An evaluation of the ‘CRAMPS’ pedagogy in Pharmacology: Perspectives of medical students at the University of Namibia


  • Dan Kibuule University of Namibia
  • Secilia Ilonga University of Namibia
  • Tuula Kaisto Oulu University
  • Matthias Adorka University of Namibia
  • Timothy Rennie University of Namibia


Effectiveness, Pharmacology, Teaching-Learning, Perceptions, Namibia


Background: The variation in pharmacology teaching approaches influences the intrinsic student learning behaviours and impacts on acquisition of desired competencies, particularly in the setting of the new Schools of Medicine and Pharmacy at the University of Namibia. Though the SOAP and PHARM notes have been used effectively in clinical pharmacy teaching, systematic approaches to strengthen the teaching of pharmacology have been limited.

Objective: To determine the usefulness of the CRAMPS (Class, Rationale, Adverse reaction, Mechanism, Pharmacokinetics and Special considerations) approach as a teaching tool in pharmacology from the students’ perspective.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among pharmacy and medicine students who had completed a 16- week pharmacology module between July and November 2012. Data on perceived effectiveness of teaching approaches were collected using an adjusted Likert scale based questionnaire. Data were entered into Epidata® v.3.1 and exported to SPSS® v.19 software for descriptive analysis.

Results: Of the 86 (99%) students, the majority were female 58(67.4%); with males had a higher mean age than females (p<0.001). One fifth of students did not complete 90% of learning encounters. The majority of students perceived didactic audiovisual lectures using CRAMPS approach as very effective (p<0.001). Some students perceived the incoherence and dynamics among students in a home group as a deterrent factor to learning pharmacology.

Conclusion: An audiovisual CRAMPS approach is considered as an effective and systematic tool in teaching-learning of pharmacology. However, poor group dynamics within home groups may negatively impact on learning pharmacology and may not be ideal approach for all students. 

Author Biographies

Dan Kibuule, University of Namibia

Head of Department Pharmacy Practice & Lecturer Pharmacotherapy, School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health Sciences

Secilia Ilonga, University of Namibia

Lecturer Pharmaceutical Chemistry, School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health Sciences

Tuula Kaisto, Oulu University

Coordinator MEDUPEDA Programme, Faculty of Medicine

Matthias Adorka, University of Namibia

Head of Department Pharmacology and Senior Lecturer Pharmacology, School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health Sciences 

Timothy Rennie, University of Namibia

Associate Dean School of Pharmacy and Associate Professor Pharmacy Practice, School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health Sciences 



Al-Faris, E.A., Abdulghani, H.M., Abdulrahman, K.A.B., Al-Rowais, N., Saed, A.A.B. & Shaikh, S.A. (2008). Evaluation of three instructional methods of teaching for undergraduate medical students, at King Saud University, Saudi Arabia. Medical Education Journal, 15(2), 133-138.

Anruradha, J. & Mayank, T. (2010). Innovations in pharmacology teaching. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Research, 1(2) 62-64.

Australian Learning and Teaching Council (2010). Ensuring quality graduates of pharmacology. 2010 edition Creative Commons, San Francisco California. 1-40.

Badyal, D.K., Bala, S. & Kathuria, P. (2010). Student evaluation of teaching and assessment methods in pharmacology. Indian Journal of Pharmacology, 42(2), 87-9.

Barakzai, Q. (2004). Transition from traditional to innovative teaching in and beyond pharmacology at Ziauddin Medical University. Acta Phrmacol sin, 25(9): 1220 - 1232.

Biggs, J.B. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does, Open University Press, Buckingham, United Kingdom.

Brown, G. & Atkins, M. (1988). Effective teaching in higher education. 1st edition. Methuen and Company Ltd.

Dee Fink, L. (2003). Creating Significant Learning Experience: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses. San Francisco, California: Jossey- Bass.

Garg, A., Rataboli, P. V. & Muchandi, K. (2004). Students’ opinion on the prevailing teaching methods in pharmacology and changes recommended. Indian Journal of Pharmacology, 36(3), 155-158.

Gitanjali, B. & Shashindran, C.H. (2006). Curriculum in clinical pharmacology for medical undergraduates. Indian Journal of Pharmacology, 38(2), 108-113.

Mathur, V.S. (2004). Towards a more meaningful teaching of pharmacology. Indian Journal of Pharmacology, 36(4), 259-61.

Mayer, R.E. & Anderson, R.B. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 444-52.

Michel, M.C., Bischoff, A., Jakobs, K.H. (2002). Comparison of problem-and lecture-based pharmacology teaching. Trends Pharmacology Science, 23(4), 168-70.

Seth, V., Upadhyaya, P., Mushtaq, A. & Kumar, V. (2010). Impact Of Various Lecture Delivery Methods In Pharmacology. EXCLI Journal, 9, 96-101.

Shallcoss, D.E. & Harrison, T.G. (2007). Lectures: electronic presentations versus chalk and talk a chemist’s view. Chemistry Education Res Practice, 8, 73-79.

Tisonova, J., Hudec, R., Szalayova, A., Bozekova, L., Wawruch, M., Lassanova, M., Vojtko, R., Jezova, D., Kristova, V. & Kriska, M. (2005). Experience with problem oriented teaching in pharmacology. Bratisl Lek Listy, 106(2), 83-7.

Wilson, K., Jesson, J., Langley, C., Clarke, K. & Hatfield, K. (2005). MPharm Programmes: Where are we now? Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, Lambeth High Street, London.





Research Article