1. Measuring students’ perceptions of the educational environment of a new pharmacy school using the DREEM questionnaire Penny Wong School of Pharmacy, Taylor’s University

2. Background – Lifelong learning Learning environment have a significant impact on promoting & enhancing lifelong learning A +ve learning environment  +ve effects on student learning Students’ perceptions of a LE affect their subsequent learning behaviours and their learning outcomes. Aims: examine the LE as perceived by the pharmacy students so to enhance the strengths and address the weaknesses of the institutions.

3. Background – The Educational Environment 2+2 MPharm Programme 1 st & 2 nd year3 rd & 4 th year

4. Study Design DREEM Questionnaire – What? Why? Ethics approval Population & sampling Data collection Data analysis

5. What is DREEM? Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure Published in 1997 as a tool to measure the educational environment specifically for medical schools and other health professions. Has been used in >20 countries for evaluation purpose: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, India, Iran, Ireland, Japan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Nepal, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Turkey, the UK and the West Indies.

6. What is DREEM? Contains 50 statements relating to a range of topics directly relevant to education environment The five topics in the questionnaire are: Students’ perception of learning (12 items); Students’ perception of teachers (11 items); Students’ academic self-perceptions (8 items); Students’ perception of atmosphere (12 items); Students’ social self- perceptions (7 items) Modified DREEM: adapted for pharmacy by changing the occasional word, i.e. hospital  community pharmacy

7. What is DREEM?

8. Why DREEM? Investigate students’ perception of the current educational environment (Taylor’s University) and identify areas of strength & weakness Compare students’ perceptions of educational environment at different stages of their pharmacy training: Year 2 VS Year 3

9. Participants Cohort I (20 students) Cohort II (44 students) 66 students Ethics approval √

10. Data Collection Year 2Year 3 Questionnaire conducted @ different site Students are invited in class Anonymous submission

11. Data Analysis SPSS –The overall mean DREEM scores, subscale scores, and individual item scores were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD). –Independent Sample t-test (A two-tailed test of statistical significance was used with alpha set at < 0.05)

12. Findings – Population 100% participation 20 Year 3 44 Year 2

13. Implications Table 6.5. Comparison of mean (SD) DREEM subscale scores between Year 2 and Year 3 students at TU DREEM subscaleTU Year 2TU Year 3Official Interpretations SPL (max 48)31.69 (3.92)33.94 (3.37)(25-36) A more positive perception SPT (max = 44)25.93 (3.01)30.83 (2.46)(23-33) Moving in the right direction SAP (max = 32)20.63 (3.54)20.28 (3.37)(17-24) Feeling more on the positive side SPA (max = 48)28.43 (4.7)31.78 (4.71)(25-36) A more positive attitude SSP (max = 28)17.91 (2.60)18.33 (2.50)(15-21) Not too bad Total score124.60 (13.59)135.17 (11.81)(101 – 150) More positive than negative

14. Findings - Comparison Table 6.5. Comparison of mean (SD) DREEM subscale scores between Year 2 and Year 3 students at TU DREEM subscaleTU Year 2TU Year 3 Significance (two-tailed) p-value SPL (max 48)31.69 (3.92)33.94 (3.37)0.037* SPT (max = 44)25.93 (3.01)30.83 (2.46)0.000* SAP (max = 32)20.63 (3.54)20.28 (3.37)0.715 SPA (max = 48)28.43 (4.7)31.78 (4.71)0.014* SSP (max = 28)17.91 (2.60)18.33 (2.50)0.558 Total score124.60 (13.59)135.17 (11.81)0.005*

15. Discussion 128/ 200 SOP, Taylor’s University 113/ 200 College of Pharmacy, King Saudi University 133/ 200 Monash University (101 – 150) More positive than negative

16. Discussion Taylor’s University King Saudi University Monash University Official Interpretations SPL (max 48) 32.325.830.9 (25-36) A more positive perception SPT (max = 44) 27.42530.5 (23-33) Moving in the right direction SAP (max = 32) 20.518.320.6 (17-24) Feeling more on the positive side SPA (max = 48) 29.426.131.7 (25-36) A more positive attitude SSP (max = 28) 18.017.219.2 (15-21) Not too bad

17. Discussion Educational environment is a major determinant in Motivation Academic achievement Satisfaction Success Essential to create conducive environment for lifelong learning

18. Recommendations ↑ staff awareness among staff involved in this collaboration. Examine items with score < 2.0 to gain a better insight into student perceptions.

19. Thank you