Pharmacy, Health Sciences & Exercise Science
A Study of Differences in Exam Preparation of Butler University Pre-Professional and Professional Pharmacy Students
Document Type
Oral Presentation
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Subject Area
Pharmacy, Health Sciences & Exercise Science
Start Date
11-4-2014 10:15 AM
End Date
11-4-2014 11:45 AM
Sponsor
Laurie Pylitt (Butler University)
Description
Background: As a result of faculty discussions twenty years ago, cluster exams were created in an attempt to improve student outcomes. Prior to cluster exams, exams were scheduled at the discretion of the course director, which resulted in about 1 exam per week for a given cohort of students. The theory behind clustering exams was that it would allow students to manage their own time throughout the semester to plan and prepare in between exams.
Methods: A cross-sectional study was done comparing exam preparation methods with 2nd year pre-professional (PreP2) students and 2nd year professional pharmacy (P2) students. The survey was conducted electronically by using Survey Monkey® and the link to the survey was sent using appropriate pharmacy listservs. The survey asked students about various exam preparation methods, timing of exam preparation, and self-reported grades on exams in the most recent semester. The survey results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Demographic data from the survey was used to determine the strength of similarity between the two cohorts.
Results: A total of 82 pharmacy students completed the survey: 7 PreP2 students, 51 P2 students, and 24 responded as neither PreP2 nor P2. Out of the 24 who answered neither PreP2 nor P2, 22 respondents (92%) matched demographic data of respondents identifying themselves as PreP2. Analysis of the response frequencies showed the following: Pre-P2 class preferred to ask professors questions "during lecture time" compared to P2 class (57% vs 9.8%). The majority of the Pre-P2 and P2 class preferred to ask questions "via email" (57.1% vs 78%). Forty-three percent of PreP2 respondents never review course objectives whereas 40% of P2 always review course objectives.
Conclusion: While statistical significance was not tested, the data does suggest some major differences between the study cohorts. This information might help faculty members develop strategies to improve students' performance. Responses also indicate that the PreP2 cohort might not have been aware of the terminology used for sophomore pharmacy majors, which resulted in respondents being excluded from analysis. This finding suggests a need for further refinement of the survey tool prior to its use for any additional research.
A Study of Differences in Exam Preparation of Butler University Pre-Professional and Professional Pharmacy Students
Indianapolis, IN
Background: As a result of faculty discussions twenty years ago, cluster exams were created in an attempt to improve student outcomes. Prior to cluster exams, exams were scheduled at the discretion of the course director, which resulted in about 1 exam per week for a given cohort of students. The theory behind clustering exams was that it would allow students to manage their own time throughout the semester to plan and prepare in between exams.
Methods: A cross-sectional study was done comparing exam preparation methods with 2nd year pre-professional (PreP2) students and 2nd year professional pharmacy (P2) students. The survey was conducted electronically by using Survey Monkey® and the link to the survey was sent using appropriate pharmacy listservs. The survey asked students about various exam preparation methods, timing of exam preparation, and self-reported grades on exams in the most recent semester. The survey results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Demographic data from the survey was used to determine the strength of similarity between the two cohorts.
Results: A total of 82 pharmacy students completed the survey: 7 PreP2 students, 51 P2 students, and 24 responded as neither PreP2 nor P2. Out of the 24 who answered neither PreP2 nor P2, 22 respondents (92%) matched demographic data of respondents identifying themselves as PreP2. Analysis of the response frequencies showed the following: Pre-P2 class preferred to ask professors questions "during lecture time" compared to P2 class (57% vs 9.8%). The majority of the Pre-P2 and P2 class preferred to ask questions "via email" (57.1% vs 78%). Forty-three percent of PreP2 respondents never review course objectives whereas 40% of P2 always review course objectives.
Conclusion: While statistical significance was not tested, the data does suggest some major differences between the study cohorts. This information might help faculty members develop strategies to improve students' performance. Responses also indicate that the PreP2 cohort might not have been aware of the terminology used for sophomore pharmacy majors, which resulted in respondents being excluded from analysis. This finding suggests a need for further refinement of the survey tool prior to its use for any additional research.