Objective: To review the importance of and barriers to critical thinking (CT) along with providing evidence-based recommendations to encouraging development of these skills in pharmacy students.Findings: Critical thinking (CT) is one of the most desired skills of a pharmacy graduate but there are many challenges to students thinking critically including their own perceptions, poor metacognitive skills, a fixed mindset, a non-automated skill set, heuristics, biases and the fact that thinking is effortful. Though difficult, developing CT skills is not impossible. Research and practice suggest several factors that improve thinking: a thoughtful learning environment; seeing or hearing what is done to executive cognitive operations that students are trying to improve; and guidance and support of their efforts until they can carry them out on their own.Summary. Teaching CT requires coordination at the curricular level and further to the more discrete level of a lesson and a course. Instructor training is impera...

Objectives. To implement an audience response system in a dual-campus classroom that aggregated data during graded (attendance and quizzes) and non-graded classroom activities (formative quizzes, case discussions, examination reviews, and team activities) and explore its strengths, weaknesses, and impact on active learning. Design. After extensive research, an appropriate audience response system was selected and implemented in a dual-classroom setting for a third-year required PharmD course. Students were assigned a clicker and training and policies regarding clicker use were reviewed. Activities involving clicker use were carefully planned to simultaneously engage students in both classrooms in real time. Focus groups were conducted with students to gather outcomes data. Assessment. Students and faculty members felt that the immediate feedback the automated response system (ARS) provided was most beneficial during non-graded activities. Student anxiety increased with use of ARS during graded activities due to fears regarding technology failure, user error, and academic integrity. Summary. ARS is a viable tool for increasing active learning in a doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) program, especially when used for non-graded class activities. Faculty members should proceed cautiously with using ARS for graded classroom activities and develop detailed and documented policies for ARS use.

Objective. To review and recommend strategies for utilizing student ratings of instruction (course and instructor) including considerations regarding design, administration, and use and interpretation of results. Findings. Improving course delivery and pedagogy using student ratings of instruction requires programs to design evaluation instruments that are aligned with the following good, scholarly teaching criteria: offer 10-20 rating scale questions and at least one written response question, ensure that students understand what the questions are asking, use a standardized form for evaluating all faculty members, allow for additional tailored questions to be added to the form, and employ a four- or five-point rating scale with a "not applicable" option. When administering evaluations, programs should limit the number of faculty members evaluated to those teaching greater than or equal to five clock hours of lecture or schedule evaluations based on academic rank; use an online course evaluation tool; randomly select students to participate; offer the evaluation at the end of the term (and/or midpoint for team taught classes); offer the evaluation during scheduled class time; and allow for voluntary, anonymous student participation. Finally, programs should create an assessment plan that outlines the results' release timeline, a list of who will receive result summaries, and how the results will be used. Programs should also encourage faculty reflection, offer mentoring in results interpretation, coach faculty members to summarize and quantify comments and longitudinally track results using tables, and create an accountability action plan to address deficiencies. Summary. In order to better ensure that student ratings of instruction are used to improve teaching, colleges and schools should adopt intentional design, structured administration processes, and transparent reporting of results.

Objective. To determine the amount and type of feedback needed to improve pharmacy students’ problem-solving skills using team-based learning (TBL) and a problem-solving rubric.Methods. A problem-solving rubric was developed to assess the ability of pharmacy students’ to prioritize, organize, and defend the best and alternative options on TBL cases The study involved 3 groups of pharmacy students: second-year students in a cardiology class who received no feedback (control group), third-year students in an endocrinology class who received written feedback only, and third-year students in an endocrinology class who received written and verbal feedback. Students worked in groups on all TBL cases except the first and last one (beginning and end of course), which students completed independently as it served as a pretest and posttest.Results. Significant improvements were seen in the ability of the third-year students who received verbal and written feedback to prioritize the information presented in the case...

Objective. The objectives of this study were to 1) describe characteristics of NAPLEX preparation programs currently utilized by colleges and schools of pharmacy and 2) to evaluate these program characteristics in relation to first-time NAPLEX pass rates. Methods. This cross-sectional study was based on an online survey administered between February and March 2020. Assessment leads from 143 PharmD programs were invited to answer questions on their schools’ PharmD program characteristics and various aspects of NAPLEX preparation programs. The study included regression analyses to investigate the associations between the NAPLEX first-attempt pass rates and PharmD demographic characteristics, as well as data collection on various aspects of the NAPLEX preparation programs. Finally, common themes from the open-ended questions were identified. Results. Fifty-eight participants completed the survey out of 132 successfully delivered email invitations (response rate = 44%). Fifty participants (86%) indicated that their PharmD program offers a NAPLEX preparation program. Our data indicate that offering a NAPLEX preparation program was not significantly associated with higher NAPLEX first-attempt pass rates. The analysis identified possible explanations for this lack of association, including student concerns with balancing a prep program with APPEs, and faculty workload associated with delivering such programs. Conclusion. The current findings show no association between offering a NAPLEX preparation program and NAPLEX first attempt pass rate. Future research should continue to examine the impact of these programs on individual school pass rates and factors that may enhance student motivation to engage in these programs.