One size does not fit all in the assessment of pharmacology learning in a diverse multidisciplinary undergraduate student class
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20151373Keywords:
Pharmacology, Assessment, Multidisciplinary student groupsAbstract
Background: Assessment not only drives student learning but is also an indicator of the success of teaching methodologies employed. There is considerable pressure on pharmacology instructors to effectively teach the discipline to diverse multidisciplinary (biochemistry, chemistry, physiology, and medicine) undergraduate students. To date, there are no studies documenting and assessing pharmacology learning in the aforementioned group. This is an 8 years retrospective study aimed at compiling, analyzing, and evaluating different types of assessment to gauge multidisciplinary student learning in pharmacology.
Methods: Quantitative and qualitative (rather than single) methods of data collection were used to provide a richer and mutually corroborative array of evidence. Assessment of student learning included computer-based assessment (CBA) of laboratory practicals, end of the module (EOM) multiple choice questions (MCQ) examination and an EOM essay paper.
Results: Our findings indicate significant variation in students’ scores depending on the type of assessment employed. Strikingly over the 8-year period annual mean scores in the physiology student cohort were consistently and significantly lower compared to other groups. This contrasts with the medical student cohort who demonstrated a consistent and significant increase in mean scores compared to overall class means. Interestingly, no deviations were observed in the overall CBA, MCQ scores among all student groups. However, on closer analysis laboratory practical type influenced student performances with lower scores in the computer-assisted learning (CAL) CBA versus the wet laboratory practical CBA.
Conclusion: Our research-based evidence suggests that certain modes of assessment may preferentially suit some but not all students from multidisciplinary backgrounds within the one pharmacology class.
References
Kwan CY. Problem-based learning and teaching of medical pharmacology. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 2002;366(1):10-7.
Lymn JS, Mostyn A. Audience response technology: engaging and empowering non-medical prescribing students in pharmacology learning. BMC Med Educ. 2010;10:73-83.
Achike FI, Ogle CW. Information overload in the teaching of pharmacology. J Clin Pharmacol. 2000;40;177-83.
Barry OP, O’Sullivan E, McCarthy M. Periodic review sessions contribute to student learning across the disciplines in pharmacology. J Scholarsh Teach Learn. 2015;15(1):38-56.
Gardner H, Boix Mansilla V. Teaching for understanding within and across the disciplines. Educ Leadersh. 1994;51:14-8.
Mcbane S, Mesaros J. Teaching pharmacology in a physician assistant program. J Physician Assist Educ. 2010;21:18-22.
Brown S. Assessment for learning. Learn Teach High Educ. 2004;7(1):81-9.
Murtagh L, Baker N. Feedback to Feed forward: student response to tutors’ written comments on assignments. Pract Res High Educ. 2009;3:20-8.
Brown S, Smith B. Getting to Grips with Assessment. Birmingham: SEDA Publications; 1997.
Brown S, Knight P. Assessing Learners in Higher Education. London: Kogan Page; 1994.
Goodman LJ, Brueschke EE, Bone RC, Rose WH, Williams EJ, Paul HA. An experiment in medical education: a critical analysis using traditional criteria. J Am Med Assoc. 1991;265:2373-6.
Gijbels D, Dochy F, Van den Bossche P, Segers M. Effects of problem-based learning: a meta-analysis from the angle of assessment. Rev Educ Res. 2005;75(1):27-61.
Marin-Campos Y, Mendoza-Morales L, Navarro-Hernández JA. Students’ assessment of problems in a problem-based learning pharmacology course. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2004;9(4):299-307.
Burande MA, Patil DY. Student assessment in pharmacology by innovative methods. 2013. Available at http://www.iahpe.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/NCHPE2009/images/Student%20assessment%20in%20pharmacology%20by%20Innovative%20Methods_02.pdf. Accessed 25 September 2015.
Rogers KM. A feasibility study on the development and integration of a teaching aid for pharmacology. Int J Mod Educ Forum. 2012;1(2):53-61.
Sekhri K Teaching methodologies in pharmacology. A survey of students’ perceptions and experiences. J Educ Ethics Dent. 2012;2(1):40-4.
Dewhurst D. Computer-based alternatives to using animals in teaching physiology and pharmacology to undergraduate students. Altern Lab Anim. 2004;32 Suppl 1B:517-20.
Sheader E, Gouldsborough I, Grady R. Staff and student perceptions of computer-assisted assessment for physiology practical classes. Adv Physiol Educ. 2006;30:174-80.
Sim SM, Rasiah RI. Relationship between item difficulty and discrimination indices in true/false-type multiple choice questions of a para-clinical multidisciplinary paper. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2006;35:67-71.
Bloom SB, Krathwhol R, Masia BB. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: book 2 Affective Domain. New York: Longman; 1956.
Thompson AR, Braun MW, O’Loughlin VD. A comparison of student performance on discipline-specific versus integrated exams in a medical school course. Adv Physiol Educ. 2013;37(4):370-6.
Oppenheim AN. Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. 2nd Edition. London: St. Martin’s Press; 1992.
Katz MH. Multivariable Analysis: a Practical Guide for Clinicians. 2nd Edition. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2006.
Hughes IE. Do computer simulations of laboratory practical’s meet learning needs? Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2001;22(2):71-4.
Morttram D, Nicholls PJ. Computer-assisted learning versus laboratory practical’s – is there a conflict?. Pharm J Educ Careers Suppl. 1994;253:E15-6.
Sewell RD, Stevens RG, Lewis DJ. Pharmacology experimental benefits from the use of computer-assisted learning. Am J Pharm Educ. 1996;60:303-7.
Cox R. Examinations and higher education: a survey of the literature. High Educ Q. 1967;21(3):292-340.
Gardiner LF, Anderson C, Cambridge BL, editors. Learning Through Assessment: a Resource Guide for Higher Education. Washington DC: American Association for Higher Education Assessment Forum; 1997: 116.
Palomba CA, Banta TW. Assessment Essentials: planning, Implementing, and Improving Assessment in Higher Education. San Francisco: Wiley: Jossey-Bass; 1999: 405.
Momin Mujeeb A, Pardeshi ML, Ghongane BB. Comparative assessment of multiple choice questions versus short essay questions in pharmacology examinations. Indian J Med Sci. 2010;64(3):118-24.
Oyebola DD, Adewoye OE, Iyaniwura JO, Alada AR, Fasanmade AA, Raji Y. A comparative study of students’ performance in preclinical physiology assessed by multiple choice and short essay questions. Afr J Med Med Sci. 2000;29(3-4):201-5.
Sambell K, McDowell L, Montgomery C. Assessment for Learning in Higher Education. London: Routledge; 2013.
Meherns WA, Lehmann IJ. Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1991.
Norman G. Multiple choice question.,. Evaluation Methods: a Resource Handbook. Chapter. 4.1. The Program for Educational Development. McMaster University. Hamilton, Canada: McMaster University; 1995: 47-54.
Pietzman SJ, Nieman LZ, Gracely EJ. Comparison of “fact-recall” with “higher-order” questions in multiple-choice examinations as predictors of clinical performance of medical students. Acad Med. 1990;65:S59-60.
Schul JE. Revisiting and old friend: the practice and promise of cooperative learning for the twenty-first century. Soc Stud. 2012;102:88-93.
Sharan Y. Cooperative Learning for Academic and Social Gains: valued pedagogy, problematic practice. Eur J Educ. 2010;45(2):300-13.
Baños JE, Reverte M, Bosch F. Teaching of pharmacology in the 21st century: new challenges and opportunities. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2002;23:294-6.
Higgins-Opitz SB, Tufts M. Performance of first-year health sciences students in a large, diverse, multidisciplinary, first-semester, physiology service module. Adv Physiol Educ. 2014;38:161-9.
Murphy R. Evaluating new priorities for assessment in higher education. In: Bryan C, Clegg K, editors. Innovative Assessment in Higher Education. Routledge: London; 2006.
