- Email: [email protected]
schools of pharmacy with satellite campuses
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 7 (2015) 185–191
Research
http://www.pharmacyteaching.com
Student pharmacists’ perceptions of access to student organization opportunities at colleges/schools of pharmacy with satellite campuses Erin N. Adams, PharmDa, John M. Conry, PharmD, BCPS, AAHIVPb, Pamela C. Heaton, PhD, RPhc, Sushma Ramsinghani, PhDd, Philip T. Rodgers, PharmDe,*, Natalie D. Eddington, PhDf a Department of Pharmacogenomics, Bernard J. Dunn School of Pharmacy, Shenandoah University, Ashburn, VA Department of Clinical Health Professions, College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, St. John’s University, Queens, NY c Division of Pharmacy Practice and Administrative Sciences, College of Pharmacy, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH d Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Feik School of Pharmacy, University of the Incarnate Word, San Antonio, TX e Division of Practice Advancement and Clinical Education, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC f School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD b
Abstract Background: An increasing number of schools of pharmacy offer part or entire doctor of pharmacy programs at satellite campuses. Co-curricular offerings such as student organization and student government facilitate professional and personal development of a student pharmacist. Multi-campus schools strive to ensure that the professional experiences at main and satellite campuses are equivalent. Objectives: To compare perceptions of and satisfaction with access to student organization opportunities between students at main versus satellite campuses among four schools of pharmacy. Methods: Using an 18-item online survey instrument, second- and third-year student pharmacists at main and satellite campuses rated their level of agreement and satisfaction regarding access to student organizations. Results: Of 1013 total students, 314 completed the survey (31.0% response rate); 22.9% of respondents were on a satellite campus. Many respondents were members of a student organization (93.0% main campus and 92.2% satellite campus). There were similar responses between campuses for students who were interested but felt that they had no access to opportunities to be members. A higher proportion of the main campus students were satisfied with access to faculty advisors (93% versus 80%). Conclusion: Regardless of campus site, student organizations were available to students, and lack of access was not perceived as a barrier to participation in student organizations. Access to faculty advisors for student organizations should be an area of focus for schools with satellite campuses. r 2015 Published by Elsevier Inc.
Keywords: Satellite campuses; Distance learning; Professional organizations; Pharmacy school
Introduction * Corresponding author: Philip T. Rodgers, PharmD, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 109L Beard Hall 301 Pharmacy Lane, Campus Box 7566, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7566.
E-mail:[email protected], [email protected]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2014.11.014 1877-1297/r 2015 Published by Elsevier Inc.
The number of schools/colleges of pharmacy in the United States with satellite programs that provide distance education to student pharmacists is increasing. Schools/
186
E.N. Adams et al. / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 7 (2015) 185–191
colleges (herein referred to as “schools”) of pharmacy may offer in part or the full curriculum of their doctor of pharmacy program at satellite campuses. Satellite programs create additional complexities related to accreditation, communication, technology, and organizational structure between campuses. Schools strive to provide optimal and equivalent experiences for students at both campuses.1 Numerous studies have addressed the academic and technological aspects of pharmacy programs being offered at main and satellite campuses.2–5 These have ranged from measuring student engagement in a pharmacokinetics course,2 success using video teleconferencing in a pharmacy compounding laboratory,3 to comparison of academic performance in a pharmacotherapeutics course.4 Few studies have examined non-academic-type student experiences associated with distance learning, which may impact overall retention and engagement, and of those studies, the results are mixed. Congden et al.5 measured involvement in student organizations and stress levels. The investigators found no difference in participation between students at the main campus and those at the satellite campus. Student participation in professional organizations is an invaluable part of a student pharmacist’s professional development. In addition, leadership roles within these professional organizations develop and hone leadership skills in student pharmacists. It is imperative that these opportunities for professional development be available at both main and satellite campuses. To our knowledge, no study has specifically evaluated student perception of and access to student professional organizations between main and satellite campuses. Rationale and objectives The objectives of this study were to compare perceptions of and satisfaction with access to student organization opportunities between students at main versus satellite campuses among four schools of pharmacy in the U.S. The study provides a framework that pharmacy schools with multiple campus sites can model to assess their own student perceptions. Materials and methods Study design This study was a cross-sectional, self-report survey of students enrolled in schools of pharmacy with satellite doctor of pharmacy degree programs to measure current student involvement in professional organizations and perception of access to student organization opportunities. Responses were compared between students at main versus satellite campuses to identify whether differences in perception and satisfaction were present. Each Institutional Review Board among all universities at where the survey was administered approved the study.
Site and student selection Four schools of pharmacy with satellite campus programs were selected as sites to administer the survey as a convenience sample. Each of the institutions offers the entire didactic component of the Doctor of Pharmacy degree program at their satellite sites, that is, students at the satellite campus do not complete any pharmacy courses at the main campus. The schools surveyed included both statefunded research intensive and private teaching-focused institutions. All schools included in the survey utilize video teleconferencing technology for academic delivery. Characteristics of each school are listed in Table 1. All student pharmacists in the second and third professional years at the selected institutions were invited to participate in the survey. Students in the first professional year of study were not surveyed because the investigators felt they would not have been in the pharmacy degree program long enough to become involved in student organizations and form perceptions regarding access to organization opportunities within a multi-campus model. Students in the fourth professional year were not surveyed because they often are not involved with organizational activities due to their demanding intern schedules and Advanced Pharmacy Practice Experiences (APPE). Survey development The authors developed survey items based on a review of prior literature reporting on pharmacy education and satellite campuses as well as expert opinion. A specialized research institute reviewed a draft of the survey. Using feedback from the institute, the authors revised the survey in an iterative item-review process in which each author suggested revisions to survey items until group consensus was reached. Subsequently, the revised survey was tested among a group of faculty. Faculty input from the survey test was used for a second iteration of survey revisions among the authors. The survey was revised and refined until consensus was reached on the final version of the survey. Data variables The final survey contained ten items relating to status of membership in student organizations, perceptions related to organization within a multi-campus model, and demographic information. See the Appendix for the survey instrument. Organization membership status The survey began with status of membership by asking students if they currently are a member of a pharmacy student organization or pharmacy student government. The survey used skip-logic to direct respondents to the next appropriate question depending on their answers to prior questions. The first part of the survey concluded with a set of statements to measure students’ perceptions related to
E.N. Adams et al. / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 7 (2015) 185–191
187
Table 1 Description of programs
Number of students per class at main campus Distance between campuses Number of students per class at satellite campus Number of faculty at satellite campusa Technology that links campuses
Do organizations exist on both campuses or does one organization serve both campuses?
Program 1
Program 2
Program 3
Program 4
120
160
80
72
45 miles
200–225 miles
100 miles
50 miles
40
10–24
20
40
7
2–4
16
11
VTC is utilized for student organizations across campuses.
Live VTC available in all Live VTC is available in all classrooms at all campuses. classrooms and conference VTC between office rooms at each campus. computers and mobile devices can be established. Teleconference lines can also be arranged. One organization serves A variety of models exist: One student organization both campuses, with some have full leadership serves both campuses. one president along roles at both campuses, There is one student with leadership some have only president to lead the representation on both membership options at the organization, and all other campuses. satellite campus, and a few officer positions for the offer membership only at organization are available one campus. on each campus.
VTC is utilized for student organizations to connect between campuses.
One organization has a dual structure for separate campuses. For the other organizations, there is a guaranteed vice president slot for each campus, otherwise, there is only one officer position (president, secretary, historian, etc.) for the entire organization.
VTC ¼ video teleconference. a Full- or part-time permanent faculty positions at the time of the survey administration.
participation in organizations within a multi-campus system. The survey ended with collecting standard demographic information about the respondents. Survey administration The survey was converted to an electronic format using the Qualtricss program, and a unique web link to which the respondent could complete the survey online was assigned. Completing the electronic survey involved clicking radio buttons as well as typing open-ended responses in text boxes for ease of use and efficiency for the respondents. An e-mail containing a cover letter inviting student pharmacists to participate in the survey and a link to the online survey was sent to the Deans of Student Affairs offices at the four institutions. These Deans were instructed to forward the e-mail to second- and third-year student pharmacists at their respective schools. Surveys were e-mailed to students at the beginning of the Spring 2013 because the authors felt the response rate would be greatest during a time period when there were few demands on students’ time with regard to assignments and tests. The Deans were asked to send a
reminder e-mail to students two weeks after the survey was initially e-mailed, and the survey remained open for two more weeks after the reminder. Participation in the survey was voluntary. Respondents could skip any survey items they chose not to answer, and they had the option to stop completing the survey at any time. All survey responses were anonymous with no identifying information requested from students. We were particularly cautious to reduce the propensity of identifying a respondent, especially among students at satellite campuses given their typically lower numbers than students at a main campus. To encourage respondent anonymity, we asked students to indicate their campus site (main or satellite) without identifying which university they attend. All responses were electronically recorded and stored in a secure database that was accessible only to the authors for data analysis.
Data analysis Responses from students at the four institutions were collated into one data set. Data were analyzed for
188
E.N. Adams et al. / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 7 (2015) 185–191
respondents overall, and also separated between respondents on campus site (main versus satellite). Responses to the four-level survey items were collapsed to create adequate cell sizes for statistical analysis. Items requesting students to indicate their agreement (strongly agree to strongly disagree) to statements regarding perceptions of participating in student organizations within a multi-campus system were collapsed to a dichotomous response of either agree or disagree. Descriptive statistics were used to determine differences in proportions of respondents by campus site based on perceptions of student organization involvement within a multi-campus model. Results Study sample The survey link was e-mailed to 1013 second- and thirdyear students among the four institutions. A total of 314 students answered at least one item on the survey for a 31% response rate. Among these, 279 students (27%) provided a response to the item indicating whether they were located on the main or satellite campus and served as the sample for campus site group comparisons [n ¼ 215 (77.1%), n ¼ 64 (22.9%), respectively]. Demographic variables of students between main and satellite campus groups differed in proportion of non-white students (24.7% versus 40.6%, respectively) and proportion of students who work outside of school (79.1% versus 62.5%, respectively). There appears to be a greater representation of older students in the satellite campus group. A description of respondents at main versus satellite campus groups by demographic variables is shown in Table 2. Organization membership status Most respondents reported they currently were a member of a pharmacy student organization regardless of campus site (93% main campus and 92.2% satellite campus). There were 20 students who reported they were not currently a member of an organization. Of these, 11 (3.9% of total sample) reported never being a member (seven at main campus and four at satellite campus), and nine students reported they no longer were a member of a pharmacy student organization to which they previously belonged (eight at main campus and one at satellite campus). When asked why they were not or no longer a member of a pharmacy student organization, eight students reported they were not interested in being in an organization, eight reported they were interested but did not have time, two indicated “other” reasons, and two students reported they were interested but did not have access to being a member (one at main campus and one at satellite campus). When asked what could have enabled participation in an organization of the two respondents who indicated lack of access for not being a member, offering the organization on each
Table 2 Demographics By campus
Year in school Second year Third year Undergraduate degree No Yes Hours worked per week None At least one hour Age Under 25 25–29 30þ Race White Non-white
Overall
Main
Satellite
n
(%)
n
(%)
n
(%)
164 115
(58.8) (41.2)
125 90
(58.1) (41.9)
39 25
(60.9) (39.1)
64 215
(22.9) (77.1)
53 162
(24.7) (75.3)
11 53
(17.2) (82.8)
69 210
(24.7) (75.3)
45 170
(20.9) (79.1)
24 40
(37.5) (62.5)
148 94 36
(53.2) (33.8) (13.0)
122 68 24
(57.0) (31.8) (11.2)
26 26 12
(40.6) (40.6) (18.8)
200 79
(71.7) (28.3)
162 53
(75.4) (24.6)
38 26
(59.4) (40.6)
Total n ¼ 309; missing data due to students who initiated survey but did not complete.
campus (student at satellite campus) and “other” (student at main campus) were reported. Among respondents who currently or formerly were members of a pharmacy student organization or pharmacy student government, nearly three-fourths reported they had served as an officer or leader in their organization (74.0% main campus and 72.9% satellite campus). There were 68 students who reported they had never served as an officer or leader in their organization (52 at main campus and 16 at satellite campus). Of these, 42 (31 at main and 11 at satellite) indicated they were not interested in serving as an officer, 19 (16 at main; three at satellite) indicated “other” reasons, mostly lack of time, and seven students (five at main and two at satellite) indicated they were interested but did not have access to serve. Among the seven respondents indicating lack of access to serving as an officer or leader in their organization, one (at main campus) indicated having a faculty advisor on each campus would improve access, one (at satellite campus) indicated having separate chapters of the organization would improve access, one (at satellite campus) indicated having the faculty advisor visit the other campus more frequently would improve access, and four (all at main campus) indicated that nothing could improve their access to serving. Respondents who currently were a member of a pharmacy student organization or government also were prompted to answer four items regarding their perceptions related to participation in organizations within a multicampus system. Compared to respondents on a satellite campus, a greater proportion of respondents on a main campus agreed that they had access to faculty advisors for
E.N. Adams et al. / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 7 (2015) 185–191
189
Table 3 Student organization items By Campus Overall
Main
Satellite
n
(%)
n
(%)
n
(%)
Access to faculty advisors Agree Disagree
233 26
(90.0) (10.0)
186 14
(93.0) (7.00)
47 12
(79.7) (20.3)
Activities equally offered at each campus Agree Disagree
120 139
(46.3) (53.7)
98 102
(49.0) (51.0)
22 37
(37.3) (62.7)
Easily communicate to members on other campuses Agree Disagree
182 77
(70.3) (29.7)
145 55
(72.5) (27.5)
37 22
(62.7) (37.3)
Sense of belonging with members on other campuses Agree Disagree
112 147
(43.2) (56.8)
84 116
(58.0) (42.0)
28 31
(47.5) (52.5)
Total n ¼ 309; missing data due to students who initiated survey but did not complete.
all organizations in which they were involved (93.0% versus 80%, respectively). A similar trend was seen among respondents at main and satellite campuses in perceptions regarding ease of communication with members of an organization on the other campus, having a sense of belonging with members of an organization on the other campus, and agreeing that student organization activities were offered equally on all campuses. Perceptions by campus group are presented in Table 3. Discussion Over one-fourth (30 out of 109 fully accredited programs) of the pharmacy academy consists of schools whose pharmacy degree program is offered within a multi-campus model, in which students complete the didactic portion of the pharmacy curriculum either entirely or in part at a satellite campus distant from the main or health sciences campus where the degree program is historically established and delivered.6 A satellite site could include a branch campus of the university or involve another university without a pharmacy degree program that offers its campus as a site where an institution with a pharmacy degree program may expand its offerings. Irrespective of which campus the student may attend, involvement in student organizations is generally sought by students. The arrangement for student organizations may vary by school. Several models may exist within a single school. Variance may be dictated by the organizations by-laws, membership size, locally based activities, or newness of the group. Large organizations such as student government or organizations affiliated with professional pharmacy associations (for example, the American
Pharmacists Association or the American Society of Health-system Pharmacists) may have a centralized governance group on the main campus, but have representatives, liaisons, or official chairs on the satellite campuses, and often have designated faculty advisors on those campuses. Smaller organizations may have centralized governance on the main campus and only offer membership to students on satellite campuses, and with only a single faculty advisor on the main campus. Professional fraternity organizations may restrict membership to a single campus due to by-laws or due to requirements to be present in person for significant periods of time such as for pledging or organization meetings where VTC is not available. Also, the reason may be that there are not enough individuals interested in membership if there are multiple fraternities to join. Small, newly started organizations may have similar issues. However some professional fraternities offer an option to establish a “colony” that creates its own governance structure at the satellite with a separate leadership group, membership, and faculty liaisons to mirror the main campus entity, with occasional merged activities. The colony generally evolves into a separate chapter. Finally, some organizations that provide local services, such as staffing homeless clinics, may have membership only at a single campus, though often a similar but separate organization will be found at the other campus that has the same mission and goals. Overall, organization structure between campuses will vary based on the needs, interest, and regulations of the organization to span campus sites. The survey we developed in this study allows an institution to self-assess whether differences in perception exist related to student professional development
190
E.N. Adams et al. / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 7 (2015) 185–191
opportunities among its student pharmacists where the pharmacy degree program is offered on more than one campus. In our survey, professional development and cocurricular opportunities were defined as current status of student membership in organizations. It should be kept in mind that any perceived differences in student life offerings between campuses are a first indication that inequalities may exist. Upon detecting a difference in perception, the school should further investigate why students feel as they do, whether true differences are present, and if so to what extent it actually impacts student development. Our results presented here are an example of how the survey can be used to assess student development offerings within a pharmacy program delivered on more than one campus. Among the students who responded to the survey, there were very small differences in their perceptions of accessibility to join a student organization or serve as an organization officer or leader by campus location. However, a higher percentage of main campus students as opposed to satellite campus students agreed that they had access to faculty advisors, that activities were equally offered at each campus, they could easily communicate with members at the other campuses, and that they had a sense of belonging with members on other campuses. The greatest difference in perception was in regards to access to faculty advisors of the organization. The access to an organization’s faculty advisors can be highly variable depending on the location of the faculty member. For example, some faculty advisors are permanently located at the satellite campus while others may be main campus faculty who occasionally visit the satellite campus. The mode of contact with the faculty advisor such as face-toface interaction, video teleconferencing, e-mail, or by other means may further influence students’ perception of access to faculty advisor. An implication of such perceived differences, regardless of whether true differences exist, may induce feelings of disparities between campuses and eventually pervade the overall culture of student body and degree program. Satellite programs, such as those surveyed in this study, can address this challenge in very patent ways that will reassure students that the school recognizes their needs and is making the best possible efforts to meet those needs. Mindful of the reality that even with the best attempts certain student experiences at multi-campus sites can never be identical given cultural differences between communities, administrators can consider options under their control within the school to address challenges in equal student experiences among campuses. For example, administrators can ensure availability of faculty advisors for all student organizations by either encouraging a faculty advisor to visit all campuses more frequently or encouraging faculty based at a campus site to serve as an organization advisor so an advisor is present on each
campus for each organization (as suggested by two respondents in our survey). Alternatively, utilizing technology such as videoconferencing or other distance communication methods can complement advisor site visits to campuses to maintain contact between an advisor and students at all campuses. The small number of students in our sample who were not members of a pharmacy student organization (n ¼ 20) makes it difficult to accurately identify factors related to not joining or remaining a member in a student organization. However, lack of interest in or lack of time for membership in organizations were identified as the reasons among most of those currently not members of an organization or serving in an officer role. Identifying the source of one’s lack of interest or time for being a member of an organization is individualized to each student. For example, interest in an organization may be related to one’s awareness of the personal and professional development benefits organization membership offers. This challenges both the school and the student organization to provide relevant information that publicizes benefits of student organization membership and professional development opportunities. Limitations should be considered when interpreting findings in this study. The generalizability of this study is limited to institutions with a Doctor of Pharmacy degree program offered within a multi-campus model where the complete didactic curriculum is delivered at the satellite campus. Our findings may be related to unique dynamics that occur within the institutions represented in this study. Degree programs where a portion of the overall didactic curriculum is offered at a satellite campus may differ in various ways that impact the equality of student professional development that are not captured in our survey. Additionally, our survey asked students to rate their satisfaction with the student organization experience. Our study does not define the actual reasons for one’s satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Our survey is self-report based on each student’s perceptions. It is appropriate to consider if perception is consistent with reality for a given situation. We are unable to determine the non-response bias that is present in our study, and it is unknown whether the same perceptions exist among the students who did not respond to the survey. To encourage anonymity, we asked students to indicate their campus site (main or satellite) without identifying which university they attend. As such, we are unable to calculate the percentage of respondents from each of the four institutions surveyed and cannot determine whether a particular institution was over-represented in the final sample. The low response rate in the study limits our ability to draw definitive conclusions as to whether true differences exist in access to student organizations and, ultimately, if any inequalities exist between campus sites where our survey was administered.
E.N. Adams et al. / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 7 (2015) 185–191
Conclusion Co-curricular offerings such as student organizations and student government facilitate professional and personal development of student pharmacists. Our study developed a survey to measure perceptions of access to organizations among students enrolled in a school with a multi-campus pharmacy degree program. Our results are an example of the type of data that could be generated for assessment purposes related to student development opportunities and student life between main and satellite campus sites. In our study, the majority of respondents at either campus site did not perceive lack of access as a barrier to participation in organizations. The survey developed in this study can serve as an instrument for schools that deliver a doctor of pharmacy degree program within multi-campuses to generate their own internal assessment model for comparing professional development opportunities among its sites.
Appendix A. Supporting Information Supplementary material cited in this article is available online at doi:10.1016/j.cptl.2014.11.014.
191
References 1. Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education. Policies and procedures for ACPE accreditation of professional degree programs. 〈https://www.acpe-accredit.org/default.asp〉; 2011. Accessed November 20, 2014. 2. Mehvar R. A participation requirement to engage students in a pharmacokinetics course synchronously taught at a local and distant campus. Am J Pharm Educ. 2010;74(7): Article 118. 3. Robertson JL, Shrewsbury RP. Video teleconferencing in the compounding laboratory component of a dual-campus doctor of pharmacy program. Am J Pharm Educ. 2011;75(9): Article 181. 4. Steinberg M, Morin AK. Academic performance in a pharmacotherapeutics course sequence taught synchronously on two campuses using distance education technology. Am J Pharm Educ. 2011;75(8): Article 150. 5. Congdon HB, Nutter DA, Charneski L, Butko P. Impact of hybrid delivery of education on student academic performance and the student experience. Am J Pharm Educ. 2009;73(7): Article 121. 6. Preaccredited and Accredited Professional Programs of Colleges and Schools of Pharmacy. 〈https://www.acpe-accredit.org/shared_ info/programsSecure.asp〉 Accessed November 20, 2014.
Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 7 (2015) 185–191
Research
http://www.pharmacyteaching.com
Student pharmacists’ perceptions of access to student organization opportunities at colleges/schools of pharmacy with satellite campuses Erin N. Adams, PharmDa, John M. Conry, PharmD, BCPS, AAHIVPb, Pamela C. Heaton, PhD, RPhc, Sushma Ramsinghani, PhDd, Philip T. Rodgers, PharmDe,*, Natalie D. Eddington, PhDf a Department of Pharmacogenomics, Bernard J. Dunn School of Pharmacy, Shenandoah University, Ashburn, VA Department of Clinical Health Professions, College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, St. John’s University, Queens, NY c Division of Pharmacy Practice and Administrative Sciences, College of Pharmacy, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH d Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Feik School of Pharmacy, University of the Incarnate Word, San Antonio, TX e Division of Practice Advancement and Clinical Education, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC f School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD b
Abstract Background: An increasing number of schools of pharmacy offer part or entire doctor of pharmacy programs at satellite campuses. Co-curricular offerings such as student organization and student government facilitate professional and personal development of a student pharmacist. Multi-campus schools strive to ensure that the professional experiences at main and satellite campuses are equivalent. Objectives: To compare perceptions of and satisfaction with access to student organization opportunities between students at main versus satellite campuses among four schools of pharmacy. Methods: Using an 18-item online survey instrument, second- and third-year student pharmacists at main and satellite campuses rated their level of agreement and satisfaction regarding access to student organizations. Results: Of 1013 total students, 314 completed the survey (31.0% response rate); 22.9% of respondents were on a satellite campus. Many respondents were members of a student organization (93.0% main campus and 92.2% satellite campus). There were similar responses between campuses for students who were interested but felt that they had no access to opportunities to be members. A higher proportion of the main campus students were satisfied with access to faculty advisors (93% versus 80%). Conclusion: Regardless of campus site, student organizations were available to students, and lack of access was not perceived as a barrier to participation in student organizations. Access to faculty advisors for student organizations should be an area of focus for schools with satellite campuses. r 2015 Published by Elsevier Inc.
Keywords: Satellite campuses; Distance learning; Professional organizations; Pharmacy school
Introduction * Corresponding author: Philip T. Rodgers, PharmD, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 109L Beard Hall 301 Pharmacy Lane, Campus Box 7566, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7566.
E-mail:[email protected], [email protected]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2014.11.014 1877-1297/r 2015 Published by Elsevier Inc.
The number of schools/colleges of pharmacy in the United States with satellite programs that provide distance education to student pharmacists is increasing. Schools/
186
E.N. Adams et al. / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 7 (2015) 185–191
colleges (herein referred to as “schools”) of pharmacy may offer in part or the full curriculum of their doctor of pharmacy program at satellite campuses. Satellite programs create additional complexities related to accreditation, communication, technology, and organizational structure between campuses. Schools strive to provide optimal and equivalent experiences for students at both campuses.1 Numerous studies have addressed the academic and technological aspects of pharmacy programs being offered at main and satellite campuses.2–5 These have ranged from measuring student engagement in a pharmacokinetics course,2 success using video teleconferencing in a pharmacy compounding laboratory,3 to comparison of academic performance in a pharmacotherapeutics course.4 Few studies have examined non-academic-type student experiences associated with distance learning, which may impact overall retention and engagement, and of those studies, the results are mixed. Congden et al.5 measured involvement in student organizations and stress levels. The investigators found no difference in participation between students at the main campus and those at the satellite campus. Student participation in professional organizations is an invaluable part of a student pharmacist’s professional development. In addition, leadership roles within these professional organizations develop and hone leadership skills in student pharmacists. It is imperative that these opportunities for professional development be available at both main and satellite campuses. To our knowledge, no study has specifically evaluated student perception of and access to student professional organizations between main and satellite campuses. Rationale and objectives The objectives of this study were to compare perceptions of and satisfaction with access to student organization opportunities between students at main versus satellite campuses among four schools of pharmacy in the U.S. The study provides a framework that pharmacy schools with multiple campus sites can model to assess their own student perceptions. Materials and methods Study design This study was a cross-sectional, self-report survey of students enrolled in schools of pharmacy with satellite doctor of pharmacy degree programs to measure current student involvement in professional organizations and perception of access to student organization opportunities. Responses were compared between students at main versus satellite campuses to identify whether differences in perception and satisfaction were present. Each Institutional Review Board among all universities at where the survey was administered approved the study.
Site and student selection Four schools of pharmacy with satellite campus programs were selected as sites to administer the survey as a convenience sample. Each of the institutions offers the entire didactic component of the Doctor of Pharmacy degree program at their satellite sites, that is, students at the satellite campus do not complete any pharmacy courses at the main campus. The schools surveyed included both statefunded research intensive and private teaching-focused institutions. All schools included in the survey utilize video teleconferencing technology for academic delivery. Characteristics of each school are listed in Table 1. All student pharmacists in the second and third professional years at the selected institutions were invited to participate in the survey. Students in the first professional year of study were not surveyed because the investigators felt they would not have been in the pharmacy degree program long enough to become involved in student organizations and form perceptions regarding access to organization opportunities within a multi-campus model. Students in the fourth professional year were not surveyed because they often are not involved with organizational activities due to their demanding intern schedules and Advanced Pharmacy Practice Experiences (APPE). Survey development The authors developed survey items based on a review of prior literature reporting on pharmacy education and satellite campuses as well as expert opinion. A specialized research institute reviewed a draft of the survey. Using feedback from the institute, the authors revised the survey in an iterative item-review process in which each author suggested revisions to survey items until group consensus was reached. Subsequently, the revised survey was tested among a group of faculty. Faculty input from the survey test was used for a second iteration of survey revisions among the authors. The survey was revised and refined until consensus was reached on the final version of the survey. Data variables The final survey contained ten items relating to status of membership in student organizations, perceptions related to organization within a multi-campus model, and demographic information. See the Appendix for the survey instrument. Organization membership status The survey began with status of membership by asking students if they currently are a member of a pharmacy student organization or pharmacy student government. The survey used skip-logic to direct respondents to the next appropriate question depending on their answers to prior questions. The first part of the survey concluded with a set of statements to measure students’ perceptions related to
E.N. Adams et al. / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 7 (2015) 185–191
187
Table 1 Description of programs
Number of students per class at main campus Distance between campuses Number of students per class at satellite campus Number of faculty at satellite campusa Technology that links campuses
Do organizations exist on both campuses or does one organization serve both campuses?
Program 1
Program 2
Program 3
Program 4
120
160
80
72
45 miles
200–225 miles
100 miles
50 miles
40
10–24
20
40
7
2–4
16
11
VTC is utilized for student organizations across campuses.
Live VTC available in all Live VTC is available in all classrooms at all campuses. classrooms and conference VTC between office rooms at each campus. computers and mobile devices can be established. Teleconference lines can also be arranged. One organization serves A variety of models exist: One student organization both campuses, with some have full leadership serves both campuses. one president along roles at both campuses, There is one student with leadership some have only president to lead the representation on both membership options at the organization, and all other campuses. satellite campus, and a few officer positions for the offer membership only at organization are available one campus. on each campus.
VTC is utilized for student organizations to connect between campuses.
One organization has a dual structure for separate campuses. For the other organizations, there is a guaranteed vice president slot for each campus, otherwise, there is only one officer position (president, secretary, historian, etc.) for the entire organization.
VTC ¼ video teleconference. a Full- or part-time permanent faculty positions at the time of the survey administration.
participation in organizations within a multi-campus system. The survey ended with collecting standard demographic information about the respondents. Survey administration The survey was converted to an electronic format using the Qualtricss program, and a unique web link to which the respondent could complete the survey online was assigned. Completing the electronic survey involved clicking radio buttons as well as typing open-ended responses in text boxes for ease of use and efficiency for the respondents. An e-mail containing a cover letter inviting student pharmacists to participate in the survey and a link to the online survey was sent to the Deans of Student Affairs offices at the four institutions. These Deans were instructed to forward the e-mail to second- and third-year student pharmacists at their respective schools. Surveys were e-mailed to students at the beginning of the Spring 2013 because the authors felt the response rate would be greatest during a time period when there were few demands on students’ time with regard to assignments and tests. The Deans were asked to send a
reminder e-mail to students two weeks after the survey was initially e-mailed, and the survey remained open for two more weeks after the reminder. Participation in the survey was voluntary. Respondents could skip any survey items they chose not to answer, and they had the option to stop completing the survey at any time. All survey responses were anonymous with no identifying information requested from students. We were particularly cautious to reduce the propensity of identifying a respondent, especially among students at satellite campuses given their typically lower numbers than students at a main campus. To encourage respondent anonymity, we asked students to indicate their campus site (main or satellite) without identifying which university they attend. All responses were electronically recorded and stored in a secure database that was accessible only to the authors for data analysis.
Data analysis Responses from students at the four institutions were collated into one data set. Data were analyzed for
188
E.N. Adams et al. / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 7 (2015) 185–191
respondents overall, and also separated between respondents on campus site (main versus satellite). Responses to the four-level survey items were collapsed to create adequate cell sizes for statistical analysis. Items requesting students to indicate their agreement (strongly agree to strongly disagree) to statements regarding perceptions of participating in student organizations within a multi-campus system were collapsed to a dichotomous response of either agree or disagree. Descriptive statistics were used to determine differences in proportions of respondents by campus site based on perceptions of student organization involvement within a multi-campus model. Results Study sample The survey link was e-mailed to 1013 second- and thirdyear students among the four institutions. A total of 314 students answered at least one item on the survey for a 31% response rate. Among these, 279 students (27%) provided a response to the item indicating whether they were located on the main or satellite campus and served as the sample for campus site group comparisons [n ¼ 215 (77.1%), n ¼ 64 (22.9%), respectively]. Demographic variables of students between main and satellite campus groups differed in proportion of non-white students (24.7% versus 40.6%, respectively) and proportion of students who work outside of school (79.1% versus 62.5%, respectively). There appears to be a greater representation of older students in the satellite campus group. A description of respondents at main versus satellite campus groups by demographic variables is shown in Table 2. Organization membership status Most respondents reported they currently were a member of a pharmacy student organization regardless of campus site (93% main campus and 92.2% satellite campus). There were 20 students who reported they were not currently a member of an organization. Of these, 11 (3.9% of total sample) reported never being a member (seven at main campus and four at satellite campus), and nine students reported they no longer were a member of a pharmacy student organization to which they previously belonged (eight at main campus and one at satellite campus). When asked why they were not or no longer a member of a pharmacy student organization, eight students reported they were not interested in being in an organization, eight reported they were interested but did not have time, two indicated “other” reasons, and two students reported they were interested but did not have access to being a member (one at main campus and one at satellite campus). When asked what could have enabled participation in an organization of the two respondents who indicated lack of access for not being a member, offering the organization on each
Table 2 Demographics By campus
Year in school Second year Third year Undergraduate degree No Yes Hours worked per week None At least one hour Age Under 25 25–29 30þ Race White Non-white
Overall
Main
Satellite
n
(%)
n
(%)
n
(%)
164 115
(58.8) (41.2)
125 90
(58.1) (41.9)
39 25
(60.9) (39.1)
64 215
(22.9) (77.1)
53 162
(24.7) (75.3)
11 53
(17.2) (82.8)
69 210
(24.7) (75.3)
45 170
(20.9) (79.1)
24 40
(37.5) (62.5)
148 94 36
(53.2) (33.8) (13.0)
122 68 24
(57.0) (31.8) (11.2)
26 26 12
(40.6) (40.6) (18.8)
200 79
(71.7) (28.3)
162 53
(75.4) (24.6)
38 26
(59.4) (40.6)
Total n ¼ 309; missing data due to students who initiated survey but did not complete.
campus (student at satellite campus) and “other” (student at main campus) were reported. Among respondents who currently or formerly were members of a pharmacy student organization or pharmacy student government, nearly three-fourths reported they had served as an officer or leader in their organization (74.0% main campus and 72.9% satellite campus). There were 68 students who reported they had never served as an officer or leader in their organization (52 at main campus and 16 at satellite campus). Of these, 42 (31 at main and 11 at satellite) indicated they were not interested in serving as an officer, 19 (16 at main; three at satellite) indicated “other” reasons, mostly lack of time, and seven students (five at main and two at satellite) indicated they were interested but did not have access to serve. Among the seven respondents indicating lack of access to serving as an officer or leader in their organization, one (at main campus) indicated having a faculty advisor on each campus would improve access, one (at satellite campus) indicated having separate chapters of the organization would improve access, one (at satellite campus) indicated having the faculty advisor visit the other campus more frequently would improve access, and four (all at main campus) indicated that nothing could improve their access to serving. Respondents who currently were a member of a pharmacy student organization or government also were prompted to answer four items regarding their perceptions related to participation in organizations within a multicampus system. Compared to respondents on a satellite campus, a greater proportion of respondents on a main campus agreed that they had access to faculty advisors for
E.N. Adams et al. / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 7 (2015) 185–191
189
Table 3 Student organization items By Campus Overall
Main
Satellite
n
(%)
n
(%)
n
(%)
Access to faculty advisors Agree Disagree
233 26
(90.0) (10.0)
186 14
(93.0) (7.00)
47 12
(79.7) (20.3)
Activities equally offered at each campus Agree Disagree
120 139
(46.3) (53.7)
98 102
(49.0) (51.0)
22 37
(37.3) (62.7)
Easily communicate to members on other campuses Agree Disagree
182 77
(70.3) (29.7)
145 55
(72.5) (27.5)
37 22
(62.7) (37.3)
Sense of belonging with members on other campuses Agree Disagree
112 147
(43.2) (56.8)
84 116
(58.0) (42.0)
28 31
(47.5) (52.5)
Total n ¼ 309; missing data due to students who initiated survey but did not complete.
all organizations in which they were involved (93.0% versus 80%, respectively). A similar trend was seen among respondents at main and satellite campuses in perceptions regarding ease of communication with members of an organization on the other campus, having a sense of belonging with members of an organization on the other campus, and agreeing that student organization activities were offered equally on all campuses. Perceptions by campus group are presented in Table 3. Discussion Over one-fourth (30 out of 109 fully accredited programs) of the pharmacy academy consists of schools whose pharmacy degree program is offered within a multi-campus model, in which students complete the didactic portion of the pharmacy curriculum either entirely or in part at a satellite campus distant from the main or health sciences campus where the degree program is historically established and delivered.6 A satellite site could include a branch campus of the university or involve another university without a pharmacy degree program that offers its campus as a site where an institution with a pharmacy degree program may expand its offerings. Irrespective of which campus the student may attend, involvement in student organizations is generally sought by students. The arrangement for student organizations may vary by school. Several models may exist within a single school. Variance may be dictated by the organizations by-laws, membership size, locally based activities, or newness of the group. Large organizations such as student government or organizations affiliated with professional pharmacy associations (for example, the American
Pharmacists Association or the American Society of Health-system Pharmacists) may have a centralized governance group on the main campus, but have representatives, liaisons, or official chairs on the satellite campuses, and often have designated faculty advisors on those campuses. Smaller organizations may have centralized governance on the main campus and only offer membership to students on satellite campuses, and with only a single faculty advisor on the main campus. Professional fraternity organizations may restrict membership to a single campus due to by-laws or due to requirements to be present in person for significant periods of time such as for pledging or organization meetings where VTC is not available. Also, the reason may be that there are not enough individuals interested in membership if there are multiple fraternities to join. Small, newly started organizations may have similar issues. However some professional fraternities offer an option to establish a “colony” that creates its own governance structure at the satellite with a separate leadership group, membership, and faculty liaisons to mirror the main campus entity, with occasional merged activities. The colony generally evolves into a separate chapter. Finally, some organizations that provide local services, such as staffing homeless clinics, may have membership only at a single campus, though often a similar but separate organization will be found at the other campus that has the same mission and goals. Overall, organization structure between campuses will vary based on the needs, interest, and regulations of the organization to span campus sites. The survey we developed in this study allows an institution to self-assess whether differences in perception exist related to student professional development
190
E.N. Adams et al. / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 7 (2015) 185–191
opportunities among its student pharmacists where the pharmacy degree program is offered on more than one campus. In our survey, professional development and cocurricular opportunities were defined as current status of student membership in organizations. It should be kept in mind that any perceived differences in student life offerings between campuses are a first indication that inequalities may exist. Upon detecting a difference in perception, the school should further investigate why students feel as they do, whether true differences are present, and if so to what extent it actually impacts student development. Our results presented here are an example of how the survey can be used to assess student development offerings within a pharmacy program delivered on more than one campus. Among the students who responded to the survey, there were very small differences in their perceptions of accessibility to join a student organization or serve as an organization officer or leader by campus location. However, a higher percentage of main campus students as opposed to satellite campus students agreed that they had access to faculty advisors, that activities were equally offered at each campus, they could easily communicate with members at the other campuses, and that they had a sense of belonging with members on other campuses. The greatest difference in perception was in regards to access to faculty advisors of the organization. The access to an organization’s faculty advisors can be highly variable depending on the location of the faculty member. For example, some faculty advisors are permanently located at the satellite campus while others may be main campus faculty who occasionally visit the satellite campus. The mode of contact with the faculty advisor such as face-toface interaction, video teleconferencing, e-mail, or by other means may further influence students’ perception of access to faculty advisor. An implication of such perceived differences, regardless of whether true differences exist, may induce feelings of disparities between campuses and eventually pervade the overall culture of student body and degree program. Satellite programs, such as those surveyed in this study, can address this challenge in very patent ways that will reassure students that the school recognizes their needs and is making the best possible efforts to meet those needs. Mindful of the reality that even with the best attempts certain student experiences at multi-campus sites can never be identical given cultural differences between communities, administrators can consider options under their control within the school to address challenges in equal student experiences among campuses. For example, administrators can ensure availability of faculty advisors for all student organizations by either encouraging a faculty advisor to visit all campuses more frequently or encouraging faculty based at a campus site to serve as an organization advisor so an advisor is present on each
campus for each organization (as suggested by two respondents in our survey). Alternatively, utilizing technology such as videoconferencing or other distance communication methods can complement advisor site visits to campuses to maintain contact between an advisor and students at all campuses. The small number of students in our sample who were not members of a pharmacy student organization (n ¼ 20) makes it difficult to accurately identify factors related to not joining or remaining a member in a student organization. However, lack of interest in or lack of time for membership in organizations were identified as the reasons among most of those currently not members of an organization or serving in an officer role. Identifying the source of one’s lack of interest or time for being a member of an organization is individualized to each student. For example, interest in an organization may be related to one’s awareness of the personal and professional development benefits organization membership offers. This challenges both the school and the student organization to provide relevant information that publicizes benefits of student organization membership and professional development opportunities. Limitations should be considered when interpreting findings in this study. The generalizability of this study is limited to institutions with a Doctor of Pharmacy degree program offered within a multi-campus model where the complete didactic curriculum is delivered at the satellite campus. Our findings may be related to unique dynamics that occur within the institutions represented in this study. Degree programs where a portion of the overall didactic curriculum is offered at a satellite campus may differ in various ways that impact the equality of student professional development that are not captured in our survey. Additionally, our survey asked students to rate their satisfaction with the student organization experience. Our study does not define the actual reasons for one’s satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Our survey is self-report based on each student’s perceptions. It is appropriate to consider if perception is consistent with reality for a given situation. We are unable to determine the non-response bias that is present in our study, and it is unknown whether the same perceptions exist among the students who did not respond to the survey. To encourage anonymity, we asked students to indicate their campus site (main or satellite) without identifying which university they attend. As such, we are unable to calculate the percentage of respondents from each of the four institutions surveyed and cannot determine whether a particular institution was over-represented in the final sample. The low response rate in the study limits our ability to draw definitive conclusions as to whether true differences exist in access to student organizations and, ultimately, if any inequalities exist between campus sites where our survey was administered.
E.N. Adams et al. / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 7 (2015) 185–191
Conclusion Co-curricular offerings such as student organizations and student government facilitate professional and personal development of student pharmacists. Our study developed a survey to measure perceptions of access to organizations among students enrolled in a school with a multi-campus pharmacy degree program. Our results are an example of the type of data that could be generated for assessment purposes related to student development opportunities and student life between main and satellite campus sites. In our study, the majority of respondents at either campus site did not perceive lack of access as a barrier to participation in organizations. The survey developed in this study can serve as an instrument for schools that deliver a doctor of pharmacy degree program within multi-campuses to generate their own internal assessment model for comparing professional development opportunities among its sites.
Appendix A. Supporting Information Supplementary material cited in this article is available online at doi:10.1016/j.cptl.2014.11.014.
191
References 1. Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education. Policies and procedures for ACPE accreditation of professional degree programs. 〈https://www.acpe-accredit.org/default.asp〉; 2011. Accessed November 20, 2014. 2. Mehvar R. A participation requirement to engage students in a pharmacokinetics course synchronously taught at a local and distant campus. Am J Pharm Educ. 2010;74(7): Article 118. 3. Robertson JL, Shrewsbury RP. Video teleconferencing in the compounding laboratory component of a dual-campus doctor of pharmacy program. Am J Pharm Educ. 2011;75(9): Article 181. 4. Steinberg M, Morin AK. Academic performance in a pharmacotherapeutics course sequence taught synchronously on two campuses using distance education technology. Am J Pharm Educ. 2011;75(8): Article 150. 5. Congdon HB, Nutter DA, Charneski L, Butko P. Impact of hybrid delivery of education on student academic performance and the student experience. Am J Pharm Educ. 2009;73(7): Article 121. 6. Preaccredited and Accredited Professional Programs of Colleges and Schools of Pharmacy. 〈https://www.acpe-accredit.org/shared_ info/programsSecure.asp〉 Accessed November 20, 2014.