure in learning the concept of varance”. Journal of the Learning Science. 40 ( 4) : 651-672 . 2012.
  41. Kapur. Manu: Bielazyc, Katerine. “Designing for Productive Failure”. Journal of the Learning Science. 21 (1): 45-83. 2012.
  42. Westermann, Katharina; Rummel, Nikol. “Delaying instruction: evidence from a study I a university relearning setting”. Instructional Science. 40 (4): 673-689.
  43. . Chickering, Arthur W.; Zelda F. Gamson. “Seven Principles for Good practice” AAHE Bulletin. 39 (7): 3-7. Archived from the original on 2013-01-28. Retrieved. 2013.
  44. Cranton, P. Planning instruction for learning (3rd ed). Toronto: Wall & Emerson. Pp. 45-50. 2012.
  45. Mckinney, K. (2010). “Active Learning. Illinois State University. Center for Teaching. Learning and Technology”. Achieved from the original on 2011.