A Comparative Study to Evaluate the Educational Impact of E-Learning Tools on Griffith University Pharmacy Students’ Level of Understanding Using Bloom’s and SOLO Taxonomies
Table 4
Student level of understanding in semester one exams.
Variable
Control = 53
Intervention = 25
Statistic, value
Factual + procedural knowledge and remember + understand
Q1 (2011) versus (2012)
2.6 ± 0.63
3.0 ± 0.64
= 0.03
Factual knowledge and understand + analyse
Q3 (2011) versus Q8 (2012)
3.2 ± 0.85
3.0 ± 0.79
= 0.26
Factual + conceptual knowledge and understand
Q4 (2011) versus Q7 (2012)
1.9 ± 1.13
2.1 ± 0.83
= 0.36
Factual + conceptual knowledge and understand + analyse (reference question, no e-tool)
Q5 (2011) versus Q10 (2012)
3.2 ± 0.67
2.9 ± 0.64
= 0.06
Factual + procedural knowledge and understand + analyse
Digoxin 2011 versus 2012
3.5 ± 0.61
3.8 ± 0.72
= 0.059
Q12 (2011) versus Q5 (2012)
2.4 ± 1.15
2.8 ± 1.05
= 0.21
LAQ# (2011) versus (2012)
3.9 ± 1.11
4.0 ± 0.88
= 0.95
Total performance
2.9 ± 0.52
3.0 ± 0.5
= 0.32
This table includes statistical comparisons of mean ± SD of student level of understanding as measured by SOLO taxonomy in the Human Pharmacology I course between the control and intervention groups. Scoring ranges between 2 (unistructural level) and 4 (relational level). #LAQ: long answer questions.
