ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF APPLYING ACTIVE LEARNING METHODS IN LECTURE AND PRACTICAL CLASSES ON THE BASICS OF PHARMACOLOGY AND PHYTOTHERAPY

ABSTRACT

The use of Active learning methods (think, pair, share methods (TPS)) in undergraduate students, majoring in Biomedicine, 3rd year, discipline "Fundamentals of Pharmacology and Phytotherapy" at the Kazakh National University named after Al-Farabi showed high learning efficiency in lectures and practical classes. The quality of education and students' academic performance improved. The TPS method consisted in the teacher posing problematic questions during the lecture and practical class. The solutions were discussed in pairs, then in a group. The method encouraged students to actively prepare for lectures and practical classes to search for scientific information on the topic. The advantage of the active TPS method is that at the first stage, the student independently searched for an answer by reading numerous scientific resources, at the second stage, the student understood the strengths and weaknesses of the topic, as students exchanged information and expanded their knowledge during the discussion. Thanks to the active discussion of the problem, they expanded their skills in teamwork, criticism, evidence-based scientific discussion, active assimilation of a new context and decision-making. The following competencies were formed: information literacy, the ability to conduct reasoned discussions of scientific problems, the ability to defend one's own and accept others' opinions, the ability to make decisions, speak publicly and defend a team decision.

АННОТАЦИЯ

Применение активного метода обучения (think, pair, share methods (TPS)) у студентов бакалавров, специальность «Биомедицина» 3 курс, дисциплина «Основы фармакологии и фитотерапии» в Казахском национальном университете имени аль-Фараби показали высокую результативность обучения на лекционных и практических занятиях. Повысилось качество обучения и успеваемость студентов. Метод TPS заключался в том, что преподаватель ставил проблемные вопросы в процессе лекции и практического занятия. Решения обсуждались в паре, потом в группе. Метод стимулировал студентов к активной подготовке к лекционным и практическим занятиям для поиска научной информации по данной теме. Преимущество активного TPS метода в том, что на первом этапе студент самостоятельно искал ответ, читая многочисленные научные ресурсы, на втором этапе студент понимал слабые и сильные стороны данной темы, так как студенты обменивались информацией и расширяли свои познания в процессе обсуждения. Благодаря активному обсуждению проблемы они расширяли свои навыки в командной работе, критике, доказательном научном обсуждении, активном усвоении нового контекста и принятия решений. Формировались следующие компетенции: информационная грамотность, умение вести аргументированные обсуждения научных проблем, умение отстаивать своё и принимать чужие мнения, умение принимать решения, публично выступать и защищать командное решение.

Keywords: active learning methods; problem-based learning; think, pair, share methods; academic performance; quality of education; learning outcomes.

Ключевые слова: активные методы обучения; проблемно-ориентированное обучение; методы «думай, работай в парах, делись»; успеваемость; качество образования; результаты обучения.

INTRODUCTION

Relevance.

The modern education system sets a requirement—every teacher must strive to enhance their pedagogical mastery and, alongside traditional methods, incorporate innovative teaching approaches [1,2,3]. A majority number of factors (technical, linguistic, psychological, and others) influence the teaching process and its outcomes. Even with the most well-organized educational process, we cannot unambiguously predict the learning outcomes when applying new teaching methods to a specific discipline. Evaluating the effectiveness of the TPS teaching method in the course "Fundamentals of Pharmacology and Phytotherapy" is necessary to assess the efficiency of pedagogical innovations and technologies in teaching biomedical disciplines.

Novelty and Purpose of the Study.

This study aims to conduct a comparative analysis of the application of Active Learning Methods (Think-Pair-Share (TPS) methods) and the traditional lecture-presentation method by assessing student performance, learning quality, and effectiveness indicators during lectures and practical sessions among third-year students majoring in 6B05108-Biomedicine in the "Fundamentals of Pharmacology and Phytotherapy" course at the Faculty of Biology and Biotechnology of Al-Farabi Kazakh National University.

Scientific and Practical Significance.

The study will contribute to the development of practical recommendations for the implementation of innovative teaching methods for biomedical specialties.

We agree with G. Kardas’ viewpoint that the main fundamental drawback of the lecture-presentation method is that the learning process represents a system with very weak feedback, leading to passive absorption of presentation material [4]. The development of innovative teaching methods aims to improve feedback with students, engaging them in the educational process to encourage critical thinking and practical mastery of the material. Active learning methods are particularly crucial in training students in practice-oriented fields such as general medicine, pharmacology, pharmacy, and dentistry [3, 4, 5]. A student should not simply attend lectures and practical sessions but must process new material through personal perception of the problem, formulate tasks, and critically analyze new content. The TPS method stimulates independent inquiry, encouraging students to read multiple scientific sources, analyze various scientific theories, and ultimately develop critical thinking and analytical skills. This approach not only improves material retention but also fosters teamwork skills and the ability to apply theoretical knowledge in practice [6].

Each of the applied methods and forms of assessing student learning outcomes has its own advantages, disadvantages, and limitations. A small number of assessment questions do not allow for an objective evaluation of the studied material; questions often do not fully reflect the knowledge, skills, and competencies that should be developed. As a result, the instructor can only estimate, with varying degrees of confidence, whether a student has mastered the material. This judgment remains hypothetical. Even for an experienced teacher, it is impossible to accurately assess a student's knowledge based on one or two questions. During oral assessments in seminars, it is impractical to question all students with a majority number of questions. Additionally, current assessment practices suffer from inefficient time management, a lack of didactic focus, randomness in questioning, failure to consider the subject’s unique characteristics, and a lack of systematic assessment procedures.

We implemented new active assessment methods using electronic resources such as Kahoot, Moodle, and Google Forms. These platforms enabled the creation of tests, quizzes, and interactive assignments that covered a large amount of material, provided immediate feedback, engaged all students in the educational process, and saved instructors' time. Using such tools makes knowledge assessment more objective, purposeful, and systematic.

The role of psychological factors, the general and specialized training of the instructor, and their personal qualities (principled approach, sense of responsibility) cannot be overlooked. All these aspects inevitably influence the assessment and evaluation of knowledge. A teacher’s personal qualities manifest not only in their teaching style but also in their approach to assessing students. Therefore, addressing the issue of subjectivity in assessment requires limiting methods that allow for subjective evaluation. Today, assessment methods utilizing interactive technologies are becoming a priority.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study subjects were third-year students aged 20–25, including 19 female and 13 male students, specializing in 6B05108-Biomedicine, enrolled in the course "Fundamentals of Pharmacology and Phytotherapy." The study was conducted during both lecture and practical sessions.

For the first seven weeks, lectures and practical classes were conducted using the traditional teaching method—the lecture-presentation system [2]. In this method, lecture materials were presented using slides and video content. The instructor delivered the lecture orally, following a structured and didactic approach. During practical classes, students were assessed through oral questioning based on pre-prepared questions.

For the following seven weeks, lectures and practical sessions were conducted using an innovative teaching method—the active learning approach based on the TPS (Think-Pair-Share) method. Students solved and discussed real-world problems, analyzed case studies, and applied their knowledge to develop solutions [6]. The TPS method involved the use of multimedia presentations and interactive elements. The sessions included problem-based learning, analysis of scientific experiments, and discussion of various viewpoints to actively engage students in the learning process. During practical sessions, students were assessed using electronic resources such as Kahoot, Moodle, and Google Forms [7, 8, 9].

Student performance was evaluated using a five-point grading system [10]. Responses were recorded for accuracy, correctness, and errors. Based on the collected data, the following parameters were calculated:

- Academic performance rate (%) – the proportion of students who successfully completed the assignments.

- Knowledge quality rate (%) – the proportion of students who demonstrated a high level of knowledge.

- Learning efficiency rate – the average mastery level of the material across the entire group.

The calculations were performed using the following formulas:

- Academic Performance (%) = (Number of "5" + Number of "4" + Number of "3") / Total number of students × 100.

- Knowledge Quality (%) = (Number of "5" + Number of "4") / Total number of students × 100.

- Learning Efficiency (Educational Effectiveness) = ((Number of "5" + (Number of "4" × 0.64) + (Number of "3" × 0.36) + (Number of "2" × 0.16) + (Number of "1-0" × 0.08))) / Total number of students.

References:

1. Bonwell C.C., Eison J.A. Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. Washington, DC: George Washington University, 1991. – 42 p.
2. Brame C.J., Biel R. Setting Up and Facilitating Group Work: Using Cooperative Learning Groups Effectively. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching, 2015. – 33 p.
3. Crawford P.J., Barrett T.P. The reference librarian and the business professor: a strategic alliance that works // Reference Librarian. – 1997. – Vol. 3, No. 58. – P. 75–85.
4. Freeman S., Eddy S.L., McDonough M. et al. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics // Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. – 2014. – Vol. 111, No. 23. – P. 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
5. Gillies R.M. Cooperative learning: Review of research and practice // Australian Journal of Teacher Education. – 2016. – Vol. 41, No. 3. – P. 39–54.
6. Hmelo-Silver C.E. Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? // Educational Psychology Review. – 2004. – Vol. 16, No. 3. – P. 235–266.
7. Johnson D.W., Johnson R.T., Smith K.A. Cooperative learning: Improving university instruction by basing practice on validated theory // Journal on Excellence in College Teaching. – 2014. – Vol. 25, No. 4. – P. 85–118.
8. Kaddoura M.A. Think Pair Share: A teaching learning strategy to enhance students’ critical thinking // Educational Research Quarterly. – 2013. – Vol. 36, No. 4. – P. 3–24.
9. Mazur E. Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1997. – 253 p.
10. Prince M. Does active learning work? A review of the research // Journal of Engineering Education. – 2004. – Vol. 93, No. 3. – P. 223–231.
11. Tanner K.D. Talking to learn: Why biology students should be talking in classrooms and how to make it happen // CBE—Life Sciences Education. – 2009. – Vol. 8, No. 2. – P. 89–94. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09-03-0021
12. Use of Digital Platforms (Kahoot, Moodle, Google Forms) in Student Assessment [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: https://eduapps.kz/assessment-tools (accessed: 28.05.2025).