Using WebCt to implement a basic science competency education course

Abstract

Objective: To implement a model of competency-based education in a basic science competency course using WebCT to improve doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) students' understanding and long-term retention of course materials.

Methods: An anatomy-cell biology course was broken down into 23 modules, and worksheets and mirrored examinations were created for each module. Students were allowed to take the proctored examinations using WebCT as many times as they wanted, with each subsequent test containing a new random subset of questions. Examination scores and the number of attempts required to obtain a passing score were analyzed.

Results: Student performance improved with the number of times a module examination was taken. Students who initially had low scores achieved final competency levels similar to those of students who initially had high scores. Score on module scores (didactic work) correlated with scores on practical work

Conclusions: Using WebCT to implement a model of competency-based education was effective in teaching foundational anatomy and cell biology to pharmacy students and could potentially be applied to other basic science courses.

Keywords: Keller method; WebCT; anatomy; basic sciences; competency.

Figure 1

Example of a module worksheet. Figure 1 shows one figure from the Axial Musculature worksheets. This module contained 5 figures and 87 vocabulary terms. Students would use these worksheets to memorize the anatomical terms and their corresponding anatomical locations prior to taking a module examination through WebCt. Figure is used with permission of Pearson Education, Inc., from the textbook Human Anatomy by Martini, Timmons, and Tallitsch.

Figure 2

Progression of module completion by students over time. The 50th percentile of module completion is approximated on the graph (eg, at week 3, the 50th percentile for module completion was approximately 10.5 modules). It is important to note that all students finished all modules in the proscribed timeframe.

Figure 3

Evidence of student learning within the “Appendicular Musculature” module. The scores for module examinations are shown for students grouped by the number of times they completed the module examination. For example, students in group A took the module examination 2 times (n = 15) while students in group F took the module examination 7 times (n = 5). There was significant improvement between students' first attempt and their second attempt (p < 0.001). Similar statistical improvements were seen in all groups where the number of attempts was ≥ 5. There were no significant differences in the final module grade among the 6 groups (ANOVA).

Figure 4

The total number of module examination attempts a student required to complete the course was dependent on the number of anatomy courses they had completed prior to taking the course. Data reported as Mean ± SEM.

Figure 5

Correlation between students' gross laboratory scores and the number of modules students completed (>70%) prior to the laboratory. Data reported as Mean ± SEM.