implementing active learning strategies in a large class setting
DESCRIPTION
Implementing Active Learning Strategies in a Large Class Setting. Travis White, Pharm.D., Assistant Professor Kristy Lucas, Pharm.D., Professor Pharmacy Practice Department. Outline. Background: Why change? Course description: What changed? Outcomes: Student and Faculty response - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Implementing Active Learning Strategies
in a Large Class Setting
Travis White, Pharm.D., Assistant Professor
Kristy Lucas, Pharm.D., Professor
Pharmacy Practice Department
Outline
• Background: Why change? • Course description: What changed?• Outcomes: Student and Faculty response• Future direction: How to make it better?
Background: UCSOP
– 4 year Doctor of Pharmacy graduate program began in 2006
– Class size 70-80 students– First 1.5 yr = basic sciences– Clinical content (pharmacotherapy course)
begins in 2nd yr• Team-taught
• 4th year: Experiential clinical rotations
Pharmacotherapy Course
• 3 semesters x 8 hour course each – 24 hr of Pharm.D. curriculum
• Historically:– slides-based lectures– Assessment: M/C exams ~ 6 per semester
Why Change?
• Students unfamiliar with content provided outside of slides (i.e., not reading textbook)
• Exam preparation consisted of memorizing slides
• Application of content & recall tested in 4th year (clinical rotations): seek improvement
Why Change?• GOAL:
• Increase student abilities & clinical skills by incorporating ACTIVE LEARNING in the classroom
• Strategies: • Impose penalty for not reading in advance,
individual responsibility for ability to apply content• Create environment of discussion in each class
session• Provide case days for team work application of
content
What Changed?Pharmacotherapy Course Revised• New format:
– Discussion-based lectures– Class participation points allocated by
answering questions from required reading– IRATs (guide student preparation for class)– CP points = 20% of course grade– Text geared toward application: case-based
Pharmacotherapy Course Revised
• Continued M/C exams (5), added comprehensive final exam (52% course grade)– Required to achieve exam average 70% or higher
to pass course• Built in team case days (every other week)
– Create a patient’s therapy management plan– IRATs & TRATs– Self & Peer evaluations– Overall 28% of course grade
Outcomes
• Student Responses– Based on course evaluations
• Faculty Responses– Faculty Attitudes Toward Teaching Survey
(FATTS)
Faculty Responses
• Faculty Attitudes Toward Teaching Survey– Administered twice with minor differences
• Prior to beginning of course– 11 surveys returned
• Following course completion and before the next semester
– 5 surveys returned
Survey Content
• Teaching experience of the instructor• Responsibility for learning• Concerns about the new format• Positive aspects of the change• Feeling of instructor preparedness
Survey Content Continued
• Thoughts on expanding format to other courses
• Faculty development needs• Opinions about benefits of active learning
strategies• Other comments section
FATTS Experience
Content (Teaching Experience) Range Mean Score
Number of lecture hours teaching fall 2010 0 – 14 6.45 hrs
Number of case hours teaching fall 2010 0 – 8 1.82 hrs
Number of years teaching experience 0 – 27 5.64 yrs
Number of years taught Pharmacotherapy 0 – 27 5.09 yrs
FATTS Active Learning
Which best describes experience with active learning?
No. Response % Response
Tried 1 – 2 times/class sessions 0 0
Used randomly in different courses 3 0.27
Used for entire or majority of delivery 3 0.27
FATTS Responsibility
StudentInstructor
Both
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Pre-CoursePost-Course
% R
espo
nden
ts
Primary Responsibility for Student Learning
FATTS Concerns
Concerns: Mean Score Pre-Course
Mean ScorePost-Course
Time required to prepare for class 3.27 3.00
Facilitating discussion vs. lecturing 3.18 2.40
Logistics of course policies 3.18 2.80
Limited familiarity with content 2.27 2.60
Student performance on assessments 2.00 1.60
Student responsiveness to new format 2.64 2.60
Scale: 1= Not concerned at all5= Extremely concerned
FATTS Positives
Positives Mean ScorePre-Course
Mean ScorePost-Course
Less time required for class preparation 2.91 2.60
More student interaction/engagement with material
4.27 4.60
Less out of class time required for student questions
2.91 2.60
Ability to write more meaningful test questions 3.82 2.80
Students will learn more applicable content 4.27 4.00
More structured course policies 2.91 3.00
Scale: 1= Not positive at all5= Extremely positive
Student Responses
• Based on course evaluations• Three different perspectives
– Pharmacotherapy 2 (Fall)– Pharmacotherapy 3 (Spring)– Pharmacotherapy 1
• Spring semester 2011• Second year students
Both third year students
First Impressions
• Most Positive– Learning/Retaining– More discussion– Helping my grade– IRAT– Reading
• Most Negative– Class participation
points– No lecturing– Case grading– IRAT– Amount of reading
Moving Forward
– Changes Based on Student Feedback• Class Participation Points• Individual Readiness Assessment Tests• Patient Case Grading Rubric
Class Participation Points
• Originally 20% of final grade– 70% class participation questions– 30% IRATs and other assignments
• Changed to 15% of final grade– Class participation questions– Other assignments– Eliminated IRAT altogether
Patient Case Rubric
• Changed point structure– Previous rubric resulted in large gap in
student grade with little gap in information• Collaboration between faculty to
encourage consistency
Round Two
• Continued course structure during Spring semester with changes implemented– Pharmacotherapy 3 (Third year students)
• Student Feedback– Course evaluations were much improved– Focused on course content rather than course
structure
Differing Perspectives
• Second Year Students– First experience with
course and format– Very positive
evaluations– Minimal negative
feedback
• Positives– Class Format– Active Learning
Strategies– Class Participation
Questions– More prepared for exam– Retained material better