A questionnaire study investigating undergraduate pharmacy students’ opinions on assessment methods and an integrated five-year pharmacy degree.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionThis research aimed to establish pharmacy students' views on assessment and an integrated five-year degree. MethodsFollowing ethical approval and piloting, final year Queen's University Belfast (QUB) pharmacy students (n=119) were invited (at a compulsory class) to complete a paper-based questionnaire.Descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests were done; p<0.05 was set as significant a priori. ResultsResponse rate was 99.2% (118/119).Most [90.7% (107/118)] considered formative assessment improved academic performance.Many [77.1% (91/118)] thought continuous assessments were fairer when judging academic performance than one-off exams.Proprietary dispensing exam was the top ranked method; objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) were the least preferred.An integrated five-year degree was welcomed by 60.2% (71/118) due to greater support, standardisation and enhanced integration of learning. DiscussionThis is useful for stakeholders and course developers.These students appear to appreciate integration and assessments that emulate real-life practice but work is required to ensure OSCEs are viewed favourably.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".