Katura C Bullock1, Caitlin Gibson2, Meredith Howard3, Jialiang Liu4, Amulya Tatachar5, Wei Cheng Yuet6. 1. University of North Texas System College of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacotherapy, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd, RES 411E, Fort Worth, TX 76107, United States. Electronic address: katura.bullock@unthsc.edu. 2. University of North Texas System College of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacotherapy, Fort Worth, TX, United States. Electronic address: Caitlin.Gibson@unthsc.edu. 3. University of North Texas System College of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacotherapy, Fort Worth, TX, United States. Electronic address: Meredith.Howard@unthsc.edu. 4. University of North Texas Health Science Center - School of Public Health, Fort Worth, TX, United States. Electronic address: Jialiang.Liu@live.unthsc.edu. 5. University of North Texas System College of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacotherapy, Fort Worth, TX, United States. Electronic address: Amulya.Tatachar@unthsc.edu. 6. University of North Texas System College of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacotherapy, Fort Worth, TX, United States. Electronic address: Cheng.Yuet@unthsc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact in student pharmacists' exam performance learning outcomes and satisfaction after integrating the Muddiest Point assessment technique into exam reviews. EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY AND SETTING: In 2016, the Muddiest Point, a formative assessment tool, was used to develop exam review sessions for second-year student pharmacists in an integrated pharmacotherapy course focused on the cardiovascular system. Performance scores on all four exams were compared between students in the 2015 and 2016 courses. Students' complexity of learning was categorized using a taxonomy of learning structure. A survey was used to evaluate student perceptions of exam reviews and the Muddiest Point technique (MPT). FINDINGS: Scores were higher on the second exam for the 83 students in the 2016 course (78.0% vs. 86.0%, p<0.001). There was no difference on other exam scores or overall course failures. Muddiest points submitted by students demonstrated a variety of taxonomy of learning levels. Student pharmacists surveyed at the conclusion of the course agreed that exam reviews were helpful for their preparation for exams and that the MPT was a valuable use of class time. SUMMARY: Incorporating the MPT into exam reviews maintained exam scores and supported evaluation of student learning. In addition, student pharmacists were satisfied with this exam review method.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact in student pharmacists' exam performance learning outcomes and satisfaction after integrating the Muddiest Point assessment technique into exam reviews. EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY AND SETTING: In 2016, the Muddiest Point, a formative assessment tool, was used to develop exam review sessions for second-year student pharmacists in an integrated pharmacotherapy course focused on the cardiovascular system. Performance scores on all four exams were compared between students in the 2015 and 2016 courses. Students' complexity of learning was categorized using a taxonomy of learning structure. A survey was used to evaluate student perceptions of exam reviews and the Muddiest Point technique (MPT). FINDINGS: Scores were higher on the second exam for the 83 students in the 2016 course (78.0% vs. 86.0%, p<0.001). There was no difference on other exam scores or overall course failures. Muddiest points submitted by students demonstrated a variety of taxonomy of learning levels. Student pharmacists surveyed at the conclusion of the course agreed that exam reviews were helpful for their preparation for exams and that the MPT was a valuable use of class time. SUMMARY: Incorporating the MPT into exam reviews maintained exam scores and supported evaluation of student learning. In addition, student pharmacists were satisfied with this exam review method.