| Summary: | Introduction: Students’ transition into university is often a daunting experience. In 2012 the University of Portsmouth (UOP) revised its academic structure where written assessments would be undertaken at the end of the academic year. The new structure was considerably different to the modularised learning environment students were familiar with and the need for additional support was indicated. A number of studies have determined students’ study habits and where they turn for academic support, however none were specific to MPharm students. This study explored the provision of academic support at UOP and where MPharm students turn for help with their studies. Methods: A mixed methods study (questionnaire and focus groups) was conducted in Phase 1 targeting MPharm students in Stages 2, 3 and 4 exploring: why they chose to study pharmacy, their experiences of study support at UOP, the effect the support had upon them, and where they turned to for support. Phase 2, informed by Phase 1, evaluated the student mentoring programme (SMP) using a mixed methods approach; targeting Stages 2 and 3 students to explore opinions of the programme from both mentees’ and mentors’ perspectives. Phase 3, informed by Phases 1 and 2, used a mixed methods approach to explore opinions of the Peer Assisted Learning (PAL) programme from both PAL mentees’ and PAL leaders’ perspectives. Key findings: Phase 1 showed that students at UOP demonstrated both intrinsic and extrinsic reasons for choosing to study pharmacy; students who passed assessments without second attempts adopted more effective organisational strategies than their peers who failed assessments; and students thought a student mentoring programme would help with transition into university and the MPharm. Phase 2 revealed students who volunteered to be mentors wanted to help new students settle into university and the MPharm course. Students who met on more occasions with mentors benefitted most from the mentoring relationship. Finally the SMP needed to be timetabled and structured to enable students to meet face-to-face with mentors. A timetabled PAL programme was developed and introduced in Phase 3; findings indicate that higher levels of attendance, and organisation of the PAL sessions by the PAL leaders, provided more positive benefits for Stage 1 students. PAL leaders wanted to help new students and enhance their own curricula vitae and develop transferable skills. All Phases revealed students were more comfortable approaching their peers and higher year students for academic study support as opposed to contacting a member of staff. Conclusions: The supportive network gained from PAL can be compared to Communities of Practice. PAL brought MPharm students, with the same interests and goals, together and achieved a collective and collaborative learning environment.
|
|---|
