Integration of interactive methods into the educational process for biological educational components in the conditions of online-learning in pharmaceutical higher education institutions

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15587/2519-4984.2025.349435

Keywords:

interactive methods, online learning, biological educational components, pharmaceutical education, virtual laboratories, gamification, VR/AR technologies, motivation of higher education seekers

Abstract

The aim of the study was to analyze literature sources on the integration of interactive methods into online teaching of biological educational components in pharmaceutical higher education institutions. Determine the effectiveness of interactive methods and offer relevant recommendations for their implementation in higher education institutions.

An analysis of popular interactive methods, such as virtual laboratories, gamification, virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) technologies, interactive videos and simulations, was conducted using publications in the international scientometric databases PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar and Web of Science.

According to an analysis of literary sources, it has been confirmed that the introduction of modern interactive methods increases the motivation of higher education seekers by up to 50 %, improves the mastery of educational material by up to 40 % and improves the development of practical skills. The obstacles to the integration of modern interactive methods are technical barriers, insufficient training of scientific and pedagogical staff, and limited access of higher education students to the relevant technologies.

The integration of interactive methods into the educational process for biological educational components in the context of online learning is a necessary condition for improving the quality of pharmaceutical education. The analysis of selected literature sources has shown that the introduction of modern interactive methods increases students' interest in mastering educational components and improves educational outcomes.

The study also resulted in the formation of recommendations for pharmaceutical higher education institutions in Ukraine, which are adapted for the implementation of popular and accessible platforms such as Labster, Kahoot, Moodle, and 3D Organon in the organisation of the educational process

Author Biographies

Igor Seniuk, National University of Pharmacy

PhD, Associate Professor

Department of Clinical Laboratory Diagnostics, Microbiology, and Biological Chemistry

Vіra Kravchenko, National University of Pharmacy

Doctor of Biological Sciences, Professor, Head of Department

Department of Clinical Laboratory Diagnostics, Microbiology, and Biological Chemistry

Oleksandr Honcharov, National University of Pharmacy

PhD, Associate Professor

Department of Pharmacognosy and Nutriciology

Liubov Galuzinska, National University of Pharmacy

PhD, Associate Professor

Department of Clinical Laboratory Diagnostics, Microbiology, and Biological Chemistry

Olena Matviichuk, National University of Pharmacy

PhD, Associate Professor

Department of Clinical Laboratory Diagnostics, Microbiology, and Biological Chemistry

References

  1. Newsom, L. C., Miller, S. W., Chesson, M. (2021). Use of Digital vs Printed Posters for Teaching and Learning in Pharmacy Education. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 85 (6), 8307. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe8307
  2. Pires, C. (2022). Perceptions of Pharmacy Students on the E-Learning Strategies Adopted during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review. Pharmacy, 10 (1), 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy10010031
  3. Tene, T., Vique López, D. F., Valverde Aguirre, P. E., Orna Puente, L. M., Vacacela Gomez, C. (2024). Virtual reality and augmented reality in medical education: an umbrella review. Frontiers in Digital Health, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2024.1365345
  4. Sipii, V., Kurtiak, F., Mykhaliuk, I., Hryhorchuk, I., Zasiekina, T. (2024). Virtual laboratories as a means of increasing accessibility of biological education in Ukraine. Periodicals of Engineering and Natural Sciences (PEN), 12 (4), 627–636. https://doi.org/10.21533/pen.v12.i4.64
  5. Mayer, R. E., Fiorella, L. (Eds.) (2021). The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108894333
  6. Murillo-Zamorano, L. R., López Sánchez, J. Á., Godoy-Caballero, A. L., Bueno Muñoz, C. (2021). Gamification and active learning in higher education: is it possible to match digital society, academia and students’ interests? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00249-y
  7. Radianti, J., Majchrzak, T. A., Fromm, J., Wohlgenannt, I. (2020). A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Computers & Education, 147, 103778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103778
  8. Makransky, G., Terkildsen, T. S., Mayer, R. E. (2019). Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes more presence but less learning. Learning and Instruction, 60, 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.007
  9. Islam, F., Krishna, A., Kumari, S. (2025). The Impact of Gamification in Research and Education: A Communication Review. Gamification and Augmented Reality, 3, 101. https://doi.org/10.56294/gr2025101
  10. Gharib, A. M., Bindoff, I. K., Peterson, G. M., Salahudeen, M. S. (2023). Computer-Based Simulators in Pharmacy Practice Education: A Systematic Narrative Review. Pharmacy, 11 (1), 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy11010008
  11. Kolil, V. K., Muthupalani, S., Achuthan, K. (2020). Virtual experimental platforms in chemistry laboratory education and its impact on experimental self-efficacy. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00204-3
  12. Dichev, C., Dicheva, D. (2017). Gamifying education: what is known, what is believed and what remains uncertain: a critical review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0042-5
  13. Pottle, J. (2019). Virtual reality and the transformation of medical education. Future Healthcare Journal, 6 (3), 181–185. https://doi.org/10.7861/fhj.2019-0036
  14. Thisgaard, M., Makransky, G. (2017). Virtual Learning Simulations in High School: Effects on Cognitive and Non-cognitive Outcomes and Implications on the Development of STEM Academic and Career Choice. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00805
  15. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111 (23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
  16. Zainuddin, Z., Chu, S. K. W., Shujahat, M., Perera, C. J. (2020). The impact of gamification on learning and instruction: A systematic review of empirical evidence. Educational Research Review, 30, 100326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100326
  17. Moro, C., Štromberga, Z., Raikos, A., Stirling, A. (2017). The effectiveness of virtual and augmented reality in health sciences and medical anatomy. Anatomical Sciences Education, 10 (6), 549–559. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1696
  18. Schneider, J., Felkai, C., Munro, I. (2022). A Comparison of Real and Virtual Laboratories for Pharmacy Teaching. Pharmacy, 10 (5), 133. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy10050133
  19. Sailer, M., Homner, L. (2019). The Gamification of Learning: a Meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 32 (1), 77–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09498-w
  20. Bogomolova, K., Sam, A. H., Misky, A. T., Gupte, C. M., Strutton, P. H., Hurkxkens, T. J., Hierck, B. P. (2021). Development of a Virtual Three‐Dimensional Assessment Scenario for Anatomical Education. Anatomical Sciences Education, 14 (3), 385–393. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2055
  21. Choi-Lundberg, D. L., Butler-Henderson, K., Harman, K., Crawford, J. (2023). A systematic review of digital innovations in technology-enhanced learning designs in higher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 39 (3), 133–162. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.7615
  22. Lei, H., Chiu, M. M., Wang, D., Wang, C., Xie, T. (2022). Effects of Game-Based Learning on Students’ Achievement in Science: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60 (6), 1373–1398. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211064543
  23. Wu, B., Yu, X., Gu, X. (2020). Effectiveness of immersive virtual reality using head‐mounted displays on learning performance: A meta‐analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51 (6), 1991–2005. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13023
  24. Brinson, J. R. (2015). Learning outcome achievement in non-traditional (virtual and remote) versus traditional (hands-on) laboratories: A review of the empirical research. Computers & Education, 87, 218–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.003
  25. Chang, C.-Y., Wu, M.-C., Yang, J. C. (2025). A watch-summarize-question gamified learning approach for oral health: learning achievement, motivation, and flossing skills. BMC Oral Health, 25 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-025-06888-1
  26. Nicholson, S.; Reiners, T., Wood, L. (Eds.) (2015). A Recipe for Meaningful Gamification. Gamification in Education and Business. Cham: Springer, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10208-5_1
  27. Ekici, M. (2021). A systematic review of the use of gamification in flipped learning. Education and Information Technologies, 26 (3), 3327–3346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10394-y
  28. Al-Azawi, R., Al-Faliti, F., Al-Blushi, M. (2016). Educational Gamification Vs. Game Based Learning: Comparative Study. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 7 (4), 131–136. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijimt.2016.7.4.659
  29. Nurfadilah, N., Bancong, H., Saad, R., Fiskawarni, T. H. (2025). Direction of Gamification in Science Education: Literature Review and Indexed Bibliography. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 24 (4), 568–591. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.24.4.26
  30. Hwang, G.-J., Wu, P.-H., Chen, C.-C., Tu, N.-T. (2015). Effects of an augmented reality-based educational game on students’ learning achievements and attitudes in real-world observations. Interactive Learning Environments, 24 (8), 1895–1906. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1057747
  31. Merchant, Z., Goetz, E. T., Cifuentes, L., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., Davis, T. J. (2014). Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students’ learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 70, 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.033
  32. Parong, J., Mayer, R. E. (2018). Learning science in immersive virtual reality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110 (6), 785–797. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000241
  33. Landers, R. N., Auer, E. M., Helms, A. B., Marin, S., Armstrong, M. B. (2019). Gamification of Adult Learning: Gamifying Employee Training and Development. The Cambridge Handbook of Technology and Employee Behavior. Cambridge, 271–295. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108649636.012
  34. Smith, M. K., Vinson, E. L., Smith, J. A., Lewin, J. D., Stetzer, M. R. (2014). A Campus-Wide Study of STEM Courses: New Perspectives on Teaching Practices and Perceptions. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 13 (4), 624–635. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-06-0108
  35. Mayer, R. E. (2020). Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press.
  36. Smetana, L. K., Bell, R. L. (2012). Computer Simulations to Support Science Instruction and Learning: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 34 (9), 1337–1370. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.605182
  37. Krath, J., Schürmann, L., von Korflesch, H. F. O. (2021). Revealing the theoretical basis of gamification: A systematic review and analysis of theory in research on gamification, serious games and game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 125, 106963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106963
  38. Yu, Q., Yu, K. (2023). The effects of gamified flipped classroom on student learning: evidence from a meta-analysis. Interactive Learning Environments, 32 (9), 5126–5141. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2209791
  39. Walsh, A., O’Brien, R., McGuire, K., Power, D. (2025). Exploring Virtual Reality as a Tool for Enhancing Teaching and Learning Anatomy to Medical Students: A Feasibility and Acceptability Study. The Clinical Teacher, 22 (5). https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.70191
  40. Godsk, M., Møller, K. L. (2024). Engaging students in higher education with educational technology. Education and Information Technologies, 30 (3), 2941–2976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12901-x
  41. Santos López, I. M., Torrente-Patiño, Á. (2020). Gamification in education: State of the art. H2D–Revista de Humanidades Digitais, 2 (1). https://doi.org/10.21814/h2d.2163
  42. Shanmugasundaram, M., Tamilarasu, A. (2023). The impact of digital technology, social media, and artificial intelligence on cognitive functions: a review. Frontiers in Cognition, 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcogn.2023.1203077
  43. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness. Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040
  44. Martín-Valero, R., Vega-Morales Sr, A., Martín-Vega, F. J., Rodriguez-Huguet, M., Rodríguez-Martínez, M. C., Vinolo-Gil, M. J. (2025). Effectiveness of Augmented Reality in the Teaching of Health University Students: Quasi-Experimental Study. JMIR Serious Games, 13, e54312–e54312. https://doi.org/10.2196/54312
  45. Gniezdilova, V., Mykytyn, T., Riznychuk, N., Pryimak, A. (2025). The use of online laboratories and simulators in biology classes. Dnipro Academy of Continuing Education Herald. Series: Philosophy, Pedagogy, 1 (1), 143–150. https://doi.org/10.54891/2786-7013-2025-1-17
  46. Hrytsai, Y. (2025). Model of development of the digital educational environment of a general secondary education institution. ScienceRise: Pedagogical Education, 3 (64), 33–38. https://doi.org/10.15587/2519-4984.2025.336935
  47. Al‐Neklawy, A. F., Ismail, A. S. A. (2021). Online anatomy team‐based learning using blackboard collaborate platform during COVID‐19 pandemic. Clinical Anatomy, 35 (1), 87–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.23797

Downloads

Published

2025-12-30

How to Cite

Seniuk, I., Kravchenko, V., Honcharov, O., Galuzinska, L., & Matviichuk, O. (2025). Integration of interactive methods into the educational process for biological educational components in the conditions of online-learning in pharmaceutical higher education institutions. ScienceRise: Pedagogical Education, (4 (65), 64–75. https://doi.org/10.15587/2519-4984.2025.349435

Issue

No. 4 (65) (2025)

Section

Pedagogical Education

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Igor Seniuk, Vіra Kravchenko, Oleksandr Honcharov, Liubov Galuzinska, Olena Matviichuk

Creative Commons License

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

Our journal abides by the Creative Commons CC BY copyright rights and permissions for open access journals.

Authors, who are published in this journal, agree to the following conditions:

1. The authors reserve the right to authorship of the work and pass the first publication right of this work to the journal under the terms of a Creative Commons CC BY, which allows others to freely distribute the published research with the obligatory reference to the authors of the original work and the first publication of the work in this journal.

 2. The authors have the right to conclude separate supplement agreements that relate to non-exclusive work distribution in the form in which it has been published by the journal (for example, to upload the work to the online storage of the journal or publish it as part of a monograph), provided that the reference to the first publication of the work in this journal is included.