Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Rosenberg, Ettie
• Truong, Hoai-An
• Hsu, Shih-Ying
• Taheri, Reza

Titel

Implementation and lessons learned from a mock trial as a teaching-learning and assessment activity

Ist Teil von

• Currents in pharmacy teaching and learning, 2018-08, Vol.10 (8), p.1076-1086

Ort / Verlag

United States: Elsevier Inc

Erscheinungsjahr

2018

Link zum Volltext

Quelle

Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• To describe implementation and lessons learned from use of a mock trial as a teaching-learning and assessment activity in a required evidence-based practice course. This innovative self-directed learning strategy reinforced evidence-based skills and affective domain competencies in Center for the Advancement of Pharmaceutical Education (CAPE) 2013 Outcomes and Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) Standards 2016. During spring semesters 2015 and 2016, first professional year (P1) cohorts were divided into teams and assigned controversial topics to research and debate in mock trials. The activity provided opportunities for teaching-learning and assessment. Statistical analysis included inter-rater reliability (IRR), comparison of faculty-judge and student-juror evaluation of trial performance. Two cohorts were divided into eight teams (four per cohort) to debate four issues. Students within each team were assigned individual scores. Mean individual scores are reported by trial/topic. Faculty-judges and student-jurors rated eight criteria including content/knowledge, critical thinking, application/discussion of federal/state law, citations/references, visual aids, delivery/style, and active listening. Analysis indicated students met competency expectations with overall judges’ and jurors’ mean scores above 54/60 points (90%) in 2015 and above 51/60 points (85%) in 2016. Judges’ scores showed a wider distribution than jurors’ scores. Peer evaluation mean scores were above 55/60 points in all four trials. Intra-class correlation was calculated. Judges’ scores had excellent IRR in two trials, and good IRR in a third trial, whereas jurors had good IRR in one trial. Evaluation scores demonstrated students successfully applied knowledge and skills from this and prior P1 courses, and met competency expectations for the mock trial.