4.2 Article

Implementing a Novel Software Program to Support Pharmacy Students' Reflective Practice in Scientific Research

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL EDUCATION
Volume 85, Issue 10, Pages 1021-1030

Publisher

AMER ASSOC COLL PHARMACY

Keywords

reflection; formative feedback; pharmacy education; pharmaceutical research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that the AcaWriter tool can enhance pharmacy students' reflective thinking and research capacity, improving their research techniques. Reflective writing was shown to be more effective in enhancing research capacity and self-confidence compared to engaging in reflective dialogue.
Objective. To explore pharmacy students' perceptions of a novel web application tool (AcaWriter) implemented in a Master of Pharmacy curriculum to support reflective thinking in scientific research. Methods. A qualitative research design involving a 50-minute focus group (n=12) was used. The focus group session was audio-taped, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically using the Braun and Clarke framework. Results. Analysis generated four themes related to AcaWriter's utility in enhancing students' research thinking and capacity. The themes identified included: ease of use to prompt reflection, tangible tool with non-judgmental capacity; benefits for enhancing self and peer reflection on research techniques and group dynamics; benefits of the reflective writing process to enhance research capacity compared with engaging in reflective dialogue; and benefits beyond the writing process: cultivating self-improvement and self-confidence. Conclusion. The findings of this study show that a novel web application implemented within a pharmacy curriculum can assist students' self and peer reflection on a research task. Further research is needed to explore the impact of using this tool and its relationship with academic performance and outcomes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available