Tue, Nov 10, 2026
[Archive]
Volume 19, Issue 1 (2026)
J Med Edu Dev 2026, 19(1): 74-82 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: HEC-10-2023/24-F-M
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Merghani T H, Arshad Khan N, Taha H, Alawad A O. Simulation-based instruction: student enjoyment of a computer-based practical activity. , J Med Edu Dev. 2026; 19 (1) :74-82
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-2552-en.html
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-2552-en.html
1- Department of Physiology, RAK Medical and Health Sciences University, Ras Al-Khaimah, UAE , tarighm@gmail.com
2- Department of Physiology, RAK Medical and Health Sciences University, Ras Al-Khaimah, UAE
3- Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, Al-Neelain University, Khartoum, Sudan
2- Department of Physiology, RAK Medical and Health Sciences University, Ras Al-Khaimah, UAE
3- Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, Al-Neelain University, Khartoum, Sudan
Abstract: (763 Views)
Background & Objective: Computer-based simulations are increasingly used in medical education to enhance practical learning. They allow flexible interaction with physiological processes while providing structured, engaging experiences. However, student perspectives on enjoyment, stress, and perceived learning remain underexplored. The aim of this study is to evaluate medical students’ perceptions and experiences of a simulation-based physiology practical session.
Materials & Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional questionnaire-based study was conducted among 94 third-year medical students who completed a physiology practical session via computer-based simulation using the Lt platform (ADInstruments, Australia). A structured questionnaire was used to collect data on students’ experience, covering perceived enjoyment, content comprehension, teacher effectiveness, perceived stress, and skills acquisition. The questionnaire demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.97). Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and Chi-square tests in SPSS version 28. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: Students reported high levels of enjoyment (92.6%), with significant associations with instructor effectiveness (p < 0.001), student participation (p < 0.001), skill acquisition (p < 0.001), and low perceived stress (p < 0.001). Most students agreed that the learning objectives were met and that the session content was clearly understood.
Conclusion: The findings showed that computer-based practical simulations provide a positive and effective learning environment. Beyond enhancing enjoyment and reducing stress, these platforms support active participation and reinforce skill acquisition. Given the observed advantages, we strongly recommend integrating simulation-based platforms into physiology curricula.
Materials & Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional questionnaire-based study was conducted among 94 third-year medical students who completed a physiology practical session via computer-based simulation using the Lt platform (ADInstruments, Australia). A structured questionnaire was used to collect data on students’ experience, covering perceived enjoyment, content comprehension, teacher effectiveness, perceived stress, and skills acquisition. The questionnaire demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.97). Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and Chi-square tests in SPSS version 28. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: Students reported high levels of enjoyment (92.6%), with significant associations with instructor effectiveness (p < 0.001), student participation (p < 0.001), skill acquisition (p < 0.001), and low perceived stress (p < 0.001). Most students agreed that the learning objectives were met and that the session content was clearly understood.
Conclusion: The findings showed that computer-based practical simulations provide a positive and effective learning environment. Beyond enhancing enjoyment and reducing stress, these platforms support active participation and reinforce skill acquisition. Given the observed advantages, we strongly recommend integrating simulation-based platforms into physiology curricula.
Editorial: Original Research |
Subject:
Medical Education
Received: 2025/07/31 | Accepted: 2025/12/15 | Published: 2026/01/1
Received: 2025/07/31 | Accepted: 2025/12/15 | Published: 2026/01/1
References
1. Wu Q, Wang Y, Lu L, Chen Y, Long H, Wang J. Virtual simulation in undergraduate medical education: a scoping review of recent practice. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:855403. [DOI:10.3389/fmed.2022.855403] [PMID] [PMCID]
2. Zahoor H, Mustafa N. Virtual simulation in healthcare education: trends, applications, and future directions. Uluslararası Akademik Birikim Dergisi. 2025;8(2):180-202. [DOI:10.5281/zenodo.15069555]
3. Ma C, Cheng P, Chan Y, Tipoe GL. Virtual reality: a technology to promote active learning of physiology for students across multiple disciplines. Adv Physiol Educ. 2023;47(3):594-603. [DOI:10.1152/advan.00172.2022] [PMID]
4. Gharib AM, Peterson GM, Bindoff IK, Salahudeen MS. Potential barriers to the implementation of computer-based simulation in pharmacy education: a systematic review. Pharmacy (Basel). 2023;11(3): 86-99. [DOI:10.3390/pharmacy11030086] [PMID] [PMCID]
5. Oyekunle D, Claude BEA, Waliu AO, Adekunle TS, Matthew UO. Cloud based adaptive learning system: virtual reality and augmented reality assisted educational pedagogy development on clinical simulation. Digit Health. 2024:49-62. [DOI:10.55976/jdh.32024126849-62]
6. Chernikova O, Heitzmann N, Stadler M, Holzberger D, Seidel T, Fischer F. Simulation-based learning in higher education: a meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res. 2020;90(4):499-541. [DOI:10.3102/0034654320933544] [PMCID]
7. Hjellvik S, Mallam S, Giskeødegård MF, Nazir S. Review on competency assessment instrumentation in computer-based simulation. Tech Know Learn. 2024;29(4):2171-2199. [DOI:10.1007/s10758-024-09735-4]
8. Elshama SS. How to apply simulation-based learning in medical education? Iberoam J Med. 2020;2(2):79-86.
https://doi.org/10.53986/ibjm.2020.0016 [DOI:10.5281/zenodo.3685233]
9. Monteiro O, Bhaskar A, Ng A, Murdoch C, Baptista-Hon DT. Computer-based virtual laboratory simulations: LabHEART cardiac physiology practical. Adv Physiol Educ. 2021;45(4):856-868. [DOI:10.1152/advan.00094.2021] [PMID]
10. Björn MH, Ravyse W, Botha-Ravyse C, Laurila JM, Keinonen T. A revised pedagogy model for simulator-based training with biomedical laboratory science students. Educ Sci. 2021;11(7): 328-46. [DOI:10.3390/educsci11070328]
11. Munna MSH, Hossain MR, Saylo KR. Digital education revolution: evaluating LMS-based learning and traditional approaches. J Innov Technol Converg. 2024;6(2). [DOI:10.69478/JITC2024v6n002a03]
12. Charanbir CS, Kumar R, Kumar S. Leveraging computer-aided education for enhanced learning: innovations, benefits, and challenges in the medical sector. Asian J Eng Appl Technol. 2023;12(2):40-49. [DOI:10.51983/ajeat-2023.12.2.4074]
13. Tan KAZY, Seah B, Wong LF, Lee CCS, Goh HS, Liaw SY. Simulation-based mastery learning to facilitate transition to nursing practice. Nurse Educ. 2022;47(6):336-341. [DOI:10.1097/NNE.0000000000001224] [PMID]
14. Lin YL, Wang WT. Using business simulation games to explore the effects of instructional and technological support on students' psychological needs, cognitive load, and learning achievement. J Educ Comput Res. 2025:07356331241313128. [DOI:10.1177/07356331241313128]
15. Merghani T, Babiker R, Alawad AO. Development and application of a learning enjoyment scale for pedagogical activities. F1000Res. 2024;13:273. [DOI:10.12688/f1000research.147393.2] [PMID] [PMCID]
16. Rutakomozibwa AM. Effect of computer simulations on female students' motivation for and engagement with physics learning: a case of secondary schools in Tanzania [dissertation]. Vancouver (BC): University of British Columbia; 2022. [DOI:10.14288/1.0406285]
17. Howell AN, Rheingold AA, Uhde TW, Guille C. Web-based CBT for the prevention of anxiety symptoms among medical and health science graduate students. Cogn Behav Ther. 2019;48(5):385-405. [DOI:10.1080/16506073.2018.1533575] [PMID] [PMCID]
18. McCoy L, Pettit RK, Lewis JH, Allgood JA, Bay C, Schwartz FN. Evaluating medical student engagement during virtual patient simulations: a sequential, mixed methods study. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16:20. [DOI:10.1186/s12909-016-0530-7] [PMID] [PMCID]
19. Pesare E, Roselli T, Corriero N, Rossano V. Game-based learning and gamification to promote engagement and motivation in medical learning contexts. Smart Learn Environ. 2016;3:5. [DOI:10.1186/s40561-016-0028-0]
20. Phanudulkitti C, Puengrung S, Meepong R, Vanderboll K, Farris KB, Vordenberg SE. A systematic review on the use of virtual patient and computer-based simulation for experiential pharmacy education. Explor Res Clin Soc Pharm. 2023;11:100316. [DOI:10.1016/j.rcsop.2023.100316] [PMID] [PMCID]
21. Merghani TH, Babiker R, Alawad AO, Hamad SB, Hashim NT, Jhancy M. From passive to pleasant: validation and application of the Learning Enjoyment Scale in didactic teaching. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2025;16:1939-1949. [DOI:10.2147/AMEP.S539611] [PMID] [PMCID]
22. Kok XFK, Pua CY, Puah S, Devilly OZ, Wang PC, Chua ECP. The mediating role of student engagement in the relationship between teacher and digital support and learner satisfaction in blended learning environments at higher education. Br Educ Res J. 2025. [DOI:10.1002/berj.4123]
23. Han Y, Luan NL, Zhao S. Influence of technology-mediated learning models on student satisfaction based on self-determination theory. Comput Assist Lang Learn Electron J. 2022;23(2):131-151. https://callej.org/index.php/journal/article/view/400
24. Pandita A, Kiran R. The technology interface and student engagement are significant stimuli in sustainable student satisfaction. Sustainability. 2023;15(10): 7923-48. [DOI:10.3390/su15107923]
25. Memon MQ, Lu Y, Memon AR, Memon A, Munshi P, Shah SFA. Does the impact of technology sustain students' satisfaction, academic and functional performance: an analysis via interactive and self-regulated learning? Sustainability. 2022;14(12): 7226-50. [DOI:10.3390/su14127226]
26. Narayanan SN, Ahmed I, Saherawala B, Foud F, Merghani TH. Appraisal of a novel pedagogical approach to demonstrating neuromuscular transmission to medical students. Adv Physiol Educ. 2021;45(3):580-588. [DOI:10.1152/advan.00221.2020] [PMID]
27. Narayanan SN, Merghani TH. Real-life scenario blended teaching approach for nurturing inquisitive learning of central nervous system in medical students. Adv Physiol Educ. 2023;47(1):124-138. [DOI:10.1152/advan.00054.2022] [PMID]
28. Song Y. Assessing the interactions between learning enjoyment, motivation, burnout, and grit in EFL students: a mixed-methods approach. BMC Psychol. 2024;12:796. [DOI:10.1186/s40359-024-02303-6] [PMID] [PMCID]
29. Anine M, Kari R, Monica Ø, Hilde SS. Health professional students' self-reported emotions during simulation-based education: an interpretive descriptive study. Nurse Educ Pract. 2022;63:103353. [DOI:10.1016/j.nepr.2022.103353] [PMID]
30. Daniel K, Msambwa MM, Antony F, Wan X. Motivate students for better academic achievement: a systematic review of blended innovative teaching and its impact on learning. Comput Appl Eng Educ. 2024;32(4):e22733. [DOI:10.1002/cae.22733]
31. Gopinathan S, Kaur AH, Veeraya S, Raman M. The role of digital collaboration in student engagement towards enhancing student participation during COVID-19. Sustainability. 2022;14(11): 6844-62. [DOI:10.3390/su14116844]
32. Woranush W, Sedghi A, Moskopp ML, Japtok J, Ziegler CG, Barlinn J, et al. Effects of digitalized university curriculum-associated teaching on the equilibrium of autonomic neurophysiology and disposition of learners in medical school (EDUCATE-AND-LEARN): protocol for a randomized crossover study. Ann Med. 2021;53(1):1981-88. [DOI:10.1080/07853890.2021.1996626] [PMID] [PMCID]
33. Moro C, Stromberga Z, Moreland A. Enhancing teaching in biomedical, health and exercise science with real-time physiological visualisations. Biomed Vis. 2020;8:1-11. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-47483-6_1] [PMID]
34. Chukwunemerem OP. Lessons from self-directed learning activities and helping university students think critically. J Educ Learn. 2023;12(2):79-87. [DOI:10.5539/jel.v12n2p79]
35. Brasil GC, Lima LTB, Cunha EC, Cruz FOAM, Ribeiro LM. Stress level experienced by participants in realistic simulation: a systematic review. Rev Bras Enferm. 2021;74:e20201151. [DOI:10.1590/0034-7167-2020-1151] [PMID]
36. Cavaleri R, Withington A, Chalmers KJ, Blackstock F. The influence of stress on student performance during simulation-based learning: a pilot randomized trial. ATS Scholar. 2023;4(4):474-489.
https://doi.org/10.34197/ats-scholar.2022-0042OC [DOI:10.34197/ats-scholar.2022-0042oc] [PMID] [PMCID]
37. Oliveira Silva G, Oliveira FSE, Coelho ASG, Fonseca LMM, Vieira FVM, Campbell SH, Aredes NDA. Influence of simulation design on stress, anxiety and self-confidence of nursing students: systematic review with meta-analysis. J Clin Nurs. 2023;32(17-18):5668-5692. [DOI:10.1111/jocn.16681] [PMID]
38. Kim K. Effects of simulation-based learning on stress, problem solving ability, self-efficacy, and resilience of college nursing students. Int J Adv Cult Technol. 2022;10(4):8-18. [DOI:10.17703/IJACT.2022.10.4.8]
39. Wadi M, Shorbagi A, Shorbagi S, Taha MH, Bahri Yusoff MS. The impact of the Systematic Assessment for Resilience (SAR) framework on students' resilience, anxiety, depression, burnout, and academic-related stress: a quasi-experimental study. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24:506. [DOI:10.1186/s12909-024-05444-9] [PMID] [PMCID]
40. Elendu C, Amaechi DC, Okatta AU, Amaechi EC, Elendu TC, Ezeh CP, et al. The impact of simulation-based training in medical education: a review. Medicine. 2024;103(27):e38813. [DOI:10.1097/MD.0000000000038813] [PMID] [PMCID]
41. Karkera S, Devendra N, Lakhani B, Manahan K, Geisler J. A review on modern teaching and learning techniques in medical education. EIKI J Eff Teach Methods. 2024;2(1). [DOI:10.59652/jetm.v2i1.128]
42. Mhlongo S, Mbatha K, Ramatsetse B, Dlamini R. Challenges, opportunities, and prospects of adopting and using smart digital technologies in learning environments: an iterative review. Heliyon. 2023;9(6):e16348. [DOI:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16348] [PMID] [PMCID]
43. Wang Y, Ji Y. How do they learn: types and characteristics of medical and healthcare student engagement in a simulation-based learning environment. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21:420. [DOI:10.1186/s12909-021-02858-7] [PMID] [PMCID]
44. Alam MA. From teacher-centered to student-centered learning: the role of constructivism and connectivism in pedagogical transformation. J Educ. 2023;11(2):154-167. https://www.cjoe.naspublishers.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Afroz-Alam.pdf
45. Zhang MJ, Croiset E, Ioannidis M. Constructivist-based experiential learning: a case study of student-centered and design-centric unit operation distillation laboratory. Educ Chem Eng. 2022;41:22-31. [DOI:10.1016/j.ece.2022.09.002]
46. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2020;61:101860. [DOI:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860]
47. Dunn JC, Zimmer C. Self-determination theory. In: Haegele JA, Hodge SR, Shapiro DR, editors. Routledge handbook of adapted physical education. New York: Routledge; 2020. p. 296-312. [DOI:10.4324/9780429052675-21]
48. Fraser KL, Ayres P, Sweller J. Cognitive load theory for the design of medical simulations. Simul Healthc. 2015;10(5):295-307. [DOI:10.1097/SIH.0000000000000097] [PMID]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
