This content is restricted to AACP Members. Click here to become a member.
Abstract
Discussion Forum (0)
Poster Category: Research and Education Poster Abstract
AACP Section: Pharmaceutics
Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of a pharmaceutics course redesign in developing the higher-order cognitive thinking skills (HOCTS) required for clinical reasoning.
Methods: A lecture-based pharmaceutics course was redesigned by adding recitations where students engaged in practical cases and application of concepts after completing a pre-recitation exercise. Multiple-choice exam questions administered before (2016, 2017) and after (2018, 2019) the course redesign were categorized based on Bloom’s taxonomy: remembering and understanding were classified as level 1, whereas applying, analyzing, and evaluating were designated as HOCTS and level 2. Conserved questions administered both before and after the redesign were identified. The effectiveness of the course redesign in emphasizing HOCTS was assessed retroactively by comparing the proportion of level 2 exam questions pre- and post-redesign via Chi-squared analysis with Fisher’s Exact Test. The hypothesis that the course redesign would have a positive impact on student learning was tested by comparing performance on conserved exam questions administered before and after the redesign via a one-tailed paired t-test.
Results: The new course structure emphasized HOCTS more, as evidenced by exams that incorporated a significantly larger proportion (66%) of higher-level questions than before the redesign (57%), p=.007. Student performance overall also improved, with more students answering the conserved questions correctly after the redesign (M 76.95, SD 1.87) than before the redesign (M 71.75, SD 1.96), p=.01.
Conclusion: Adjusting lecture-based basic sciences courses toward active learning can enhance student learning. HOCTS requisite for clinical reasoning can be fostered in pharmacy students by intentionally redesigning pharmaceutics courses to emphasize HOCTS via concept application and clinical cases.
AACP Section: Pharmaceutics
Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of a pharmaceutics course redesign in developing the higher-order cognitive thinking skills (HOCTS) required for clinical reasoning.
Methods: A lecture-based pharmaceutics course was redesigned by adding recitations where students engaged in practical cases and application of concepts after completing a pre-recitation exercise. Multiple-choice exam questions administered before (2016, 2017) and after (2018, 2019) the course redesign were categorized based on Bloom’s taxonomy: remembering and understanding were classified as level 1, whereas applying, analyzing, and evaluating were designated as HOCTS and level 2. Conserved questions administered both before and after the redesign were identified. The effectiveness of the course redesign in emphasizing HOCTS was assessed retroactively by comparing the proportion of level 2 exam questions pre- and post-redesign via Chi-squared analysis with Fisher’s Exact Test. The hypothesis that the course redesign would have a positive impact on student learning was tested by comparing performance on conserved exam questions administered before and after the redesign via a one-tailed paired t-test.
Results: The new course structure emphasized HOCTS more, as evidenced by exams that incorporated a significantly larger proportion (66%) of higher-level questions than before the redesign (57%), p=.007. Student performance overall also improved, with more students answering the conserved questions correctly after the redesign (M 76.95, SD 1.87) than before the redesign (M 71.75, SD 1.96), p=.01.
Conclusion: Adjusting lecture-based basic sciences courses toward active learning can enhance student learning. HOCTS requisite for clinical reasoning can be fostered in pharmacy students by intentionally redesigning pharmaceutics courses to emphasize HOCTS via concept application and clinical cases.
Poster Category: Research and Education Poster Abstract
AACP Section: Pharmaceutics
Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of a pharmaceutics course redesign in developing the higher-order cognitive thinking skills (HOCTS) required for clinical reasoning.
Methods: A lecture-based pharmaceutics course was redesigned by adding recitations where students engaged in practical cases and application of concepts after completing a pre-recitation exercise. Multiple-choice exam questions administered before (2016, 2017) and after (2018, 2019) the course redesign were categorized based on Bloom’s taxonomy: remembering and understanding were classified as level 1, whereas applying, analyzing, and evaluating were designated as HOCTS and level 2. Conserved questions administered both before and after the redesign were identified. The effectiveness of the course redesign in emphasizing HOCTS was assessed retroactively by comparing the proportion of level 2 exam questions pre- and post-redesign via Chi-squared analysis with Fisher’s Exact Test. The hypothesis that the course redesign would have a positive impact on student learning was tested by comparing performance on conserved exam questions administered before and after the redesign via a one-tailed paired t-test.
Results: The new course structure emphasized HOCTS more, as evidenced by exams that incorporated a significantly larger proportion (66%) of higher-level questions than before the redesign (57%), p=.007. Student performance overall also improved, with more students answering the conserved questions correctly after the redesign (M 76.95, SD 1.87) than before the redesign (M 71.75, SD 1.96), p=.01.
Conclusion: Adjusting lecture-based basic sciences courses toward active learning can enhance student learning. HOCTS requisite for clinical reasoning can be fostered in pharmacy students by intentionally redesigning pharmaceutics courses to emphasize HOCTS via concept application and clinical cases.
AACP Section: Pharmaceutics
Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of a pharmaceutics course redesign in developing the higher-order cognitive thinking skills (HOCTS) required for clinical reasoning.
Methods: A lecture-based pharmaceutics course was redesigned by adding recitations where students engaged in practical cases and application of concepts after completing a pre-recitation exercise. Multiple-choice exam questions administered before (2016, 2017) and after (2018, 2019) the course redesign were categorized based on Bloom’s taxonomy: remembering and understanding were classified as level 1, whereas applying, analyzing, and evaluating were designated as HOCTS and level 2. Conserved questions administered both before and after the redesign were identified. The effectiveness of the course redesign in emphasizing HOCTS was assessed retroactively by comparing the proportion of level 2 exam questions pre- and post-redesign via Chi-squared analysis with Fisher’s Exact Test. The hypothesis that the course redesign would have a positive impact on student learning was tested by comparing performance on conserved exam questions administered before and after the redesign via a one-tailed paired t-test.
Results: The new course structure emphasized HOCTS more, as evidenced by exams that incorporated a significantly larger proportion (66%) of higher-level questions than before the redesign (57%), p=.007. Student performance overall also improved, with more students answering the conserved questions correctly after the redesign (M 76.95, SD 1.87) than before the redesign (M 71.75, SD 1.96), p=.01.
Conclusion: Adjusting lecture-based basic sciences courses toward active learning can enhance student learning. HOCTS requisite for clinical reasoning can be fostered in pharmacy students by intentionally redesigning pharmaceutics courses to emphasize HOCTS via concept application and clinical cases.
Role of Course Structure in Developing Clinical Reasoning Skills
Laura Fox
Abstract
Discussion Forum (0)
Poster Category: Research and Education Poster Abstract
AACP Section: Pharmaceutics
Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of a pharmaceutics course redesign in developing the higher-order cognitive thinking skills (HOCTS) required for clinical reasoning.
Methods: A lecture-based pharmaceutics course was redesigned by adding recitations where students engaged in practical cases and application of concepts after completing a pre-recitation exercise. Multiple-choice exam questions administered before (2016, 2017) and after (2018, 2019) the course redesign were categorized based on Bloom’s taxonomy: remembering and understanding were classified as level 1, whereas applying, analyzing, and evaluating were designated as HOCTS and level 2. Conserved questions administered both before and after the redesign were identified. The effectiveness of the course redesign in emphasizing HOCTS was assessed retroactively by comparing the proportion of level 2 exam questions pre- and post-redesign via Chi-squared analysis with Fisher’s Exact Test. The hypothesis that the course redesign would have a positive impact on student learning was tested by comparing performance on conserved exam questions administered before and after the redesign via a one-tailed paired t-test.
Results: The new course structure emphasized HOCTS more, as evidenced by exams that incorporated a significantly larger proportion (66%) of higher-level questions than before the redesign (57%), p=.007. Student performance overall also improved, with more students answering the conserved questions correctly after the redesign (M 76.95, SD 1.87) than before the redesign (M 71.75, SD 1.96), p=.01.
Conclusion: Adjusting lecture-based basic sciences courses toward active learning can enhance student learning. HOCTS requisite for clinical reasoning can be fostered in pharmacy students by intentionally redesigning pharmaceutics courses to emphasize HOCTS via concept application and clinical cases.
AACP Section: Pharmaceutics
Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of a pharmaceutics course redesign in developing the higher-order cognitive thinking skills (HOCTS) required for clinical reasoning.
Methods: A lecture-based pharmaceutics course was redesigned by adding recitations where students engaged in practical cases and application of concepts after completing a pre-recitation exercise. Multiple-choice exam questions administered before (2016, 2017) and after (2018, 2019) the course redesign were categorized based on Bloom’s taxonomy: remembering and understanding were classified as level 1, whereas applying, analyzing, and evaluating were designated as HOCTS and level 2. Conserved questions administered both before and after the redesign were identified. The effectiveness of the course redesign in emphasizing HOCTS was assessed retroactively by comparing the proportion of level 2 exam questions pre- and post-redesign via Chi-squared analysis with Fisher’s Exact Test. The hypothesis that the course redesign would have a positive impact on student learning was tested by comparing performance on conserved exam questions administered before and after the redesign via a one-tailed paired t-test.
Results: The new course structure emphasized HOCTS more, as evidenced by exams that incorporated a significantly larger proportion (66%) of higher-level questions than before the redesign (57%), p=.007. Student performance overall also improved, with more students answering the conserved questions correctly after the redesign (M 76.95, SD 1.87) than before the redesign (M 71.75, SD 1.96), p=.01.
Conclusion: Adjusting lecture-based basic sciences courses toward active learning can enhance student learning. HOCTS requisite for clinical reasoning can be fostered in pharmacy students by intentionally redesigning pharmaceutics courses to emphasize HOCTS via concept application and clinical cases.
Poster Category: Research and Education Poster Abstract
AACP Section: Pharmaceutics
Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of a pharmaceutics course redesign in developing the higher-order cognitive thinking skills (HOCTS) required for clinical reasoning.
Methods: A lecture-based pharmaceutics course was redesigned by adding recitations where students engaged in practical cases and application of concepts after completing a pre-recitation exercise. Multiple-choice exam questions administered before (2016, 2017) and after (2018, 2019) the course redesign were categorized based on Bloom’s taxonomy: remembering and understanding were classified as level 1, whereas applying, analyzing, and evaluating were designated as HOCTS and level 2. Conserved questions administered both before and after the redesign were identified. The effectiveness of the course redesign in emphasizing HOCTS was assessed retroactively by comparing the proportion of level 2 exam questions pre- and post-redesign via Chi-squared analysis with Fisher’s Exact Test. The hypothesis that the course redesign would have a positive impact on student learning was tested by comparing performance on conserved exam questions administered before and after the redesign via a one-tailed paired t-test.
Results: The new course structure emphasized HOCTS more, as evidenced by exams that incorporated a significantly larger proportion (66%) of higher-level questions than before the redesign (57%), p=.007. Student performance overall also improved, with more students answering the conserved questions correctly after the redesign (M 76.95, SD 1.87) than before the redesign (M 71.75, SD 1.96), p=.01.
Conclusion: Adjusting lecture-based basic sciences courses toward active learning can enhance student learning. HOCTS requisite for clinical reasoning can be fostered in pharmacy students by intentionally redesigning pharmaceutics courses to emphasize HOCTS via concept application and clinical cases.
AACP Section: Pharmaceutics
Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of a pharmaceutics course redesign in developing the higher-order cognitive thinking skills (HOCTS) required for clinical reasoning.
Methods: A lecture-based pharmaceutics course was redesigned by adding recitations where students engaged in practical cases and application of concepts after completing a pre-recitation exercise. Multiple-choice exam questions administered before (2016, 2017) and after (2018, 2019) the course redesign were categorized based on Bloom’s taxonomy: remembering and understanding were classified as level 1, whereas applying, analyzing, and evaluating were designated as HOCTS and level 2. Conserved questions administered both before and after the redesign were identified. The effectiveness of the course redesign in emphasizing HOCTS was assessed retroactively by comparing the proportion of level 2 exam questions pre- and post-redesign via Chi-squared analysis with Fisher’s Exact Test. The hypothesis that the course redesign would have a positive impact on student learning was tested by comparing performance on conserved exam questions administered before and after the redesign via a one-tailed paired t-test.
Results: The new course structure emphasized HOCTS more, as evidenced by exams that incorporated a significantly larger proportion (66%) of higher-level questions than before the redesign (57%), p=.007. Student performance overall also improved, with more students answering the conserved questions correctly after the redesign (M 76.95, SD 1.87) than before the redesign (M 71.75, SD 1.96), p=.01.
Conclusion: Adjusting lecture-based basic sciences courses toward active learning can enhance student learning. HOCTS requisite for clinical reasoning can be fostered in pharmacy students by intentionally redesigning pharmaceutics courses to emphasize HOCTS via concept application and clinical cases.
{{ help_message }}
{{filter}}