Comparison of Pharmacy Students' Performance in a Laboratory Course Delivered Live Versus by Virtual Facilitation
Objective. To compare academic performance in and students' perceptions of an outpatient pharmacy practice laboratory course taught in a traditional laboratory setting vs by virtual facilitation. Methods. An outpatient pharmacy practice laboratory course was taught in a traditional live laborat...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | American journal of pharmaceutical education 2021-02, Vol.85 (2), p.95-101, Article 8072 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 101 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 95 |
container_title | American journal of pharmaceutical education |
container_volume | 85 |
creator | Darr, Amber Y. Kyner, Mackenzie Fletcher, Reanna Yoder, Ashli |
description | Objective. To compare academic performance in and students' perceptions of an outpatient pharmacy practice laboratory course taught in a traditional laboratory setting vs by virtual facilitation.
Methods. An outpatient pharmacy practice laboratory course was taught in a traditional live laboratory setting to 69 students on two campuses in 2016. A year later, the same course was taught via synchronous virtual (ie, remote) facilitation using an internet-based video and chat conference room for communication across two campuses to 91 students. Students' academic performance was evaluated based on major assessments, individual test questions, and final course grades. A course and instructor evaluation were administered to each group of students at the conclusion of each course offering.
Results. Students who completed the live traditional laboratory (2016) had a mean final course grade of 90.1%, while students who completed the virtually facilitated laboratory course (2017) had a mean final course grade of 89.6%. The mean score on course evaluations completed by students in the virtually facilitated course was lower. The difference in scores between individual course and instructor evaluations between 2016 to 2017 was not significant. There was no significant difference found between students’ grades on the midterm and final objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) and written assessment questions between 2016 and 2017.
Conclusion. Students who completed the live traditional laboratory course and those who completed the course in the virtually facilitated setting performed well. Course evaluations revealed student satisfaction with the course and instructor in both settings. These findings suggest that a virtually facilitated laboratory course does not hinder student performance and provides a similar experience as a traditional classroom. |
doi_str_mv | 10.5688/ajpe8072 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7926280</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A658505854</galeid><els_id>S0002945923007568</els_id><sourcerecordid>A658505854</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c487t-f9b1bb584df53a020bf75efae1c6c1a5b535b5a6c81d8170de88cfa5ed736163</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptUlFrFDEQDqLYswr-hIAP-nI12d1ksy9CudoqHFiw9DXMJpM2x25yTXYP7t-bo6elKmEYmHzzTb4vQ8h7zs6EVOozbLaoWFu9IAsuRL2UjWxfkgVjrFp2jehOyJucN4zxRjTVa3JSN5Wq21ouyMMqjltIPsdAo6PX95BGMHv6c5othil_pNeYXCzFYJD6QIGuoY8Jppj2dBXnlJFe4OB3mNDSdcn0FlOeM-339NanaYaBXoLxg59g8jG8Ja8cDBnfHfMpubn8erP6tlz_uPq-Ol8vTaPaaem6nve9UI11ogZWsd61Ah0gN9JwEL2oS4A0ilvFW2ZRKeNAoC26uKxPyZdH2u3cj2hNEZNg0NvkR0h7HcHr5zfB3-u7uNNtV8lKsULw6UiQ4sOMedKjzwaHAQLGOeuqGK0qXteHWR_-gm6KMaGoKyiuGsnqrntC3cGA2gcXy1xzINXnUijBSjQFdfYfVDkWR29iQOdL_VnD8Z0mxZwTuj8aOdOH7dC_t6NAq0coFt93HpPOxmP5WOsTmknb6P9t-gXYzb33</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2518460399</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Pharmacy Students' Performance in a Laboratory Course Delivered Live Versus by Virtual Facilitation</title><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Darr, Amber Y. ; Kyner, Mackenzie ; Fletcher, Reanna ; Yoder, Ashli</creator><creatorcontrib>Darr, Amber Y. ; Kyner, Mackenzie ; Fletcher, Reanna ; Yoder, Ashli</creatorcontrib><description>Objective. To compare academic performance in and students' perceptions of an outpatient pharmacy practice laboratory course taught in a traditional laboratory setting vs by virtual facilitation.
Methods. An outpatient pharmacy practice laboratory course was taught in a traditional live laboratory setting to 69 students on two campuses in 2016. A year later, the same course was taught via synchronous virtual (ie, remote) facilitation using an internet-based video and chat conference room for communication across two campuses to 91 students. Students' academic performance was evaluated based on major assessments, individual test questions, and final course grades. A course and instructor evaluation were administered to each group of students at the conclusion of each course offering.
Results. Students who completed the live traditional laboratory (2016) had a mean final course grade of 90.1%, while students who completed the virtually facilitated laboratory course (2017) had a mean final course grade of 89.6%. The mean score on course evaluations completed by students in the virtually facilitated course was lower. The difference in scores between individual course and instructor evaluations between 2016 to 2017 was not significant. There was no significant difference found between students’ grades on the midterm and final objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) and written assessment questions between 2016 and 2017.
Conclusion. Students who completed the live traditional laboratory course and those who completed the course in the virtually facilitated setting performed well. Course evaluations revealed student satisfaction with the course and instructor in both settings. These findings suggest that a virtually facilitated laboratory course does not hinder student performance and provides a similar experience as a traditional classroom.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-9459</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1553-6467</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.5688/ajpe8072</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34283736</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Alexandria: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Academic achievement ; Brief ; Comparative analysis ; Course Content ; Distance learning ; Drug therapy ; Educational Environment ; Educational technology ; Instructional design ; Laboratories ; Learner Engagement ; Medical students ; outpatient practice laboratory ; Perceptions ; Pharmaceutical Education ; Pharmacy ; Portable computers ; Schools ; Science education ; Student attitudes ; Student participation ; student performance ; Study and teaching ; Teaching methods ; Video teleconferencing ; virtual facilitation</subject><ispartof>American journal of pharmaceutical education, 2021-02, Vol.85 (2), p.95-101, Article 8072</ispartof><rights>2021 American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy</rights><rights>Copyright American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy 2021</rights><rights>2021 American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c487t-f9b1bb584df53a020bf75efae1c6c1a5b535b5a6c81d8170de88cfa5ed736163</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c487t-f9b1bb584df53a020bf75efae1c6c1a5b535b5a6c81d8170de88cfa5ed736163</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7926280/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2518460399?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27924,27925,53791,53793,64385,64387,64389,72469</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Darr, Amber Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kyner, Mackenzie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fletcher, Reanna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yoder, Ashli</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Pharmacy Students' Performance in a Laboratory Course Delivered Live Versus by Virtual Facilitation</title><title>American journal of pharmaceutical education</title><description>Objective. To compare academic performance in and students' perceptions of an outpatient pharmacy practice laboratory course taught in a traditional laboratory setting vs by virtual facilitation.
Methods. An outpatient pharmacy practice laboratory course was taught in a traditional live laboratory setting to 69 students on two campuses in 2016. A year later, the same course was taught via synchronous virtual (ie, remote) facilitation using an internet-based video and chat conference room for communication across two campuses to 91 students. Students' academic performance was evaluated based on major assessments, individual test questions, and final course grades. A course and instructor evaluation were administered to each group of students at the conclusion of each course offering.
Results. Students who completed the live traditional laboratory (2016) had a mean final course grade of 90.1%, while students who completed the virtually facilitated laboratory course (2017) had a mean final course grade of 89.6%. The mean score on course evaluations completed by students in the virtually facilitated course was lower. The difference in scores between individual course and instructor evaluations between 2016 to 2017 was not significant. There was no significant difference found between students’ grades on the midterm and final objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) and written assessment questions between 2016 and 2017.
Conclusion. Students who completed the live traditional laboratory course and those who completed the course in the virtually facilitated setting performed well. Course evaluations revealed student satisfaction with the course and instructor in both settings. These findings suggest that a virtually facilitated laboratory course does not hinder student performance and provides a similar experience as a traditional classroom.</description><subject>Academic achievement</subject><subject>Brief</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Course Content</subject><subject>Distance learning</subject><subject>Drug therapy</subject><subject>Educational Environment</subject><subject>Educational technology</subject><subject>Instructional design</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>Learner Engagement</subject><subject>Medical students</subject><subject>outpatient practice laboratory</subject><subject>Perceptions</subject><subject>Pharmaceutical Education</subject><subject>Pharmacy</subject><subject>Portable computers</subject><subject>Schools</subject><subject>Science education</subject><subject>Student attitudes</subject><subject>Student participation</subject><subject>student performance</subject><subject>Study and teaching</subject><subject>Teaching methods</subject><subject>Video teleconferencing</subject><subject>virtual facilitation</subject><issn>0002-9459</issn><issn>1553-6467</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNptUlFrFDEQDqLYswr-hIAP-nI12d1ksy9CudoqHFiw9DXMJpM2x25yTXYP7t-bo6elKmEYmHzzTb4vQ8h7zs6EVOozbLaoWFu9IAsuRL2UjWxfkgVjrFp2jehOyJucN4zxRjTVa3JSN5Wq21ouyMMqjltIPsdAo6PX95BGMHv6c5othil_pNeYXCzFYJD6QIGuoY8Jppj2dBXnlJFe4OB3mNDSdcn0FlOeM-339NanaYaBXoLxg59g8jG8Ja8cDBnfHfMpubn8erP6tlz_uPq-Ol8vTaPaaem6nve9UI11ogZWsd61Ah0gN9JwEL2oS4A0ilvFW2ZRKeNAoC26uKxPyZdH2u3cj2hNEZNg0NvkR0h7HcHr5zfB3-u7uNNtV8lKsULw6UiQ4sOMedKjzwaHAQLGOeuqGK0qXteHWR_-gm6KMaGoKyiuGsnqrntC3cGA2gcXy1xzINXnUijBSjQFdfYfVDkWR29iQOdL_VnD8Z0mxZwTuj8aOdOH7dC_t6NAq0coFt93HpPOxmP5WOsTmknb6P9t-gXYzb33</recordid><startdate>20210201</startdate><enddate>20210201</enddate><creator>Darr, Amber Y.</creator><creator>Kyner, Mackenzie</creator><creator>Fletcher, Reanna</creator><creator>Yoder, Ashli</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><general>American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7RQ</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>U9A</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210201</creationdate><title>Comparison of Pharmacy Students' Performance in a Laboratory Course Delivered Live Versus by Virtual Facilitation</title><author>Darr, Amber Y. ; Kyner, Mackenzie ; Fletcher, Reanna ; Yoder, Ashli</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c487t-f9b1bb584df53a020bf75efae1c6c1a5b535b5a6c81d8170de88cfa5ed736163</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Academic achievement</topic><topic>Brief</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Course Content</topic><topic>Distance learning</topic><topic>Drug therapy</topic><topic>Educational Environment</topic><topic>Educational technology</topic><topic>Instructional design</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>Learner Engagement</topic><topic>Medical students</topic><topic>outpatient practice laboratory</topic><topic>Perceptions</topic><topic>Pharmaceutical Education</topic><topic>Pharmacy</topic><topic>Portable computers</topic><topic>Schools</topic><topic>Science education</topic><topic>Student attitudes</topic><topic>Student participation</topic><topic>student performance</topic><topic>Study and teaching</topic><topic>Teaching methods</topic><topic>Video teleconferencing</topic><topic>virtual facilitation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Darr, Amber Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kyner, Mackenzie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fletcher, Reanna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yoder, Ashli</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>Career & Technical Education Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>American journal of pharmaceutical education</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Darr, Amber Y.</au><au>Kyner, Mackenzie</au><au>Fletcher, Reanna</au><au>Yoder, Ashli</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Pharmacy Students' Performance in a Laboratory Course Delivered Live Versus by Virtual Facilitation</atitle><jtitle>American journal of pharmaceutical education</jtitle><date>2021-02-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>85</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>95</spage><epage>101</epage><pages>95-101</pages><artnum>8072</artnum><issn>0002-9459</issn><eissn>1553-6467</eissn><abstract>Objective. To compare academic performance in and students' perceptions of an outpatient pharmacy practice laboratory course taught in a traditional laboratory setting vs by virtual facilitation.
Methods. An outpatient pharmacy practice laboratory course was taught in a traditional live laboratory setting to 69 students on two campuses in 2016. A year later, the same course was taught via synchronous virtual (ie, remote) facilitation using an internet-based video and chat conference room for communication across two campuses to 91 students. Students' academic performance was evaluated based on major assessments, individual test questions, and final course grades. A course and instructor evaluation were administered to each group of students at the conclusion of each course offering.
Results. Students who completed the live traditional laboratory (2016) had a mean final course grade of 90.1%, while students who completed the virtually facilitated laboratory course (2017) had a mean final course grade of 89.6%. The mean score on course evaluations completed by students in the virtually facilitated course was lower. The difference in scores between individual course and instructor evaluations between 2016 to 2017 was not significant. There was no significant difference found between students’ grades on the midterm and final objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) and written assessment questions between 2016 and 2017.
Conclusion. Students who completed the live traditional laboratory course and those who completed the course in the virtually facilitated setting performed well. Course evaluations revealed student satisfaction with the course and instructor in both settings. These findings suggest that a virtually facilitated laboratory course does not hinder student performance and provides a similar experience as a traditional classroom.</abstract><cop>Alexandria</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>34283736</pmid><doi>10.5688/ajpe8072</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0002-9459 |
ispartof | American journal of pharmaceutical education, 2021-02, Vol.85 (2), p.95-101, Article 8072 |
issn | 0002-9459 1553-6467 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7926280 |
source | EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; ProQuest Central UK/Ireland; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Academic achievement Brief Comparative analysis Course Content Distance learning Drug therapy Educational Environment Educational technology Instructional design Laboratories Learner Engagement Medical students outpatient practice laboratory Perceptions Pharmaceutical Education Pharmacy Portable computers Schools Science education Student attitudes Student participation student performance Study and teaching Teaching methods Video teleconferencing virtual facilitation |
title | Comparison of Pharmacy Students' Performance in a Laboratory Course Delivered Live Versus by Virtual Facilitation |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T23%3A05%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Pharmacy%20Students'%20Performance%20in%20a%20Laboratory%20Course%20Delivered%20Live%20Versus%20by%20Virtual%20Facilitation&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20pharmaceutical%20education&rft.au=Darr,%20Amber%20Y.&rft.date=2021-02-01&rft.volume=85&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=95&rft.epage=101&rft.pages=95-101&rft.artnum=8072&rft.issn=0002-9459&rft.eissn=1553-6467&rft_id=info:doi/10.5688/ajpe8072&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA658505854%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2518460399&rft_id=info:pmid/34283736&rft_galeid=A658505854&rft_els_id=S0002945923007568&rfr_iscdi=true |