Reflections on COVID: Comparison of Teaching Methods and Outcomes for Virtual vs In-Person Preclinical Integrated Medical School Pharmacology Education

INTRODUCTION: Integrating critical pharmacology teaching across the preclinical years effectively using active learning methods is challenging for medical schools in optimal conditions. Due to COVID 19, the University of Central Florida College of Medicine (UCF COM) was forced to transition to virtual learning modalities for 2020-2021, which necessitated developing innovative but engaging virtual methods to implement pharmacology education. In transitioning to virtual modalities, the literature was reviewed for best practices in on-line and blended learning. However, significant gaps existed in terms of the most effective ways to implement engaging and active virtual learning for medical school pharmacology. To evaluate our virtual curriculum, pharmacology performance was compared between a virtual cohort and one that experienced a hybrid curriculum with substantial in-person learning. The goal of this poster is to share methods incorporated into the virtual learning curriculum, and to present evidence of their effectiveness in comparison with our prior hybrid learning pedagogy. METHODS: For curricular analysis, virtual pharmacology sessions were reviewed for method of teaching, presence of interactive active learning tools within sessions, use of case-based learning (CBL) or Team-based learning (TBL) processes, gamification, opportunity for feedback/reflection, and incorporation of a virtual flipped "classroom" design. Outcomes were compared by mean performance on pharmacology tagged items for virtual vs the in-person-hybrid cohorts and end of module teaching methods evaluations RESULTS: Exam data are represented as mean + SD % correct for zoom (Z) vs in-person-hybrid (IP) on pharmacology tagged summative MCQ items on a cardiopulmonary (N=29 items, Z:84+10 vs 83+13, NS) and an endocrine-reproductive module exam (N=32 items, Z:86+11 vs IP: 87+9, NS). No differences in effective teaching methods evaluation were evident for Z vs IP (range mean Likert was 4.4 to 4.7 [where 5 =strongly agree] for both). A method review across different modules during the virtual curriculum revealed integration of pharmacology into between 4% to 40% of systems modules CBL using zoom small group breakout rooms or a modified TBL with group interaction by chat. Greater than 95% of zoom pharmacology sessions used polling and chat boxes to promote interaction; between 7-20% of sessions, depending upon the module, used virtual flipped class or gamification. Most virtual sessions provided formative assessment with feedback, and peer/faculty feedback by discussion board. CONCLUSION: The data show no significant differences in pharmacology performance or teaching method evaluation between the virtual cohort and the in-person-hybrid cohort. Performance in pharmacology was strong using either virtual or in-person approaches, supporting that virtual teaching was effectively designed and implemented. Interactive active learning and CBL were successfully incorporated into virtual pharmacology curricula. This study focused on limited outcomes so more studies are necessary to measure impacts of virtual curricula on development of essential skills, such as team-based problem solving and collaboration learning. © FASEB.