Table 5 Students’ Evaluation of CPD Course (Focus Group Sessions)

The course framework

Aim of the course

Students in each group were asked if they agree that the course contents match with the aim of the course “to improve and develop pharmacy students’ CE and professional skills to become lifelong learners”. All groups agreed that the aim and objectives of the course match the course content with an overall rating of 85%.

“This course was beneficial, at the beginning we learned how to assess ourselves and how to determine our weakness and strength, then how to select the appropriate seminars and other necessary activities to improve ourselves”. FG1

“At the beginning, I was worried because I heard that we need to attend seminars and it’s hard for me as I am not from that type of person. But later on, I attended and it became beneficial”. FG1

Course objectives achievement

In terms of the course objectives achievement, the extent of achievement out of 100 varied among groups. FG1 and FG2 gave 95 and 85% respectively, the international students’ FG3 rated 65% of course objectives to be achieved.

According to some students, the bilingual nature of lectures was a barrier to achieving the course objectives as it caused them to lose focus.

The second main barrier was the lack of student’s time especially transfer students who had extra lessons from previous years thus less time to do assignments.

“Bilingual lectures are hard to follow”; “we didn’t have time”. Although many other students represent the achieving of the aim as “I got benefit and I know how to improve myself now”. FG3

Course organization

The overall rating was 85%. There are many sub-codes under the course organization based on the groups’ responses.

a. Regarding the timing of the orientation lessons, student’s views varied, yet the majority of the students preferred the early morning time for lectures and workshops.

b. The second sub-code identified was the sufficiency of information provided about the course before students’ registration. According to FG1 feedback, one of the major limitations in the course organization was insufficient information being provided about the course prior to their registration

“lesson time and organization were good”. FG3

“The other mornings’ lessons are not interactive, but this lesson needed interaction which was hard in early morning”. FG1

“We heard you need only to attend 2 conferences and you will finish. But later on, we took lectures every week Friday 09:00 am”. FG1

Course delivery method

“Individual-based learning needs”

The course delivery method was positively rated by the students in all groups. The students liked the interactive teaching method adopted as well as the workshops and in-class discussion led by the instructors.

Students perceived the course delivery method as an “effective way to learn, share, apply and develop a skill”.

They were satisfied with the material content and references as well and they embraced the need for more interactive and group work learning in pharmacy education curriculum.

Students also pleased that the course was individual-based and addressed their own learning needs.

“at the beginning, there was theoretic lecture and explanation then we applied what we learned, it was good”. FG1

“There were many in-class activities, also slide presentation/material were attractive. The group and the friendly environment work were great; it was a good and beneficial course”. FG1

“Teaching with group work in the pharmacy, help in achieving your aims and everything. Now I am planning to open a community pharmacy, and I know how to develop myself. It was a realistic course, and it showed us that everyone learned something different than others”. FG1

“I felt myself a master student. I got used to sleeping in many lessons, but in this course, I did not”. FG1

“Everyone assessed his weakness and need individually, then accordingly we improved, it was like private lesson”. FG2

Course assessment and assignments activities

Students rated the assignments as to achieve 90% of their educational objectives.

The topics to practice weekly assignments or activities were selected by the students based on their educational need; this helped them to fill previous gaps in their learning.

Students were highly pleased with the in-class discussion of homework and assignments, as well that the course assessment wasn’t based on exams which motivated their learning more than courses with exams that they see stressful and not properly represent their actual learning.

In FG3, students stated barriers that hinder them from doing assignments; these included the lack of enough time for carrying all self-directed assignments. Also, students in FG3 found it hard to determine activities to attend such as conferences, seminars, and workshops as activities are rare within university and in North Cyprus. Also, the registration fee for those available activities was a barrier for them as students to attend.

“we liked assignments, we selected the topics that we want, searched and then discussed it in groups. It was beneficial”. FG2

“in other courses, we are doing our homework and waiting for the grade, but in CPD we discussed with both instructor and students”. FG2

“in the conferences and seminars, we were there to learn, we are not worried about the exam or what they will give in the exam”. FG1

“yes, it was hard to do the activities and fill it because we don’t have time”. FG2

Course instructors

The overall evaluation of FG1, FG2, and FG3 for the instructors was 100, 100, and 90% respectively. Students evaluated the instructor to be a good communicator, used eye contact, helpful and understandable. The groups agreed that the instructor was professional, knowledgeable, and well prepared, which facilitated achievement of course objectives.

“we were able to contact him from anywhere in anytime and he was answering our queries”. FG1

“instructors inspired us when they shared with us their real stories, their aim and how to do a plan and how to change or improve ourselves. When I’m thinking, all these things I have gotten are from the course”. FG1

Whether they recommend this course in pharmacy education curricula or not

The students were asked whether they recommend this course in pharmacy education curricula or not, all answered by “yes, we strongly recommend 100%”.

Students were also asked about their thoughts regarding the most appropriate semesters to start CPD course. Different opinions were brought out and a discussion took place between the students for a while. Even though all students reached a deal that this course is necessary for students before graduation, few students agreed that course should be delivered the last year proceeding graduation. Some students expressed their belief that this course in its current format is challenging for the fifth year students during their final internship course as they are also writing graduation thesis. The big discussion was about the effectiveness of having this course in early years not only the last year, most students supported the idea that CPD should be taught earlier in curriculum.

“yes, strongly recommended 100%”. FG3

“we think 5th is most suitable to assess and improve ourselves before graduation after almost finishing all courses”. FG1

“it was good for the 5th year students in the 1st semester, but it was not good for them in the 2nd semester in term of time”. FG2

“we wished it was on other years, 4th or 3rd year maybe we would do better and it’s more logic, but not at the last year”. FG2

“1st or 2nd year because when they started to attend conferences they are going to a trip not to learn, so I think it’s good for them to learn from the beginning, there was a lot of free time in these years”. FG1

Duration of the course

FG3 agreed that two semesters are enough for such a course, while students of FG1 and FG2 recommended that this course should be delivered continually starting from the early years until graduation. Some students stressed on the importance of having it from the early years.

“CV should be prepared from 4th year, but conferences and activities should be before. 4th year is late, in our opinion from the 3rd year”. FG2

Elective or compulsory course;

Students when asked about the status of this course in curricula whether it keeps as an elective or become a compulsory course, all students recommended to deliver the course as a compulsory course for many reasons they stated.

“something that everybody should know, so should not be an elective course but compulsory”. FG3

Acquired SDL learning and professional development skills

During the session students reflected what they had gained from this course and the differences they noticed on their learning on individual bases.

Students were pleased that they have their curriculum vitae (CV) and they can develop it by themselves. Students were also pleased that they practiced how to assess and address their learning needs and using online learning resources effectively.

“before I was attending activities only for attending, but now first I need to find what I need then I will attend after having my plan. It was an opportunity for us to learn it”. FG2

“the CV, we didn’t know well before, but now everyone had his CV”. FG2

“because most of my friends were asking me to teach them how to make their CV, I was proud and I was like okay I knew how to do it in class and I’m going to teach you”. FG3

“I was able to learn what I’m weak in from the internet but before I did not use to”. FG2

Portfolio

Students were asked about their thoughts about the portfolio they used and whether it was beneficial. FG1 rated portfolios 85% in terms of utility and content, while FG2 and FG3 evaluated portfolio to achieve only 55% in terms of easiness to use and applicability, although they found that using portfolios is beneficial. Regarding the format of the portfolio, most of the students liked the e-portfolio however, some of the students preferred the hard copy format perceiving it to be more beneficial than the online version.

“we felt boring a lot of repetition in the questions, some questions sound as being repeated and lots of details. It’s better to be briefer”. FG2

Recommendations

At the end of the focused group sessions, we asked the students about their recommendations to improve the course.

a. The first recommendation was about the time of the lesson within the day, not to be very early. Also, students recommended starting CPD course earlier in curricula.

b. The second recommendation was about announcement, suggesting course directors to provide them information of potential learning activities, conferences, seminars or any learning activities offered in nearby places.

c. The third recommendation was to deliver the course in one language instead of being delivered bilingual using both English and Turkish languages.

d. The fourth recommendation was related to the portfolio; students recommended shortening the portfolio and making it briefer.

e. Other suggestions involved cooperating with other departments to provide more learning activities or opportunities including interprofessional activities (e.g. with the medicine faculty) within university campus with proper prior announcement. Students suggested finally to develop a faculty calendar that shows all learning activities in the region and within school.

“better time fitting our schedule”. FG1

“we need to know this information before the last year”. FG2

“I really felt bad, even I couldn’t communicate with my friends”. FG3

“we think pharmacy faculty should host many activities as conferences”. FG1

“I would add more activity inside the class, and announce more conferences for the students to attend”. FG3

“a calendar of the planned conferences in Turkey and Cyprus would be helpful”. FG2

“the first semester was good but the second one was hard especially for the students training in Cyprus”. FG1