Document Sample
t3 Powered By Docstoc
					 Establishment of an
Entry-Level Web-Based
  Pharm.D. Pathway
 Patrick M. Malone, Pharm.D., FASHP
    Associate Professor of Pharmacy Practice
    Director, Web-Based Pharmacy Pathway
What Is the Web-Based
 Pharmacy Pathway?
  A program of study that allows
  students to obtain a Pharm.D.
degree while spending a minimum
     of time away from home
        General Description
 Didactic classes taken over the Internet
 Lab courses taken in condensed time
  period each year
 Traditional Clerkships
 New pathway is ACPE accredited under
  current accreditation
    Some Topics Covered by Others
 Faculty Development – Tracy Chapman
 Computers – Dr. Graham Glynn
 Specific Courses – various posters
 Mentors – poster
    How Many in This Program?
   August 2001 – entered 58 students
       About 50 presently in pathway
   August 2002 – enter additional 60 students
   Plan to eventually enter 100 students each year
       ACPE strongly recommending against this before first
   Will graduate approximately same number of
    students as traditional pathway when fully
   Admission preference given to full time
    mature students capable of independent work
   Same admission requirements as on-campus
       Admission Committee does call to find out about
            Technical competency
            Reason for wanting web pathway
            Maturity
   New applicant pool
       Location bound students unable previously to
        pursue a pharmacy career
       Individuals seeking to upgrade their skills or
        change career direction
       Students that do not like traditional education
 Anywhere in the U.S. and Canada as long
  as they have Internet access and the basic
  technology requirements
 Some students to spend time
       Accreditation restrictions
 About five years older
 Advanced degrees – five in first class with
  previous doctorates
    How We Assess Programmatic
 Assess learning across the curriculum
  regardless of pathway
 Generate student performance data from
  all 3 tracks (traditional, nontraditional,
 Use the data to compare curricular
  pathways and instructional methods
    How We Assess Programmatic
 Ability-based curriculum
     performance-based assessment
 Focus on the ability-based outcomes as
  they apply to each year in curriculum
 Demonstrate parity or areas of track
 Very big accreditation focus
            Current Assessment
   Course websites reviewed by outside
     Instructional Designer – different person than
      worked on course
     Media Specialist
     Faculty Member (specialty area)
     Outside Faculty Member
          Former   chair of education department
   Instructors given feedback
       Need to react to each point – key point
Assessment – Fall 2001 Grades
                 Campus     Web-Based
Average GPA      3.231      3.169
Median GPA       3.323      3.300
Maximum GPA      4.000      4.000
Minimum GPA      1.558      1.733
Probationary     10 (10%)   4 (8%)
Dean’s List      37 (35%)   16 (31%)
Total in Class   105        51
Assessment – Spring 2002 Grades
                 Campus     Web-Based
Average GPA      3.325      3.307
Median GPA       3.414      3.450
Maximum GPA      4.000      4.000
Minimum GPA      2.200      2.166
Probationary     0 (0%)     1 (2%)
Dean’s List      46 (44%)   25 (50%)
Total in Class   105        50
    Students Leaving Program
   Started with 58 (really 55)
   Assumed 20+% student loss
   Two moved to campus (one needed structure
    of class; one finances)
   One moved to web (family)
   Two new students from other schools
   One student on leave of absence
   People leaving
       One to work
       One because of technology and other problems
 Faculty Issues
 Student Issues
 Outside Issues
        Initial Faculty Reaction
 Faculty were not consulted before grant
  proposal submitted (Dean, OITLR
 Faculty vote in favor
 H*** no, we won’t go!!!
     Some faculty forced to teach in web pathway
     Medical School faculty credit for teaching
   Most faculty seemed to have improved
    opinions after teaching
   Initial planning
     All faculty divided into Task Forces to address
      specific issues
     Hiring plan developed and published
     Wide, active distribution of information
     Course development
          Facultynot necessarily hired when planned
          Notebook computer program added to courses
          Need to coordinate on-campus and web courses

       Ultimately, only coordination of courses
        increases time for on-campus faculty
   Course development online
       Takes twice as much time
   Teaching commitment
     At least 50% more work
     Need to use mentors (on-line teaching
                 often develop good relationship with
          Faculty
       E-mail can eat you alive
          Set limits of when available
          Do react within those limits
                  Faculty Support

 Faculty feelings about Administration
 Course development team
       Faculty need to be in control
   Technical training
     Offered, but not necessarily used
     Faculty evaluated for skills
     Academic Support and Technology Center
                    Faculty Support
   Technical support
       Faculty opinion of OITLR
          LEADE
          Change   to faculty preference
              Usually FrontPage
              Some use BlackBoard
              WebCT available, but not used
     Vital
     Need consistent support
     Need constant access to websites and
     Backup necessary
   Necessity for flexible exam times (24+ hour
   Exam security
       Question banks
       Mastery concept
       Proctors – policy
   May want to avoid exams
   Need for electronic exams
       QuestionMark
            Adaptive software
             Intellectual Property
 Originally – entirely owned by faculty
 Proposal from Dean and Director of OITLR
  – entirely owned by School
     Cost of resources
     Need of replacement, if faculty leave
   Final
       Usually split ownership – faculty can take it,
        but School can usually continue to use and
        faculty paid for outside use
                 Student Issues
   Technology
     Training
     Exams
         Technology
         Proctors

 Working
 Bookstore
 Student organizations/committees
 Other factors
   Initial orientation disorganized because of
    late admissions
     Orientation vital
     Multiple special orientations
     Some students continued to struggle

   Some technology not yet working at
    beginning of year
       Problems continued for about 6-7 weeks
   Technology
       QuestionMark usually used for exams
       Initial server problems
       Students did not use trial exams as recommended
       Need secure browser
   Proctors
       Proctor Policy and Procedure developed
       New experience
       Proctors not always dependable
       Need fast backup
       Need to consider snail mail times
 Students recommended to not work full
 Some do work full time – often struggle
 Some in military
     Bosnia
     Saudi Arabia

 One student quit program to work full time
 Need to keep up (faculty use “milestones”)
 Totally unexpected problem
 Bookstore not ready to support students,
  even when they were on campus!
 Required change of procedure
     References available two months early
     “Package deal” – shipped, even to Canada

   Students still avoid bookstore because of
    some continuing problems
       Problem with publisher CDs
         Student Organizations /
 Acceptance depends on organization
 Student classes have officers
 Faculty committees
     Some students come to campus
     Some committees can use conference
               Other Factors
   On campus students initially against
     Felt that web pathway was getting preference
     Required education
   Three major stresses (for faculty also)
     Notebook computers
     Active learning
     Web pathway
             Outside Issues
   Accreditation
     North Central Association (NCA)
     American Council on Pharmaceutical
      Education (ACPE)
   University
     Administration
     Other schools

   Practitioners and Educators
 NCA – no problem
 ACPE – problem
     No experience in entry-level web education
     Some resistance to acceptability
     Major concerns
          Assessment  – not just a plan
          Curriculum Committee – guided by assessment

       Some resistance by School to requests
   Boards of Pharmacy – no problem
 Administration
 Other schools at Creighton
       Most avoid web education, except for
        previous e-fellows
    Practitioners and Educators

 “How can you do clerkships over the
 How do students know you?
 Opinions changed as they learned more
           What We’ve Learned
   Faculty
     Make sure they are informed and engaged
     Keep them informed
     Educate and support them
         Technology
         Pedagogy

       Use mentors
               What We’ve Learned
   Students
       Make sure they are informed and engaged
            Everything in writing
            Track progress – make sure there are “milestones”
       Show you are addressing needs and wants
            They will accept “no”, but you need to reply
            Make sure they can get books, exams, etc.
       Educate and support them in this method of
            Technology
            Pedagogy
               What We’ve Learned
   Technology
       Make sure it works consistently
       Need technical people
       Keep it simple whenever possible
   Pedagogy
       Teach the faculty to teach
       Instructional designers are wonderful resources
   Resources
       Get the library involved
            Electronic resources
            Copyright
         Where We Are Going
 Continue to develop new courses
 Develop new clerkship sites
 Investigate and integrate new technology
     Do not use just because it is new
     Do not avoid just because it is new

 Investigate and integrate new teaching
 Increase size of pathway when allowed

          Hourglass Nebula


            Hourglass Nebula


Shared By: