1. Implementing Active Learning Strategies in a Large Class Setting Travis White, Pharm.D., Assistant Professor Kristy Lucas, Pharm.D., Professor Pharmacy Practice Department

2. Outline Background: Why change? Course description: What changed? Outcomes: Student and Faculty response Future direction: How to make it better?

3. 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 2 nd yr Team-taught 4 th year: Experiential clinical rotations

4. 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

5. 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 4 th year (clinical rotations): seek improvement

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. Outcomes Student Responses –Based on course evaluations Faculty Responses –Faculty Attitudes Toward Teaching Survey (FATTS)

10. 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

11. Survey Content Teaching experience of the instructor Responsibility for learning Concerns about the new format Positive aspects of the change Feeling of instructor preparedness

12. Survey Content Continued Thoughts on expanding format to other courses Faculty development needs Opinions about benefits of active learning strategies Other comments section

13. FATTS Experience Content (Teaching Experience)RangeMean Score Number of lecture hours teaching fall 20100 – 146.45 hrs Number of case hours teaching fall 20100 – 81.82 hrs Number of years teaching experience0 – 275.64 yrs Number of years taught Pharmacotherapy0 – 275.09 yrs

14. FATTS Active Learning Which best describes experience with active learning? No. Response% Response Tried 1 – 2 times/class sessions00 Used randomly in different courses30.27 Used for entire or majority of delivery30.27

15. FATTS Responsibility % Respondents Primary Responsibility for Student Learning

16. FATTS Concerns Concerns:Mean Score Pre-Course Mean Score Post-Course Time required to prepare for class3.273.00 Facilitating discussion vs. lecturing3.182.40 Logistics of course policies3.182.80 Limited familiarity with content2.272.60 Student performance on assessments2.001.60 Student responsiveness to new format2.642.60 Scale: 1= Not concerned at all 5= Extremely concerned

17. FATTS Positives PositivesMean Score Pre-Course Mean Score Post-Course Less time required for class preparation2.912.60 More student interaction/engagement with material 4.274.60 Less out of class time required for student questions 2.912.60 Ability to write more meaningful test questions3.822.80 Students will learn more applicable content4.274.00 More structured course policies2.913.00 Scale: 1= Not positive at all 5= Extremely positive

18. 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

19. 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

20. Moving Forward –Changes Based on Student Feedback Class Participation Points Individual Readiness Assessment Tests Patient Case Grading Rubric

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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