Mapping teaching, learning and assessment in the MPharm in UK schools of pharmacy

Aim To undertake a national study of teaching, learning and assessment in UK schools of pharmacy. Design Triangulation of course documentation, 24 semi-structured interviews undertaken with 29 representatives from the schools and a survey of all final year students (n=1,847) in the 15 schools within the UK during 2003–04. Subjects and setting All established UK pharmacy schools and final year MPharm students. Outcome measures Data were combined and analysed under the topics of curriculum, teaching and learning, assessment, multi-professional teaching and learning, placement education and research projects. Results Professional accreditation was the main driver for curriculum design but links to preregistration training were poor. Curricula were consistent but offered little student choice. On average half the curriculum was science-based. Staff supported the science content but students less so. Courses were didactic but schools were experimenting with new methods of learning. Examinations were the principal form of assessment but the contribution of practice to the final degree ranged considerably (21–63%). Most students considered the assessment load to be about right but with too much emphasis upon knowledge. Assessment of professional competence was focused upon dispensing and pharmacy law. All schools undertook placement teaching in hospitals but there was little in community/primary care. There was little inter-professional education. Resources and logistics were the major limiters. Conclusions There is a need for an integrated review of the accreditation process for the MPharm and preregistration training and redefinition of professional competence at an undergraduate level.

Good practice guide in learning and teaching

This is the second edition of our Aston Business School (ABS) Good Practice Guide and the enthusiasm of the contributors appears undiminished. I am again reminded that I work with a group of very committed, dedicated and professional colleagues. Once again this publication is produced to celebrate and promote good teaching across the School and to offer encouragement to those imaginative and innovative staff who continue to wish to challenge students to learn to maximum effect. It is hoped that others will pick up some good ideas from the articles contained in this volume. Contributors to this Guide were not chosen because they are the best teachers in the School, although they are undoubtedly all amongst my colleagues who are exponents of enthusiastic and inspiring approaches to learning. The Quality Unit approached these individuals because they declared on their Annual Module Reflection Forms that they were doing something interesting and worthwhile which they thought others might find useful. Amongst those reading the Guide I am sure that there are many other individuals who are trying to operate similar examples of good practice in their teaching, learning and assessment methods. I hope that this publication will provoke these people into providing comments and articles of their own and that these will form the basis of next year’s Guide. It may also provoke some people to try these methods in their own teaching. The themes of the articles this year can be divided into two groups. The first theme is the quest to help students to help themselves to learn via student-run tutorials, surprise tests and mock examinations linked with individual tutorials. The second theme is making learning come to life in exciting practical ways by, for example, hands-on workshops and simulations, story telling, rhetorical questioning and discussion groups. A common theme is one of enthusiasm, reflection and commitment on behalf of the lecturers concerned. None of the approaches discussed in this publication are low effort activities on the part of the facilitator, but this effort is regarded as worthwhile as a means of creating greater student engagement. As Biggs (2003)[1] says, in his similarly inspiring way, students learn more the less passive they are in their learning. (Ref). The articles in this publication bear witness of this and much more. Since last year Aston Business School has launched its Research Centre in Higher Education Learning and Management (HELM) which is another initiative to promote excellent learning and teaching. Even before this institution has become fully operational, at least one of the articles in this publication has seen the light of day in the research arena and at least two others are ripe for dissemination to a wider audience via journal publication. More news of our successes in this activity will appear in next year’s edition. May I thank the contributors for taking time out of their busy schedules to write the articles this summer, and to Julie Green who runs the ABS Quality Unit, for putting our diverse approaches into a coherent and publishable form and for chasing us when we have needed it! I would also like to thank Ann Morton and her colleagues in the Centre for Staff Development who have supported this publication. During the last year the Centre has further stimulated the learning and teaching life of the School (and the wider University) via their Learning and Teaching Week and sponsorship of Teaching Quality Enhancement Fund (TQEF) projects. Pedagogic excellence is in better health at Aston than ever before – long may this be because this is what life in HE should be about.

The UK MPharm (1) - are we over reliant on traditional teaching methods?

Introduction-The design of the UK MPharm curriculum is driven by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) accreditation process and the EU directive (85/432/EEC).[1] Although the RPSGB is informed about teaching activity in UK Schools of Pharmacy (SOPs), there is no database which aggregates information to provide the whole picture of pharmacy education within the UK. The aim of the teaching, learning and assessment study [2] was to document and map current programmes in the 16 established SOPs. Recent developments in programme delivery have resulted in a focus on deep learning (for example, through problem based learning approaches) and on being more student centred and less didactic through lectures. The specific objectives of this part of the study were (a) to quantify the content and modes of delivery of material as described in course documentation and (b) having categorised the range of teaching methods, ask students to rate how important they perceived each one for their own learning (using a three point Likert scale: very important, fairly important or not important). Material and methods-The study design compared three datasets: (1) quantitative course document review, (2) qualitative staff interview and (3) quantitative student self completion survey. All 16 SOPs provided a set of their undergraduate course documentation for the year 2003/4. The documentation variables were entered into Excel tables. A self-completion questionnaire was administered to all year four undergraduates, using a pragmatic mixture of methods, (n=1847) in 15 SOPs within Great Britain. The survey data were analysed (n=741) using SPSS, excluding non-UK students who may have undertaken part of their studies within a non-UK university. Results and discussion-Interviews showed that individual teachers and course module leaders determine the choice of teaching methods used. Content review of the documentary evidence showed that 51% of the taught element of the course was delivered using lectures, 31% using practicals (includes computer aided learning) and 18% small group or interactive teaching. There was high uniformity across the schools for the first three years; variation in the final year was due to the project. The average number of hours per year across 15 schools (data for one school were not available) was: year 1: 408 hours; year 2: 401 hours; year 3: 387 hours; year 4: 401 hours. The survey showed that students perceived lectures to be the most important method of teaching after dispensing or clinical practicals. Taking the very important rating only: 94% (n=694) dispensing or clinical practicals; 75% (n=558) lectures; 52% (n=386) workshops, 50% (n=369) tutorials, 43% (n=318) directed study. Scientific laboratory practices were rated very important by only 31% (n=227). The study shows that teaching of pharmacy to undergraduates in the UK is still essentially didactic through a high proportion of formal lectures and with high levels of staff-student contact. Schools consider lectures still to be the most cost effective means of delivering the core syllabus to large cohorts of students. However, this does limit the scope for any optionality within teaching, the scope for small group work is reduced as is the opportunity to develop multi-professional learning or practice placements. Although novel teaching and learning techniques such as e-learning have expanded considerably over the past decade, schools of pharmacy have concentrated on lectures as the best way of coping with the huge expansion in student numbers. References [1] Council Directive. Concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of certain activities in the field of pharmacy. Official Journal of the European Communities 1985;85/432/EEC. [2] Wilson K, Jesson J, Langley C, Clarke L, Hatfield K. MPharm Programmes: Where are we now? Report commissioned by the Pharmacy Practice Research Trust., 2005.

Learning to research - researching to learn

Learning to Research Researching to Learn explores the integration of research into teaching and learning at all levels of higher education. The chapters draw on the long and ongoing debate about the teaching research nexus in universities. Although the vast majority of academics believe that there is an important and valuable link between teaching and research, the precise nature of this relationship continues to be contested. The book includes chapters that showcase innovative ways of learning to research; how research is integrated into coursework teaching; how students learn the processes of research, and how universities are preparing students to engage with the world. The chapters also showcase innovative ways of researching to learn, exploring how students learn through doing research, how they conceptualise the knowledge of their fields of study through the processes of doing research, and how students experiment and reflect on the results produced. These are the key issues addressed by this anthology, as it brings together analyses of the ways in which university teachers are developing research skills in their students, creating enquiry-based approaches to teaching, and engaging in education research themselves. The studies here explore the links between teaching, learning and research in a range of contexts, from pre-enrolment through to academic staff development, in Australia, the UK, the US, Singapore and Denmark. Through a rich array of theoretical and methodological approaches, the collection seeks to further our understanding of how universities can play an effective role in educating graduates suited to the twenty-first century

Eco-car : a perfect vehicle for technical design teaching?

Design methods and tools are generally best learned and developed experientially [1]. Finding appropriate vehicles for delivering these to students is becoming increasingly challenging, especially when considering only those that will enthuse, intrigue and inspire. This paper traces the development of different eco-car design and build projects which competed in the Shell Eco-Marathon. The cars provided opportunities for experiential learning through a formal learning cycle of CDIO (Conceive, Design, Implement, Operate) or the more traditional understand, explore, create, validate, with both teams developing a functional finished prototype. Lessons learned were applied through the design of a third and fourth eco-car using experimental techniques with bio-composites, combining the knowledge of fibre reinforced composite materials and adhesives with the plywood construction techniques of the two teams. The paper discusses the importance of applying materials and techniques to a real world problem. It will also explore how eco-car and comparing traditional materials and construction techniques with high tech composite materials is an ideal teaching, learning and assessment vehicle for technical design techniques.

What purpose does the MPharm research project serve?

In 2004, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) funded research on teaching, learning and assessment within the UK undergraduate pharmacy degree (MPharm), including the compulsory final year project. Documentary analysis showed that all schools met the project requirement, although there were wide variations in the relative contribution of the project to the final year mark and the degree classification. Interviews with staff revealed that organisation of research projects was complex and time consuming and exacerbated by increasing student numbers and the impact of research ethics. 61% of students, surveyed via a self-completion questionnaire (response rate 50.6%) perceived the research project to be very or fairly important. Whilst 47% considered that they had enough choice of topic and 37% said that their training in research methods provided a good foundation for their project, this suggests scope for improvement. In the UK, there are legislative changes impending which may provide an opportunity to review the future purpose and feasibility of a "significant" final year project within the MPharm.

Science or practice? UK undergraduate experiences and attitudes to the MPharm degree

Objective: The debate surrounding the science/practice balance in the teaching of undergraduate pharmacy has been played out in the professional literature for years. The objective of this work was to explore the attitudes of pharmacy undergraduates on the practice-science debate. Setting: The study was undertaken as part of a national study of teaching, learning and assessment methods in United Kingdom (UK) schools of pharmacy. Method: Six focus groups were carried out. The sample was 44 volunteer students from nine UK schools of pharmacy, representing all 4 years of the MPharm programme. Groups were tape recorded and transcribed. Analysis of the transcripts was theme based by topic. Main Outcome Measure: Qualitative data on student attitudes and experiences. Results: Most students thought that there was too strong an emphasis placed on the science components of the course in the early part of their studies. Later in the course they realised that the majority of the science was necessary; it just had not been apparent to them at the time. There were strongly held attitudes across all 4 years that it would be beneficial to include more practice-related material at the beginning of their studies. This would be beneficial for three reasons: to make the course more interesting, to aid in the contextualisation of the science component and to assist the students in any early placement or vacational work. Conclusion: Internationally, changes to the role of the pharmacist from a traditional supply function to a more clinical role has resulted in differing educational needs for the pharmacist of the future. Pharmacy will remain a degree built on a strong scientific background, but students advise that the contextualisation and sequencing of material within the degree could make a considerable improvement to their learning. Consulting students helps us to understand the teaching, learning and assessment experience better by giving insights into ways of improving the delivery. In the case of the UK, there are legislative changes impending which may provide an opportunity to review the balance of practice-and science in the curriculum. © 2006 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

What do students really think? Understanding postgraduate students' perception of service quality

This paper explores the components of Service Quality in HE from the Business School Postgraduate student perspective. A six-dimensional scale measuring Service Quality is developed based on focus group and survey data. Our findings highlight that postgraduate students are highly outcome oriented; the award of a reputable degree to gain employment is more important than learning for life. Whilst developing employable graduates, Business Schools must not neglect the core service; teaching & learning. In the long-term this contributes to employability rates and the reputation of institutions. However, as student satisfaction is an increasingly paramount objective, balancing the core service and factors perceived as important by postgraduate students is key.

The UK MPharm (2) - Do we over assess?

Introduction-The pace of structural change in the UK health economies, the new focus on regulation and the breaking down of professional boundaries means that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) has to continually review the scope, range and outputs of education provided by schools of pharmacy (SOPs). In SOPs, the focus is on equipping students with the knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary to successfully engage with the pre-registration year. The aim of this study [1] was to map current programmes and undergraduate experiences to inform the RPSGB debate. The specific objectives of this paper are to describe elements of the survey of final year undergraduates, to explore student opinions and experiences of their workload, teaching, learning and assessment. Material and methods-The three main research techniques were: (1) quantitative course document review, (2) qualitative staff interview and (3) quantitative student self completion survey. The questions in the survey were based on findings from exploratory focus group work with BPSA (British Pharmaceutical Students’ Association) members and were designed to ascertain if views expressed in the focus groups on the volume and format of assessments were held by the general student cohort. The student self completion questionnaire consisting of 31 questions, was administered in 2005 to all (n=1847) final year undergraduates, using a pragmatic mixture of methods. The sample was 15 SOPs within the UK (1 SOP opted out). The total response rate was 50.62% (n=935): it varied by SOP from 14.42% to 84.62%. The survey data were analysed (n=741) using SPSS, excluding non-UK students who may have undertaken part of their studies within a non-UK university. Results and discussion • 76% (n=562) respondents considered that the amount of formal assessment was about right, 21% (n=158) thought it was too much. • There was agreement that the MPharm seems to have more assessment than other courses, with 63% (n=463) strongly agreeing or agreeing. • The majority considered the balance between examinations and coursework was about right (67%, n=498), with 27% (n=198) agreeing that the balance was too far weighted towards examinations. • 57% (n=421) agreed that the focus of MPharm assessment was too much towards memorised knowledge, 40% (n=290) that it was about right. • 78% (n= 575) agreed with the statement “Assessments don’t measure the skills for being a pharmacist they just measure your knowledge base”. Only 10% (n=77) disagreed. • Similarly 49% (n=358) disagreed with, and 35% (n=256) were not sure about the statement “I consider that the assessments used in the MPharm course adequately measure the skills necessary to be a pharmacist”. Only 17% (n=124) agreed. Experience from this study shows the difficulty of administering survey instruments through UK Schools of Pharmacy. It is heavily dependent on timing, goodwill and finding the right person. The variability of the response rate between SOPs precluded any detailed analysis by School. Nevertheless, there are some interesting results. Issues raised in the exploratory focus group work about amount of assessment and over reliance on knowledge have been confirmed. There is a real debate to be had about the extent to which the undergraduate course, which must instil scientific knowledge, can provide students with the requisite qualities, skills, attitudes and behaviour that are more easily acquired in the pre-registration year. References [1] Wilson K, Jesson J, Langley C, Clarke L, Hatfield K. MPharm Programmes: Where are we now? Report commissioned by the Pharmacy Practice Research Trust., 2005.