Engaging faculty advisors to promote students' personal and professional development.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: With the increasing emphasis on personal and professional development in pharmacy curricula, programs often need to enhance or modify existing resources to meet standards. A major initiative of developing a consistent and standardized student advising process involving both clinical and non-clinical faculty as advisors to promote development of pharmacy students was an avenue taken at our institution. EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY AND SETTING: Faculty were identified as ideal individuals to assist in mentoring and assessing students' personal and professional development given the long-term relationships they develop with students throughout both the didactic and experiential curriculum. Development and implementation of a longitudinal faculty advising program incorporating elements of student self-assessment, reflection, and faculty-based objective assessment is described. FINDINGS: We found both students and faculty benefited from this advising program in different ways, with students feeling more supported and faculty feeling more engaged and informed about the pharmacy curricula and student career-pathways. SUMMARY: A faculty advising program, as described in this article, can be utilized for both student success and faculty development in the pharmacy education setting.

Evaluation of an Instrument to Assess Students' Personal and Professional Development During the Faculty Advising Process.

Objective. To evaluate a tool designed to assess Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD) students' personal and professional development prior to beginning advanced pharmacy practice experiences (APPEs).Methods. A five-item instrument, entitled the Faculty Advisor's Assessment of the Advisee (FAAA) tool, was developed to assess and monitor pharmacy students' progress over the three-year didactic curriculum. Question anchors were created to describe characteristics exhibited by the student that matched categories of not engaged, beginning, emerging, or engaged. Possible FAAA composite scores ranged from 7 to 20. Using the FAAA tool, faculty advisors assessed their advisees' values, engagement, self-awareness, professionalism, and leadership in 2017, 2018, and 2019. Individual and aggregate cohort reports were run and data for each of the three years were matched with students. To determine if the FAAA showed progression in assessed dimensions in the students during the first, second, and third professional (P1, P2, and P3) years, a Friedman test was performed. Cronbach alpha was used to assess the reliability of the instrument.Results. The data of 93 students were matched for the P1 through the P3 years. Median (IQR) for the FAAA composite score levels for the P1, P2, and P3 were 13 (12-16), 17 (15-19) and 18 (16-20), respectively. Significant differences existed at all timepoints compared, including from the P1 to P2, P2 to P3, and P1 to P3 years. The reliability of the FAAA scale was strong across all three years (winter 2017, α=0.87; winter 2018, α=0.89; and winter 2019, α=0.87). All items appeared worthy of retention as removal did not significantly increase their reliability.Conclusion. A five-item tool which assesses pharmacy students' personal and professional development during the first three years of a PharmD program could be used by faculty advisors to assess student's progress across the didactic curriculum.

Incorporating verbal defense into problem-based learning.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this project was to evaluate the effect of adjusting the solution reporting phase of problem-based learning (PBL) while keeping core components of the pedagogy constant. METHODS: A PBL course for third year pharmacy students changed delivery of the problem solution from a written format to a verbal defense. Comparisons were made between the written format and verbal defense groups. The primary outcome was the change in the motivation domain of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Secondary outcomes included evaluation of the learning strategies domain of the MSLQ, changes in MSLQ scores within each group, exam scores, and themes identified using focus groups. RESULTS: There was no difference in the change of motivation and learning domains between the groups. However, scores in both groups increased significantly from the beginning to the end of the semester for both motivation and learning. There was no difference in exam scores and facilitator confidence between groups. Themes from focus groups who used the written format were appreciation of PBL outcomes, discomfort with the pedagogy, and disconnect of assessments. Themes from the verbal format group were realism, increased confidence, and comments with course logistics. CONCLUSIONS: No difference in motivation and learning was observed between the groups, although both groups improved over the course of the semester. Changes to PBL approach within the confines of the pedagogy may not impact motivation and learning.