- Research Article
- 10.1093/ajcp/aqaf121.455
28 The Clinical Pathology Laboratory in 360° Virtual Reality
- Nov 01, 2025
- American Journal of Clinical Pathology
- Hamilton Tsang + 6 more +6
Abstract Background In the wake of social distancing, many institutions resorted to using varying levels of digital education modalities and virtual tours for education or recruitment. The virtual reality (VR) simulations use partial immersion through a digital learning environment to foster a perceived lived experience for an intended outcome. Integrating simulation and interactive media fits within gamification with has shown effectiveness to increase learner engagement and retention. Objective This study aimed to enhance medical education by integrating 360° VR tours into the clinical pathology curriculum and to evaluate the effectiveness of VR compared to traditional didactic methods, primarily in regards to interactivity and with a secondary outcome of retention. Methods Seven 360° VR tours were developed for pathology laboratories at a large academic medical center. Two (Microbiology and Transfusion Services) were selected for further enhancement and integration into the curriculum of remote learning courses. A controlled crossover study was conducted with 171 medical students (83% MS4) from April 2021 to April 2023. The students were randomly assigned to participate in either VR or PowerPoint (PP) presentations. Surveys on a 5-point Likert scale and learning assessments were used to measure understanding, interactivity, relevance, engagement, and knowledge retention. Results 15 course cohorts contained 171 enrolled students. Approximately 14% of students (n = 23) stated a primary career interest in pathology at the outset of the rotation, and 6 students (3.5%) later became residents in the institution’s pathology department. 16 students were unable to participate in the proctored activity due to scheduling conflicts. 155 students were randomized into the experimental comparison of the VR and PP tour formats. With a response rate exceeding 90%, VR participants rated interactivity significantly higher than PP participants (average 4.48 vs. 3.48, p < 0.001). VR participants also demonstrated higher engagement scores (average 4.21 vs. 3.92, p = 0.004), although average assessment scores were slightly lower for VR participants than for PP participants (6.2 vs. 6.5, p = 0.1). In-depth textual analysis highlighted themes of enhanced engagement and interactivity, although some students reported challenges with VR navigation. Conclusions The integration of 360° VR tours into the clinical pathology curriculum enhances interactivity and learner engagement, presenting a scalable solution for remote learning. This modality is especially suited for educational activities where the location and environment are critical experiential components. While VR tours did not substantially improve short-term knowledge retention compared to traditional methods, they significantly increased student engagement, an essential component for effective learning. Limitations such as navigation difficulties and technological barriers underscore the need for iterative improvements in VR experiences. These findings support the continued use of VR tours as a supplementary educational tool, complementing traditional curricula to provide a more immersive and interactive educational experience.
Read more