Implementation and initial evaluation of an exam self-reflection process

IF 1.3 Q3 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning Pub Date : 2024-11-05 DOI:10.1016/j.cptl.2024.102211
Jenna Mills , Shantanu Rao
{"title":"Implementation and initial evaluation of an exam self-reflection process","authors":"Jenna Mills ,&nbsp;Shantanu Rao","doi":"10.1016/j.cptl.2024.102211","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To implement a standardized approach to exam review for Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD) students and assess its effect on students' perceptions.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Over the academic years 2022–2024, second-professional year pharmacy (PharmD) students scoring less than 73 % on major midterm examinations were required to complete an exam self-reflection form in two pharmacotherapeutics courses. A survey was developed and distributed to all students enrolled in the pharmacotherapeutics courses to assess students' opinions about the exam self-reflection process.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>One hundred and twenty-two responses were received for the survey over the three semesters (95 % response rate). The majority of students expressed satisfaction with the benefit (92 %) and importance (87 %) of implementing the self-reflection process using the exam self-reflection form within the pharmacotherapeutics courses. Amongst students who submitted the exam self-reflection form (<em>n</em> = 58), survey data revealed that 76 % were overall satisfied with the self-reflection process using the exam self-reflection form. Students' satisfaction was also expressed in terms of supporting its continuation (66 %), recommendation in other courses (64 %), time spent completing the form (67 %), assistance with preparing for the remediation exam (85 %), impact on remediation score (79 %), confidence with course content (91 %), understanding of course content (97 %), test-taking skills (76 %), knowledge gap identification (88 %), and value (66 %).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Students positively perceived the exam self-reflection process. Future directions include evaluating exam data to determine the quantitative impact of the exam self-reflection review approach.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47501,"journal":{"name":"Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning","volume":"17 1","pages":"Article 102211"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877129724002430","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To implement a standardized approach to exam review for Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD) students and assess its effect on students' perceptions.

Methods

Over the academic years 2022–2024, second-professional year pharmacy (PharmD) students scoring less than 73 % on major midterm examinations were required to complete an exam self-reflection form in two pharmacotherapeutics courses. A survey was developed and distributed to all students enrolled in the pharmacotherapeutics courses to assess students' opinions about the exam self-reflection process.

Results

One hundred and twenty-two responses were received for the survey over the three semesters (95 % response rate). The majority of students expressed satisfaction with the benefit (92 %) and importance (87 %) of implementing the self-reflection process using the exam self-reflection form within the pharmacotherapeutics courses. Amongst students who submitted the exam self-reflection form (n = 58), survey data revealed that 76 % were overall satisfied with the self-reflection process using the exam self-reflection form. Students' satisfaction was also expressed in terms of supporting its continuation (66 %), recommendation in other courses (64 %), time spent completing the form (67 %), assistance with preparing for the remediation exam (85 %), impact on remediation score (79 %), confidence with course content (91 %), understanding of course content (97 %), test-taking skills (76 %), knowledge gap identification (88 %), and value (66 %).

Conclusion

Students positively perceived the exam self-reflection process. Future directions include evaluating exam data to determine the quantitative impact of the exam self-reflection review approach.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
考试自我反思过程的实施和初步评估
方法在2022-2024学年,第二专业年级药剂学(PharmD)学生在主要期中考试中得分低于73%时,必须在两门药物治疗学课程中填写考试自我反思表。为了评估学生对考试自我反思过程的意见,我们编制了一份调查问卷,并分发给所有修读药物治疗学课程的学生。结果 在三个学期中,共收到 122 份调查问卷(回复率为 95%)。大多数学生对在药物治疗学课程中使用考试自我反思表实施自我反思过程的益处(92%)和重要性(87%)表示满意。在提交考试自我反思表的学生(n = 58)中,调查数据显示 76 % 的学生对使用考试自我反思表进行自我反思的过程总体表示满意。学生的满意度还体现在支持继续使用(66%)、推荐使用其他课程(64%)、填写表格花费的时间(67%)、帮助准备补习考试(85%)、对补习成绩的影响(79%)、对课程内容的信心(91%)、对课程内容的理解(97%)、应试技巧(76%)、知识差距识别(88%)和价值(66%)等方面。未来的发展方向包括评估考试数据,以确定考试自我反思复习方法的量化影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning
Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
16.70%
发文量
192
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Preceptor perspectives on disability-related accommodations in pharmacy experiential education Practice transformation starts in the classroom: Mapping practice change learning in a PharmD program Keeping pace in the age of innovation: The perspective of Dutch pharmaceutical science students on the position of machine learning training in an undergraduate curriculum Live and learn: Utilizing MyDispense to increase student knowledge and confidence in caring for patients with diverse religious backgrounds
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1