Transcript Student Performance in the Health Sciences: a UKZN perspective

Student Performance
in the Health Sciences:
a UKZN perspective
Susan B Higgins-Opitz1, Mark Tufts1, Indirani Naidoo2 and Sabiha Essack3
1Discipline of Physiology, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences,
2Division of Management Information and 3 Faculty of Health Sciences,
University of KwaZulu-Natal
Introduction
 Challenges facing South African Universities to
match the increased access of students from
previously disadvantaged backgrounds with
increased success (Pandor, 2008)
 Need for number of holistic and innovative postadmission
strategies,
inluding
curriculum
interventions, academic and psycho-social student
support
 At UKZN, Faculty of Health Sciences offers a number
of professional programmes, from audiology, sports
science, to physiotherapy and pharmacy etc
Physiology
 An integral part of all FHS programmes
 Difficult for students to grasp
 Development of student-focused support
programmes & appointment of ADP officers
 Still remains one of the disciplines with an
anecdotal track record of having lower pass
rates than other modules in the same FHS
programme
Aim of Study
To assess FHS student performance
in physiology as compared with
their performance in professionspecific modules and any associated
contributory factors
Method
• Ethical approval was sought (FECHSCH 007/10)
• Overall pass rates and average, maximum, and
minimum marks were obtained for the period
2004 – 2010 for all qualifications
• Data were further stratified
– Matriculation/National Senior Certificate achievement
(proxy for Mainstream/Alternative access)
– Language (Advantaged/Previously disadvantaged)
Essack et al (2009) South African Journal of Higher Education 23 (2): 275-292
Physiology Modules
• The physiology modules, HPHS111 & 112 and
HPHS211 & 222, are taken by FHS students
enrolled for multiple qualifications
• Student performance data in physiology was
thus
– First separated in terms of their degree course
– Then compared with their performance in their
other modules for which they were registered for
at the time
• Best illustrated by following tables
2010 Physiology 1st Year Modules
Module
FSH Qualification
No Wrote
(n)
Min Final Max Final
Mark (%) Mark (%)
55
55
53
79
84
71
48
49%
52
86
84
51
62%
89
54
60%
B-Audiology
B-Dentistry
HPHS111
B-Speech Lang Path
B-Sports Science
(1st Sem)
Dip Oral Health
29
32
24
113
7
33
34
31
16
42
74
81
75
84
55
HPHS111 TOTAL =
205
16
B-Sports Science
78
24
HPHS112
(2nd Sem)
Avg Final Pass Rate
Mark (%)
(%)
2010 Physiology 2nd Year Modules
Module
FSH Qualification
No Wrote
(n)
Min Final Max Final
Mark (%) Mark (%)
Avg Final Pass Rate
Mark (%)
(%)
B-Occup Therapy
HPHS221 B-Optometry
B-Pharmacy
st
(1 Sem) B-Physiotherapy
35
44
85
43
29
4
22
30
67
65
76
65
49
48
51
50
66
61
72
72
HPHS221 TOTAL =
207
4
76
50
69%
B-Occup Therapy
HPHS222 B-Optometry
(2nd Sem) B-Pharmacy
B-Physiotherapy
32
45
96
44
24
25
27
32
73
80
88
72
55
54
58
54
81
84
84
86
HPHS222 TOTAL =
217
24
88
56
84%
Inclusion & Exclusion Criteria
• Marks achieved after the supplementary
examinations were used to calculate
– the pass rates for each module
– average, minimum and maximum marks
• Repeat students (excluded)
• Students with missing data eg school leaving
points; final marks etc (excluded)
Analysis
• The data analysed using SPSS version 15.0
• Non-parametric Mann-Whitney t test and KruskalWallis Anova used to compare student performance
in the modules
• Statistical comparisons on basis of mainstream/
alternative access and previous disadvantage
computed for only those modules taken by students
– with both leaving point ranges
– from both language groups
• A p-value less than 0.05 considered statistically
significant at the 95% level
Results
• For the purposes of this presentation, only
the performance of those 1st and 2nd year
FHS students will be reported on, namely
modules taken in the 1st semester
over years 2008, 2009 and 2010
in terms of pass rates and average marks
• Results of the statistical analyses (pass rates
and final marks) are summarized in the
following tables
Summary of results of statistical comparisons
performed on 1st Year Modules data (2008-2010)
where √ = p<0.05 and X = p>0.05, respectively
A. Student performance in HPHS111 versus other modules per FHS Qualification
Parameter
Year
B-AUD
B-DTH
B-SLP
B-SPS
Pass Rates
(%)
2008
2009
2010
√
√
X
√
X
X
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
X
√
X
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
OVERALL 2008-2010
Average
Module Mark
(%)
2008
2009
2010
OVERALL 2008-2010
2nd Year FHS Modules
A. Student performance in HPHS221 versus other modules per FHS Qualification
Parameter
Year
B-PHARM
B-PHYS
B-OCTH
B-OPT
2008
Pass rates (%) 2009
2010
X
X
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
OVERALL 2008-2010
√
√
√
√
Average
2008
Module Mark 2009
2010
(%)
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
OVERALL 2008-2010
√
√
√
√
B. Comparison of the performance of alternate access (AA)
versus mainstream (M) students per FHS qualification
Comparisons
Parameter
HPHS 111 vs
other modules
Pass Rate (%)
AA /M
B-AUD B-DTH B-SLP B-SPS
AA
√
N/A
√
√
M
√
√
√
√
Within
HPHS111
AA vs M
X
N/A
√
X
Within other
Modules
AA vs M
X
N/A
√
X
AA
√
N/A
√
√
M
√
√
√
√
Within
HPHS111
AA vs M
√
N/A
√
√
Within other
Modules
AA vs M
√
N/A
√
√
HPHS 111 vs Average Module
other modules
Mark (%)
B. Comparison of the performance of alternate access (AA)
versus mainstream (M) students per FHS qualification
Comparisons
Parameter
HPHS 221 vs
other modules
Pass Rate
(%)
AA /M
B-PHARM B-PHYS
B-OCTH B-OPT
AA
X
X
√
√
M
√
√
√
√
Within
HPHS221
AA vs M
X
X
√
X
Within other
Modules
AA vs M
√
X
√
X
AA
√
√
√
√
M
√
√
√
√
Within
HPHS221
AA vs M
X
X
√
X
Within other
Modules
AA vs M
√
√
√
√
HPHS 221 vs
other modules
Average
Module
Mark (%)
C. Comparison of the performance of English first language (L1) and
English second language (L2) students per FHS Qualification
Comparisons
Parameter Language B-AUD B-DTH
B-SLP
B-SPS
L1
√
√
√
√
L2
√
√
√
√
Within HPHS111
L1 vs L2
X
X
X
X
Within other
Modules
L1 vs L2
X
X
X
√
L1
√
√
√
√
L2
√
√
√
√
Within HPHS111
L1 vs L2
X
X
X
X
Within other
Modules
L1 vs L2
X
X
X
√
HPHS 111 vs Pass Rate
other modules
(%)
HPHS 111 vs
other modules
Average
Module
Mark (%)
C. Comparison of the performance of English first language (L1)
and English second language (L2) students per FHS Qualification
Comparisons
Parameter
B-PHARM
B-PHYS
B-OCTH
L1
√
√
√
√
L2
√
√
√
√
Within
HPHS221
L1 vs L2
X
X
√
X
Within other
Modules
L1 vs L2
√
X
√
X
L1
√
√
√
√
L2
√
√
√
√
Within
HPHS221
L1 vs L2
X
X
√
X
Within other
Modules
L1 vs L2
√
√
√
√
HPHS 221 vs Pass Rate
other modules
(%)
HPHS 221 vs
other modules
Average
Module
Mark (%)
Language
B-OPT
The key findings of the study,
illustrated using figures,
are as follows:
1. Overall student performance in physiology declined
steadily over the years with a noticeable drop in student
performance in 2010 for both 1st and 2nd year modules
99%
100%
80%
68%
62%
60%
Pass Rate
(%) 40%
20%
0%
2004
2005
2006
2007
Year
2008
2009
2010
HPHS111
HPHS221
2. Student performance in the professional modules was
consistently better than that in corresponding physiology
modules
2nd year Modules (1st Semester) 2008-2010
100%
80%
72%
72%
64%
61%
60%
Pass Rates
(%) 40%
20%
Discipline
0%
OTmodules
OT-HPHS221
OPTmodules
OPT-HPHS221
PTHmodules
PTH-HPHS221
2008
98%
72%
94%
79%
PHRMmodules PHRM-HPHS221
99%
96%
100%
78%
2009
98%
81%
97%
86%
98%
93%
100%
89%
2010
96%
64%
96%
61%
98%
72%
100%
72%
3. Student performance in the second semester was
consistently better indicating that they had
accessed some form of academic development /support
4. In general, those students with school leaving points equal to or above
the minimum points for admission had consistently higher average final
marks even in those instances where similar pass rates were achieved
Average
Mark (%)
60
40
20
0
60
54
50
41
AA
M
5. English-first language speakers were also found on the
whole to perform better in terms of their average final
marks than English-second language speakers
53
54
L2
51
PTH-HPHS221 *
49
PTHmodules
PHRM-HPHS221 *
53
PHRMmodules
OPT-HPHS221 *
58
L1
OPTmodules
54
OT-HPHS221 *
58
0
20
40
Average Mark (%)
60
OTmodules
80
100
Discussion
 UKZN FHS students perform consistently less well in
their physiology modules as compared with
modules related to their professional degrees
 even though module pass rates may not differ
significantly, student performance in terms of final
marks significantly less in physiology
 drop in pass rates, particularly in 2010, following
the introduction of National Senior Certificate in
2008 is of concern
Implications
Findings have particular bearing in terms of
content, pedagogy, assessment, and the
student support currently in operation
In SA growing enrolment of students from
marginalized groups with diverse ethnic, social
and educational backgrounds
inadequate secondary school preparation and
thus encounter several and diverse learning
barriers
(Morrison et al.,2006; Botha et al., 2005)
 Given the increasing diversity within the FHS,
there is a need to ensure the use of appropriate
teaching, learning & assessment methodologies
(Koch et al., 2001; Venter et al., 2001)
 positive impact of one or more components of the
student counseling services (Morrison et al., 2006)
√on retention rates, student learning and
achievement of academic targets
√on students in stressful situations
√on students at risk of drop-out
√on positive personal outcomes, eg improvement of
self-esteem, anxiety, motivation
Further Research
Embarked on two further studies on
the early detection of first year students
struggling academically with physiology (i.e.
before their first formative assessment)
the impact of a computer-based practical
delivery on student performance and learning
in their physiology module
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to the
UKZN Teaching & Learning Office
for financial support
References
1. Pandor,
N.
2008. Education:
Minister’s
Budget
Speech.
Cape
Town.
(http://www.pmg.org.za/briefing/20080515-education-ministers-budget-speech.
Accessed 23 May 2008)
2. Essack, S.Y., Barnes, G., Jackson, L., Majozi, M., McInerney, P., Mtshali, N.,
Naidoo, I., Oosthuizen, F., and Suleman, F. 2009. Maximizing Income via the Higher
Education Funding Framework in Health Sciences. South African Journal of Higher
Education 23 (2): 275-292.
3. Morrison, J.M., Brand, H.J. and Cilliers, C.D. 2006. Assessing the impact of student
counseling service centers at tertiary education institutions: How should it be
approached? South African Journal of Higher Education 20 (5): 655-678.
4. Botha, H.L., Brand, H.J., Cilliers, C.D., Davidow, A., de Jager A.C. and Smith, D.
2005. Student counseling and development services in higher education institutions
in South Africa. South African Journal of Higher Education 19 (1): 655-678.
5. Venter, I.M., Blignaut, R.J. and Stoltz, D. 2001. Research methodologies explored
for a paradigm shift in university teaching. South African Journal of Higher Education
15 (2): 162-169.
6. Koch, E., Foxcroft, C. and Watson, A. 2001. A development focus to student access
at the University of Port Elizabeth: process and preliminary insights in placement
assessments. South African Journal of Higher Education 15 (2): 126-131.