A Future Vision for Clinical Pharmacy Practice
Comparison of Learning Styles of Pharmacy Students and Faculty MembersTo compare dominant learning styles of pharmacy students and faculty members and between faculty members in different tracks. Learning styles differed among respondents based on gender and faculty track. Faculty members in colleges and schools of pharmacy engage in a steroid stacks to get ripped of methods to help students develop into knowledgeable practitioners, critical thinkers, problem solvers, and better communicators. Typologies are helpful in characterizing how people respond to various learning stimuli. Numerous tools have pharmacy practice research developed to assess learning-style preferences. Comparative summaries and evaluative comments provide succinct descriptions of pharmacy practice research of the major or popular learning-assessment instruments, details of which are published elsewhere.
To compare dominant learning styles of pharmacy students and faculty members and between faculty members in different tracks. Learning styles differed among respondents based on gender and faculty track. Faculty members in colleges and schools of pharmacy engage in a myriad of methods to help students develop into knowledgeable practitioners, critical thinkers, problem solvers, and better communicators.
Typologies are helpful in characterizing how people respond to various learning stimuli. Numerous tools have been developed to assess learning-style preferences. Comparative summaries and evaluative comments provide succinct descriptions of some of the major or popular learning-assessment instruments, details of which are published elsewhere. The Gregorc Style Delineator GSD analyzes seemingly fixed learning-style preferences in situational classroom experiences.
The GSD uses 4 descriptors to categorize dominant perspectives, although learners may have orientations toward other learning styles. They prefer actual rather than contrived or simulated experiences. Abstract sequential learners prefer more intellectual, analytical, and theoretical learning styles and are inclined toward learning techniques that are sequential, substantive, logical, rational, and structured.
Abstract random learners are more affective and imaginative and value relationship building. Individuals with this dominant learning style read body language, assess emotional states, and empathize. Among the more extensively used instruments is the Kolb Learning Style Inventory LSI , which assesses a continuum of experiences across 2 learning dimensions: Predominant learning categories in the Kolb LSI are diverger, assimilator, converger, and accommodator.
Divergers are focused, imaginative, people-oriented, and affective learners who view situations from different perspectives and appreciate idea generation in problem solving. They reason based on specific, concrete experience, and reflective observation. Assimilators are self-paced learners who value organization and attentiveness to detail and prefer to learn on their own in a logical manner based on reflective observation and abstract conceptualization.
Convergers show strong technical and deductive abilities, with less inclination toward social interaction. These learners are able to solve problems, make decisions, and derive practical applications from theories and ideas based on abstract conceptualization and active experimentation. Preferring active experimentation and concrete experience, accommodators are efficient, adaptable, social learners who prefer hands-on or new experiences and active involvement rather than traditional lecture formats.
A survey of Canadian pharmacists using the modified PILS identified the dominant learner types as assimilators Our literature search identified few articles published on learning styles among pharmacy students over the past 3 decades. To our knowledge, only 1 previous study has investigated learning styles among pharmacy students and faculty members.
The Kolb LSI was administered to bachelor of science pharmacy students in West Virginia, pharmacy faculty members who attended a graduate seminar, graduate students, pharmacy school applicants, and pharmacy practitioners, with results showing that faculty members and students differed on abstract conceptualization and active experimentation learning modes. Studies comparing faculty and student learning styles were identified in the health sciences literature outside of pharmacy. Differences were found in Kolb LSI learning styles between students and faculty members in dietetics.
Conversely, learning-style preferences among dietetics faculty members were associated with disciplinary areas of expertise. Clinical nutrition faculty members scored primarily as assimilators and convergers, management faculty members were more likely to be convergers, and faculty in community or dietetics education were mainly accommodators.
The curriculum has evolved from the baccalaureate to the universal doctor of pharmacy degree, including more clinically focused and experiential education. The objectives of our study were to compare dominant learning styles between pharmacy students and faculty members and learning styles between faculty members in different tracks. This project was approved by the institutional review board of the University of Illinois at Chicago.
In the spring semester , time was set aside in core pharmacy curriculum courses to administer the survey instrument to the graduating pharmacy classes of , , and The faculty survey instruments were administered at a faculty meeting during spring Students and faculty members had the option to complete or refuse to complete the survey instruments. For those who participated, demographic student and faculty data were collected prior to administering the 2 learning-styles assessment instruments.
Student and faculty demographic questions differed. The procedure for completion of both instruments was provided by the faculty principal investigator. Only 3 minutes were allotted for completion of each survey instrument to secure more instinctual answers to the assessment questions.
Both tools use ipsative measures forced-choice responses that order items into grouped sets to assess dominant learning styles and preferences based on how respondents rank order their response sets. Once the survey instruments were completed, participants calculated their individual scores.
Dominant learning styles were determined based on instructions for score interpretation that were provided with the assessment instruments. In case of tied scores or other inability to determine 1 dominant style , the learning styles were coded as multimodal.
The investigators coded the data using a numbering system to differentiate different student classes and faculty members. Incomplete survey instruments were removed from the analysis. Chi-square tests were performed with an a priori significance level of 0.
Fifty-nine of One faculty respondent did not report a specific faculty track. Table 1 lists group frequencies based on the GSD. Responses demonstrating multimodal learning styles were excluded from further analyses. Significant differences were found between GSD learning styles based on gender and faculty track.
For gender analyses, responses from students and faculty members were combined. Analysis of adjusted residuals comparing expected and observed cell frequencies showed a greater-than-expected representation of men whose preferred learning styles were abstract sequential and concrete random adjusted residuals, 2.
Residual analysis showed higher-than-expected cell frequencies for tenure-track faculty members, whose dominant style was abstract sequential adjusted residual, 2. When comparing tenure-track and clinical-track faculty members, accommodator and diverger cells were combined because of small cell frequencies.
Residual analysis showed greater-than-expected frequencies among women as assimilators adjusted residual 3.
Awareness of various learning styles can be used to assess and design educational curricula and strategies to accommodate different types. The learning-style preferences of faculty members may influence their teaching styles, student learning, and levels of student interaction during classroom instruction, problem-based learning, and experiential teaching activities.
It is not known whether these findings reflect an institutional effect or disciplinary characteristics in pharmacy education. At the University of Illinois at Chicago, clinical-track faculty members are appointed only in the Department of Pharmacy Practice, whereas all 4 college departments include tenure-track faculty. The curriculum at the study institution includes more application eg, case-based recitations in the second and third years and in the experiential education courses introductory and advanced pharmacy practice experiences.
Thus, clinical faculty members who are more involved at these points in instruction demonstrate a learning style that is more concrete sequential per the GSD tool , while a greater proportion in the tenure track portray a predominantly abstract sequential learning style, involving more theoretical concepts and analytical approaches.
Concrete sequential individuals prefer more practical, usable, down-to-earth information. Using different measurements, previous studies found varied results in similarities and differences between genders in learning styles. A possible implication for this finding is that faculty members should be sensitive to possible differences in learning styles when instructing students of the opposite sex. For example, male instructors who teach from an abstract sequential point of view eg, logical, analytical might confuse students with an abstract random point of view eg, imaginative, appreciation of stimulus-rich environments with varied learning approaches , which is demonstrated more often by female students.
Alternatively, female faculty members who teach from an abstract random point of view might cause confusion for the concrete random male student who transcends details in attempts to discover the larger meaning of a situation. While it is not our intent to stereotype learning styles based on gender, when students struggle with instruction by a faculty member of the opposite sex, learning style differences could be at the root of the problem.
There continues to be a need to study learning styles among pharmacy students and faculty members. Learning-style preferences and behaviors may change as students matriculate through the doctor of pharmacy program as a result of individual maturation, professional socialization, and institutional culture. Identification of learning style by faculty members could also benefit them personally and in their teaching.
Specifically, faculty members could determine if their assessed learning style matched their perceptions of their learning style. This was the first administration of a learning-styles instrument at this institution as part of a formal research process, but it is unknown whether a learning-styles instrument had been administered previously to individual faculty members in this sample.
A recommendation would be to implement a process for faculty members to discover their own learning styles through faculty development programs for the purpose of guiding their teaching strategies. Results should be interpreted in consideration of study design and limitations. The scale of this study was circumscribed to provide insight on differences in learning styles among pharmacy students and faculty members at 1 college of pharmacy.
It was not a goal to establish psychometric properties of the instruments, and investigation of learning styles in helping achieve intended educational outcomes was beyond the scope of this research. One limitation of the study was the low number of tenure-track faculty members who completed the learning-styles inventories.
Thus, the possibility of nonresponse bias should be considered in interpreting results based on faculty tracks. Another limitation of this study was a less-than-optimal response rate among students, especially from the class of The lower response may have been associated with the influence that a fire at our college had upon class attendance when the survey instruments were administered early in the spring semester During this time, the college was closed for 1 week and classes in the ensuing weeks were relocated.
Experience tells us that some students learn in unexpected ways. For example, some benefit from learning success while others learn best from failure. However, the methods used may benefit some students and actually hinder others from learning.
Learning styles of faculty members and students at the study institution were congruent, but dissonance was shown in dominant learning styles between the genders and different faculty tracks.
Pharmacy educators should realize that students may present with a variety of learning styles differing from their own. Thus, faculty members are challenged to use a number of teaching methods, some of which might be counter to their own preferred learning style, to foster students' success with learning and development of performance-based abilities, such as communication, problem solving, critical thinking, and interpersonal skills.
National Center for Biotechnology Information , U. Am J Pharm Educ. Crawford , PhD, Suhail K. Received Jul 2; Accepted Jul This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Open in a separate window. Learning styles and learning spaces: Acad Manag Learn Educ. The measurement of learning style: Accessed July 2, Ried LD, Byers K. Comparison of two lecture delivery platforms in a hybrid distance education program.
Pharmacy Practice and Education in Austria. - PubMed - NCBI
Pharmacy Practice. Postgraduales Masterstudium “Clinical Pharmacy Practice” zu absolvieren. Neben der Health Services Research. (60 credits). PHM Pharmacy practice research on polypharmacy across cultures, settings, borders - experiencesm challenges, and Inspiration for the future (Dr. Anne Spinewine. 2 Jul The earliest identified study of pharmacy student learning styles found that . As found in Austin's study of practicing pharmacists, the 2 most.