Using performance-based assessments to evaluate parity between a campus and distance education pathway

Thomas L. Lenz, Michael S. Monaghan, Amy F. Wilson, Jennifer A. Tilleman, Rhonda M. Jones, Mary M. Hayes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives. To compare the performance of campus-based students with that of distance students during the first 2 years of a doctor of pharmacy program to evaluate parity between the pathways. Methods. Twelve cases were created for each year of the program along with performance criteria. The cases were converted into computer-based simulations for programmatic assessment at the end of the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 school years. All first-professional year (P1) and second-professional year (P2) students participated in the assessments. Overall class means were calculated and used to compare student performances between campus and distance education pathways. Results. Overall scores for the 2003 P1 class were 56.4% for the campus-based students and 62.4% for the distance students, (p = 0.002); overall scores for the 2003 P2 class were 48.8% and 55.5%, respectively (p <0.0001). The 2004 overall scores for P1 campus and distance students were 59.0% and 65.7%, respectively, (p = 0.001); and for 2004 P2 scores the results were51.8% and 56.5%, respectively (p = 0.049). Conclusions. Students receiving their pharmacy education via a distance pathway scored higher on performance-based assessments compared with students receiving their pharmacy education via the traditional campus-based pathway. This indicates that distance students are receiving at least an equivalent curricular experience in the P1 and P2 years compared to that received by campus-based students.

Original languageEnglish
Article number90
JournalAmerican Journal of Pharmaceutical Education
Volume70
Issue number4
StatePublished - 2006

Fingerprint

Distance Education
Parity
Students
performance
education
student
Pharmacy Education
Computer Simulation

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Pharmacology
  • Education

Cite this

Using performance-based assessments to evaluate parity between a campus and distance education pathway. / Lenz, Thomas L.; Monaghan, Michael S.; Wilson, Amy F.; Tilleman, Jennifer A.; Jones, Rhonda M.; Hayes, Mary M.

In: American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, Vol. 70, No. 4, 90, 2006.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{46c4b01b00564ad095e1fe3e24a0cdd3,
title = "Using performance-based assessments to evaluate parity between a campus and distance education pathway",
abstract = "Objectives. To compare the performance of campus-based students with that of distance students during the first 2 years of a doctor of pharmacy program to evaluate parity between the pathways. Methods. Twelve cases were created for each year of the program along with performance criteria. The cases were converted into computer-based simulations for programmatic assessment at the end of the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 school years. All first-professional year (P1) and second-professional year (P2) students participated in the assessments. Overall class means were calculated and used to compare student performances between campus and distance education pathways. Results. Overall scores for the 2003 P1 class were 56.4{\%} for the campus-based students and 62.4{\%} for the distance students, (p = 0.002); overall scores for the 2003 P2 class were 48.8{\%} and 55.5{\%}, respectively (p <0.0001). The 2004 overall scores for P1 campus and distance students were 59.0{\%} and 65.7{\%}, respectively, (p = 0.001); and for 2004 P2 scores the results were51.8{\%} and 56.5{\%}, respectively (p = 0.049). Conclusions. Students receiving their pharmacy education via a distance pathway scored higher on performance-based assessments compared with students receiving their pharmacy education via the traditional campus-based pathway. This indicates that distance students are receiving at least an equivalent curricular experience in the P1 and P2 years compared to that received by campus-based students.",
author = "Lenz, {Thomas L.} and Monaghan, {Michael S.} and Wilson, {Amy F.} and Tilleman, {Jennifer A.} and Jones, {Rhonda M.} and Hayes, {Mary M.}",
year = "2006",
language = "English",
volume = "70",
journal = "American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education",
issn = "0002-9459",
publisher = "American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Using performance-based assessments to evaluate parity between a campus and distance education pathway

AU - Lenz, Thomas L.

AU - Monaghan, Michael S.

AU - Wilson, Amy F.

AU - Tilleman, Jennifer A.

AU - Jones, Rhonda M.

AU - Hayes, Mary M.

PY - 2006

Y1 - 2006

N2 - Objectives. To compare the performance of campus-based students with that of distance students during the first 2 years of a doctor of pharmacy program to evaluate parity between the pathways. Methods. Twelve cases were created for each year of the program along with performance criteria. The cases were converted into computer-based simulations for programmatic assessment at the end of the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 school years. All first-professional year (P1) and second-professional year (P2) students participated in the assessments. Overall class means were calculated and used to compare student performances between campus and distance education pathways. Results. Overall scores for the 2003 P1 class were 56.4% for the campus-based students and 62.4% for the distance students, (p = 0.002); overall scores for the 2003 P2 class were 48.8% and 55.5%, respectively (p <0.0001). The 2004 overall scores for P1 campus and distance students were 59.0% and 65.7%, respectively, (p = 0.001); and for 2004 P2 scores the results were51.8% and 56.5%, respectively (p = 0.049). Conclusions. Students receiving their pharmacy education via a distance pathway scored higher on performance-based assessments compared with students receiving their pharmacy education via the traditional campus-based pathway. This indicates that distance students are receiving at least an equivalent curricular experience in the P1 and P2 years compared to that received by campus-based students.

AB - Objectives. To compare the performance of campus-based students with that of distance students during the first 2 years of a doctor of pharmacy program to evaluate parity between the pathways. Methods. Twelve cases were created for each year of the program along with performance criteria. The cases were converted into computer-based simulations for programmatic assessment at the end of the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 school years. All first-professional year (P1) and second-professional year (P2) students participated in the assessments. Overall class means were calculated and used to compare student performances between campus and distance education pathways. Results. Overall scores for the 2003 P1 class were 56.4% for the campus-based students and 62.4% for the distance students, (p = 0.002); overall scores for the 2003 P2 class were 48.8% and 55.5%, respectively (p <0.0001). The 2004 overall scores for P1 campus and distance students were 59.0% and 65.7%, respectively, (p = 0.001); and for 2004 P2 scores the results were51.8% and 56.5%, respectively (p = 0.049). Conclusions. Students receiving their pharmacy education via a distance pathway scored higher on performance-based assessments compared with students receiving their pharmacy education via the traditional campus-based pathway. This indicates that distance students are receiving at least an equivalent curricular experience in the P1 and P2 years compared to that received by campus-based students.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33749821754&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33749821754&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 70

JO - American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education

JF - American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education

SN - 0002-9459

IS - 4

M1 - 90

ER -