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

Conclusions

• Challenges are likely when switching teaching strategies but can be overcome

• Faculty have done well adapting to the change and enjoy the increased interaction

• Students had differing opinions at first but have done well with the new format