Admission type is a paradoxical predictor of performance in problem-based learning courses.

INTRODUCTION: To determine if a difference in problem-based learning (PBL) performance or student attrition exists based on admission type. METHODS: This retrospective review analyzed admission type and student academic performance in the PBL course series from 2002 to 2009. Student scores were compiled based on admission type: provisional (high school), traditional with degree (bachelor's or higher), and traditional without degree (some college). ANOVA was performed on overall scores amongst the three admission types. Continuous data were analyzed using two-sided unpaired t-tests, and dichotomous data were analyzed using chi-square test. RESULTS: 600 students received at least one score in the third-year (P3) PBL course series. 56% of students (n = 333) were admitted traditional without degree, while the remainder were split between provisional (n = 125) and traditional with degree (n = 142) admission. Provisionally admitted students had significantly higher scores than either of the other groups (p < 0.001 for both) and significantly fewer students failed a course versus either of the other groups (p < 0.001 for both). Additionally, traditional without degree students had significantly higher averages and fewer failing grades compared to traditional with degree students (p < 0.01 for both) over the eight years analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: This study's results suggest that degrees may not be predictive of success during PBL in the P3 year. Further work is needed in order to truly assess predictive nature of this and other factors among prospective pharmacy students.

Implementation and refinement of a problem-based learning model: a ten-year experience.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of a problem-based learning (PBL) model implemented in 1995 at the University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy. DESIGN: The third-professional (P3) year curriculum was reoriented from a faculty-centered model of teaching to a student-centered model of learning. Didactic lectures and structured classroom time were diminished. Small student groups were organized and a faculty facilitator monitored each group's discussions and provided individual student assessments. At the end of each 8-week block, students were assessed on group participation, disease and drug content knowledge, and problem-solving abilities. Faculty and student input was solicited at the end of each year to aid programmatic improvement. In 2000, a formal 5-year review of the PBL program was conducted. ASSESSMENT: Recommendations for improvement included clarifying course objectives, adopting a peer-review process for examination materials, refining the group assessment instruments, and providing an opportunity for student remediation after a course was failed. A weekly case conference presided over by a faculty content expert was also recommended. Ongoing critical evaluation during the following 5-year period was provided by graduates of the program, faculty participants, and accreditation reviews. CONCLUSION: Over our 10-year experience with a PBL model of P3 education, we found that although the initial challenges of increased demands on personnel and teaching space were easily overcome, student acceptance of the program depended on their acknowledgment of the practical benefits of active learning and on the value afforded their input on curricular development.