Measuring students’ perceptions of the educational environment of a new pharmacy school using the

DREEM questionnairePenny WongSchool of Pharmacy, Taylor’s University

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.

Background – The Educational Environment

Study Design

• DREEM Questionnaire – What? Why?• Ethics approval• Population & sampling• Data collection• Data analysis

What is DREEM?

What is DREEM?

What is DREEM?

Why DREEM?

Participants

Ethics approval √

Data Collection

Year 2 Year 3Questionnaire conducted @ different site

Students are invited in classAnonymous submission

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)

Findings – Population

Implications

Table 6.5. Comparison of mean (SD) DREEM subscale scores between Year

2 and Year 3 students at TU

DREEM

subscale

TU Year 2 TU Year 3 Official 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 score 124.60 (13.59) 135.17

(11.81)

(101 – 150) More positive than

negative

Findings - Comparison

Table 6.5. Comparison of mean (SD) DREEM subscale scores

between Year 2 and Year 3 students at TU

DREEM subscale TU Year 2 TU 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 score 124.60

(13.59)

135.17

(11.81)

0.005*

Discussion

(101 – 150) More positive than negative

Discussion

Taylor’s

University

King Saudi

University

Monash

University

Official Interpretations

SPL (max 48) 32.3 25.8 30.9 (25-36) A more positive

perception

SPT (max = 44) 27.4 25 30.5 (23-33) Moving in the right

direction

SAP (max = 32) 20.5 18.3 20.6 (17-24) Feeling more on the

positive side

SPA (max = 48) 29.4 26.1 31.7 (25-36) A more positive

attitude

SSP (max = 28) 18.0 17.2 19.2 (15-21) Not too bad

Discussion

Recommendations

• ↑ staff awareness among staff involved in this collaboration.

• Examine items with score < 2.0 to gain a better insight into student perceptions.

Thank you