Academic Performance of First-Year Students at a College of Pharmacy in East Tennessee: Models for Prediction

With the increase of students applying to pharmacy programs, it is imperative that admissions committees choose appropriate measures to analyze student readiness. The purpose of this research was to identify significant factors that predict the academic performance, defined as grade point average (GPA) at the end of the first professional year, of pharmacy students. The population consisted of 466 students enrolled in a Doctor of Pharmacy Program in northeast Tennessee over a 5-year period. Statistical procedures included bivariate correlations, t-tests for independent samples, and multiple regression. Analysis of the data revealed that the majority of the students in the population were between 21 and 24 years of age, female, and White, non-Hispanic. Most were from the surrounding region, attended a 4-year undergraduate institution, and earned a bachelor’s degree prior to pharmacy school. Average PCAT scores were: 68 (Composite), 67 (Biology), 64 (Chemistry), 64 (Reading), 60 (Quantitative Ability), and 68 (Verbal Ability). The average undergraduate GPAs were 3.43 (cumulative) and 3.32 (math and science), whereas the average first-year pharmacy school GPA for the population was 3.33. Younger students tended to have higher first-year pharmacy GPAs than did older students. Students with higher PCAT Composite, Biology, Chemistry, or Verbal Ability scores also tended to have higher first-year pharmacy GPAs. Students in the population under study with high undergraduate math and science GPA or undergraduate cumulative GPA also tended to have a high first-year pharmacy GPA. Female students had higher first-year pharmacy GPAs than male students, and White, non-Hispanic students had higher first-year pharmacy GPAs than students of other races or ethnicities. Predictors of first-year performance differed based on gender and race or ethnicity, but cumulative and math and science undergraduate GPAs were consistently significant predictors. No significant difference in first-year pharmacy GPA was observed based on regional status, undergraduate institution type or location, or bachelor’s degree status. The linear combination of preadmission factors was significantly related to first-year pharmacy GPA using a multiple regression model, and the cumulative undergraduate GPA variable accounted for 25% of the variance in the first-year pharmacy GPA

Technology in the Pharmacy Learning Environment: Surveys of Use and Misuse

The use of technology in the classroom may have positive and negative effects on learning. The purpose of this investigation was twofold: to identify the effect technology is having on the pharmacy learning environment; and, to assess students’ use of technology during class time for non-academic purposes. This study included a national cross-sectional survey as well as a single, college-specific survey. The national survey had a faculty response rate of 71.2%. Of the responders, approximately 61% identified significant problems related to students’ use of technology in the pharmacy learning environment. Cell phones were a recognized concern and more than 90% of programs have chosen to restrict cell phone use in the classroom. The single college survey examining technology use during class for non-academic purposes had a student response rate of 87% and faculty response rate of 100%. Students and faculty members disagreed regarding the negative effects of technology use during class for non-academic purposes. Notably, 16% of students acknowledged their in-class use of technology for non-academic purposes had been disruptive to their learning, as compared to 95.7% of faculty. According to students, common reasons for off-task technology use included checking e-mail/text messages (75.1%), lack of engagement (58.1%), multitasking (56.2%), and accessing social media sites (33%). Faculty and students were asked about enforcement of technology policy. More faculty than students supported policy enforcement by faculty (65.2% versus 22.8%, respectively; p<0.001) as well as policy enforcement by students (78.3% versus 31.9%, respectively; p<0.001). Overall, technology use during class for non-academic purposes was common. Many schools and colleges of pharmacy are developing approaches to address these evolving issues by revising their technology use policies