Academic performance among pharmacy students using virtual vs. face-to-face team-based learning.

Annals of medicine Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-13 DOI:10.1080/07853890.2024.2349205
Osama A Shoair
{"title":"Academic performance among pharmacy students using virtual vs. face-to-face team-based learning.","authors":"Osama A Shoair","doi":"10.1080/07853890.2024.2349205","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study compares pharmacy students' performance using face-to-face (FTF) team-based learning (TBL) vs. virtual TBL across multiple courses and different academic levels while accounting for student demographic and academic factors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study included pharmacy students from different academic levels (P1-P3) who were enrolled in three didactic courses taught using FTF TBL and virtual TBL. Multiple generalized linear models (GLMs) were performed to compare students' performance on individual readiness assurance tests (iRATs), team readiness assurance tests (tRATs), team application exercises (tAPPs), summative exams, and total course scores using FTF TBL vs. virtual TBL, adjusting for students' age, sex, race, and cumulative grade point average (cGPA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study involved a total of 356 pharmacy students distributed across different academic levels and learning modalities: P1 students [FTF TBL (<i>n</i> = 26), virtual TBL (<i>n</i> = 42)], P2 students [FTF TBL (<i>n</i> = 77), virtual TBL (<i>n</i> = 71)], and P3 students [FTF TBL (<i>n</i> = 65), virtual TBL (<i>n</i> = 75)]. In the P1 cohort, the virtual group had higher iRAT and tRAT scores but lower tAPP scores than the FTF TBL group, with no significant differences in summative exams or total course scores. For P2 students, the virtual TBL group had higher iRAT and tRAT scores but lower summative exam scores and total course scores than the FTF TBL group, with no significant differences in tAPP scores. In the P3 student group, the virtual TBL group had higher iRAT, tRAT, tAPP, summative exam, and total course scores than the FTF TBL group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Students' performance in virtual TBL vs. FTF TBL in the pharmacy didactic curriculum varies depending on the course content, academic year, and type of assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":93874,"journal":{"name":"Annals of medicine","volume":"56 1","pages":"2349205"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11095281/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2024.2349205","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: This study compares pharmacy students' performance using face-to-face (FTF) team-based learning (TBL) vs. virtual TBL across multiple courses and different academic levels while accounting for student demographic and academic factors.

Methods: The study included pharmacy students from different academic levels (P1-P3) who were enrolled in three didactic courses taught using FTF TBL and virtual TBL. Multiple generalized linear models (GLMs) were performed to compare students' performance on individual readiness assurance tests (iRATs), team readiness assurance tests (tRATs), team application exercises (tAPPs), summative exams, and total course scores using FTF TBL vs. virtual TBL, adjusting for students' age, sex, race, and cumulative grade point average (cGPA).

Results: The study involved a total of 356 pharmacy students distributed across different academic levels and learning modalities: P1 students [FTF TBL (n = 26), virtual TBL (n = 42)], P2 students [FTF TBL (n = 77), virtual TBL (n = 71)], and P3 students [FTF TBL (n = 65), virtual TBL (n = 75)]. In the P1 cohort, the virtual group had higher iRAT and tRAT scores but lower tAPP scores than the FTF TBL group, with no significant differences in summative exams or total course scores. For P2 students, the virtual TBL group had higher iRAT and tRAT scores but lower summative exam scores and total course scores than the FTF TBL group, with no significant differences in tAPP scores. In the P3 student group, the virtual TBL group had higher iRAT, tRAT, tAPP, summative exam, and total course scores than the FTF TBL group.

Conclusions: Students' performance in virtual TBL vs. FTF TBL in the pharmacy didactic curriculum varies depending on the course content, academic year, and type of assessment.

药学专业学生使用虚拟团队学习与面对面团队学习的学习成绩对比。
简介:本研究比较了药学专业学生在多门课程和不同学术水平中使用面对面(FTF)团队学习(TBL)和虚拟 TBL 的表现:本研究比较了药学专业学生在多门课程和不同学术水平中使用面对面(FTF)团队学习(TBL)和虚拟TBL的成绩,同时考虑了学生的人口统计学和学术因素:研究对象包括来自不同年级(P1-P3)的药学专业学生,他们分别参加了三门采用 FTF TBL 和虚拟 TBL 教学的授课课程。采用多重广义线性模型(GLMs)比较了学生在个人准备保证测试(iRATs)、团队准备保证测试(tRATs)、团队应用练习(tAPPs)、总结性考试中的表现,以及采用全真TBL与虚拟TBL的课程总成绩,并对学生的年龄、性别、种族和累积平均学分绩点(cGPA)进行了调整:研究涉及 356 名药学专业学生,他们分布在不同的学术水平和学习模式中:P1学生[FTF TBL(n = 26),虚拟TBL(n = 42)],P2学生[FTF TBL(n = 77),虚拟TBL(n = 71)]和P3学生[FTF TBL(n = 65),虚拟TBL(n = 75)]。在 P1 组学生中,虚拟组的 iRAT 和 tRAT 分数高于 FTF TBL 组,但 tAPP 分数低于 FTF TBL 组,在终结性考试或课程总分方面没有显著差异。对于 P2 学生,虚拟 TBL 组的 iRAT 和 tRAT 分数高于 FTF TBL 组,但终结性考试分数和课程总分低于 FTF TBL 组,而 tAPP 分数没有显著差异。在 P3 学生组中,虚拟 TBL 组的 iRAT、tRAT、tAPP、总结性考试和课程总分均高于 FTF TBL 组:在药学教学课程中,学生在虚拟 TBL 与 FTF TBL 中的表现因课程内容、学年和评估类型而异。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信