American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 2015; 79 (7) Article 106.

INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN AND ASSESSMENT

Developing Entrepreneurial Skills in Pharmacy Students
Garry Laverty, PhD, MPharm, Lezley-Anne Hanna, PhD, Sharon Haughey, PhD, Carmel Hughes, PhD
Queen’s University Belfast School of Pharmacy, Belfast, Northern Ireland
Submitted August 21, 2014; accepted October 20, 2014; published September 25, 2015.

Objective. To create, implement, and evaluate a workshop that teaches undergraduate pharmacy
students about entrepreneurship.
Design. Workshops with 3 hours of contact time and 2 hours of self-study time were developed for
final-year students. Faculty members and students evaluated peer assessment, peer development, com-
munication, critical evaluation, creative thinking, problem solving, and numeracy skills, as well as
topic understanding. Student evaluation of the workshops was done primarily via a self-administered,
9-item questionnaire.
Assessment. One hundred thirty-four students completed the workshops. The mean score was 50.9 out
of 65. Scores ranged from 45.9 to 54.1. The questionnaire had a 100% response rate. Many students
agreed that workshops about entrepreneurship were a useful teaching method and that key skills were
fostered.
Conclusion. Workshops effectively delivered course content about entrepreneurship and helped de-
velop relevant skills. This work suggests students value instruction on entrepreneurship.
Keywords: communication skills, critical evaluation, entrepreneurship, team-based learning

INTRODUCTION minor ailment service. In the United States, pharmacies

Entrepreneurship as a scholarly field was defined by also embrace such services to improve patient adherence
Venkataraman as “seeking to understand how opportuni- to medication. For example, medication therapy manage-
ties to bring into existence future goods and services are ment programs allow pharmacists to counsel patients on
discovered, created, and exploited, by whom, and with drugs,3 while interactive voice recognition tools remind
what consequences.”1 In the modern economic climate, patients to order or pick up prescriptions.4
entrepreneurship, or possessing entrepreneurial spirit, is Innovation is a key component of the pharmaceutical
critical for driving innovation and creating a prosperous industry and biomedical research.5 Every drug or medic-
society. Its concepts have been embraced by the wider inal product developed and released to the market stems
public in recent years, underlined by the success of the from an intellectual curiosity that requires a proof of con-
British Broadcasting Corporation’s (BBC) television cept spanning years. Pharmacists and health care profes-
show “Dragon’s Den,” and the American equivalent sionals have a responsibility for the health and well-being
“Shark Tank,” where budding entrepreneurs pitch their of the population, the so-called “social capital.”6 There-
business plans to well-known business people in the hope fore, pharmacists may be defined as “social entrepre-
of securing investment. neurs” rather than the standard “business entrepreneur,”
In the context of pharmacy, entrepreneurship is gen- for whom financial profit is key to successful enterprise.
erally associated with the establishment of community A Viewpoint by Brazeau in the American Journal of
pharmacy and business management. However, entrepre- Pharmaceutical Education outlined the importance of
neurship and its associated skills are key to the develop- nurturing entrepreneurial spirit in pharmacy undergradu-
ment of a range of health services in community and ates in order to advance future health care. She asked
hospital sectors.2 In the United Kingdom, examples of whether accreditation standards were too specific to pro-
such enterprises include: repeat dispensing, medication mote intellectual curiosity and entrepreneurial spirit.7
management, pharmacists prescribing medication, and The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC), re-
sponsible for the accreditation of the master of pharmacy
Corresponding Author: Garry Laverty, PhD, Queen’s University (MPharm) degree programs in the United Kingdom,
Belfast, Medical Biology Centre, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast, states students should be able to demonstrate skills relat-
N. Ireland BT97BL. Tel: 44 (0)28 9097 2273. E-mail: garry. ing to research and development activities to improve
[email protected] health outcomes.8 Similar key skills are required in the
1
 American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 2015; 79 (7) Article 106.

PharmD program in the United States, and schools should have a greater understanding than earlier-year students
possess “a vision for education, research, and other schol- of all aspects of pharmacy and, therefore, would presum-
arly activities that commits faculty and students to foster- ably find it more meaningful. Furthermore, in addition to
ing innovation through basic and applied research.”9 nurturing entrepreneurial skills, the GPhC stipulates that
Domain 4.3 of the Center for the Advancement of pharmacy students must be able to work effectively in
Pharmacy Education’s (CAPE) Educational Outcomes a team, to develop other team members through coaching
outlines that, as part of personal and professional devel- and feedback, and to identify learning needs of team
opment, students should “engage in innovative activities members.8 The topic of entrepreneurship, as well as
by using creative thinking to envision better ways of a workshop format, lent themselves to teamwork.
accomplishing professional goals.”10 Meetings, books, The hypothesis of this study was that entrepreneur-
and continuing education courses provide opportunities ship and entrepreneurial skills could be effectively pro-
for qualified pharmacists to learn about business and proj- moted and enhanced through a workshop-based exercise.
ect management-related topics.11-13 The growing interest This workshop would allow the creation and development
in raising entrepreneurial awareness in pharmacy students of a pharmacy-related product or service that would fi-
is ongoing.14-16 nally be presented as an oral sales pitch. Reports of such
Innovative community and hospital pharmacy ser- sales pitches are limited in the context of pharmacy-based
vices and pharmaceutical science are covered in detail education but are a mainstay of business, marketing, and
throughout Queen’s University Belfast (QUB) School economic practice. They form part of a series of pedagog-
of Pharmacy’s MPharm degree via a range of teaching ical activities including class projects, service projects to
and assessment methods such as lectures, objective struc- enhance learning, role-playing, retention, and application
tured clinical examinations (OSCEs), role-playing, work- of concepts and principles to the real world.18 In business
shops, poster presentations, a final-year research project, education, students experience higher levels of learning
and community and hospital placements. However, until and engagement when passive learning, such as lectures,
2013, information relating to business management and are supplemented with experiential proactive learning
intellectual property were essentially only covered in techniques, such as the development of products and ser-
lecture-based teaching (passive learning) within the vices and presenting/pitching them to an audience, and
fourth-year Business, Government and Industry aspect they result in stronger connections between education and
of the course. Moreover, in the strictest sense, entrepre- real world scenarios.19-25
neurship has not been addressed within the degree pro- The aims of our project were to design, implement,
gram at QUB, yet entrepreneurial skills are vital for the and evaluate the workshop as a method of teaching un-
development of undergraduate pharmacy students. dergraduate pharmacy students about the importance of
The pharmacy degree requires a solid educational innovation and entrepreneurial issues. The overall learn-
foundation to promote critical and lateral thinking, prob- ing objective was that, upon completion of the workshop,
lem solving (including study skills and team-working the pharmacy students would gain an understanding
skills), leadership skills, effective communication, and of entrepreneurial issues in the context of community,
the analysis and use of numerical data. For the benefit of hospital, and industrial pharmacy. We anticipated that
student learning, a deeper appreciation of what is required students would also develop a range of entrepreneurial-
to be an effective entrepreneur is needed. As Cope outlined, related skills relating to problem solving, communication,
the best entrepreneurs not only were successful in starting teamwork, lateral thinking, research, and recognizing
their own business, product, and/or service but were also opportunity.
fully prepared with regard to its forward management.17
Entrepreneurs have an outward vision in order to recognize DESIGN
fully the opportunity that confronts them and look forward When deciding how students would achieve the de-
in order to plan its growth and future prospects. fined learning outcomes of this entrepreneurial workshop
From an education perspective, entrepreneurial (outlined in Table 1), we considered both Bloom’s and
skills form a dual, interactive process, where students de- Fink’s Taxonomies.26,27 We aimed for a higher cognitive
velop an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses learning domain, with focus on evaluation and demon-
of their ideas, and of themselves, in relation to the wider stration of knowledge. In addition to the taxonomies of
environment. Thus, because of a deficit in the curriculum, Fink and Bloom, we used Miller’s triangle, a critical
we developed an interactive workshop on the subject, in- model that describes levels of competence within phar-
volving fourth-year students. It was scheduled during the macy degree courses in the United Kingdom.8,28 In this
last year of the degree pathway because these students model, “shows how” (demonstrating how something is
2
 American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 2015; 79 (7) Article 106.

Table 1. Learning Outcomes for Teaching Pharmacy Table 2. Template for Formulating an Entrepreneurial Product*
Entrepreneurship What is your idea and what problem does it solve?
By the end of the workshop, students should: What is the name of your product/service?
Know how to develop a pharmacy-related entrepreneurial idea What is the name of your website?
(including the significance of the product, website name, What is your company slogan/statement?
and company slogan/statement) Who is/are your main target customer(s) (consider gender/age
Learn how to market the product (by targeting specific range/social class)? Target demographic/geographic location?
consumers and using advertising) How will you advertise (eg, Internet, television, journals/
Appreciate the importance of choosing the correct sales magazines/newspapers)?
channel and the product price How will you get your business to the consumer (eg, sales in
Understand about appropriate sources of funding supermarket/exclusive shops/Internet)?
Be able to successfully deliver a team marketing pitch on the What is the price of product per unit or service rendered?
idea/product to faculty members and peers Who will you approach for funding (eg banks, business
angels)?
*Provided to students with adequate space for them to record answers

done) is considered the highest level of competence for

undergraduates and is a requirement for many elements of veterinary products with a small industrial enterprise
the degree program.8 We already use various teaching and was used as an entrepreneurial case study. We consid-
assessment methods such as OSCEs29 and debates30 to ered lecture-based teaching alone but decided it could
enable students to demonstrate this competence, but we not fulfill student learning needs because lectures limit
are always seeking other innovative ways to teach and opportunities for active involvement of students that
assess students. task-centered, problem-solving teaching methods pro-
The authors decided the learning objectives would be vide. Lectures also reduce potential for active “show
best served by a workshop/tutorial format whereby stu- how” knowledge and limit the ability to provide feed-
dents would present a developed entrepreneurial product/ back on student efforts.32,33
service idea in the form of a sales pitch. The students The lecture and workshop were supplemented by an
would work in groups, as typically, product development entrepreneurial information booklet prepared by the au-
in practice is done in teams, and it would not be realistic thors, which outlined the following: the definition of en-
for more than 130 individual students to present sales trepreneurship and its context in the MPharm pathway;
pitches. Tutorials and workshops can provide a more in- intended learning outcomes and the format and structure
teractive teaching experience than lecture-based learning, of the workshops (see Table 3); preworkshop preparation
increasing the interchange between the teacher and the required and the resources needed; format of assessment
students and promoting the active involvement of under- and feedback; definitions of business terminology and
graduates. According to Heidari et al, an advantage of guidance for the generation and development of an entre-
workshops identified by students was the support they preneurial idea.
received from lecturers and fellow students. Learning in Ethical approval to evaluate the workshop using
an environment in which they felt they could vocalize any quantitative research methodology (a questionnaire
problems they encountered facilitated learning and pro- study) and to provide prizes was granted by the school’s
moted self-confidence.31 One author delivered the 3 en- ethics committee. Students were informed about the re-
trepreneurial workshops because of previous experience search questionnaire in the lecture and workshop clas-
and qualifications in the area, holding a postgraduate di- ses. Formal written notice was also provided at the
ploma in management practice from University College beginning of the evaluation questionnaire, highlighting
Dublin. that the data obtained would be used for publication
In addition to the workshop, a lecture was deemed purposes. Additionally, students were informed that par-
necessary to introduce students to the area of entrepre- ticipation in the questionnaire was voluntary. Students
neurship in pharmacy, provide guidelines as to what was were provided with all documentation, workshop book-
expected in the workshop, and present a fully formulated let, and guidelines weeks before the start of the second
case study using the same template provided to the stu- semester (7 weeks before the first workshop). These
dents (see Table 2). Students were advised that this level were distributed by e-mail and online via the university
of detail would be required for their sales pitch in the eportal (Queen’s Online, Queen’s University Belfast,
workshop. The lecture was delivered 2 weeks before the Ireland). Students were explicitly told within the work-
first of 3 workshops. One author’s experience of producing shop booklet, by e-mail, and within the entrepreneurship
3
 American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 2015; 79 (7) Article 106.

Table 3. Timeframe of Relevant Entrepreneurial Workshop Activities

Activity, in Sequential Order Time Allocated
Prior to workshop: example pitch provided in entrepreneurial lecture 1 hour
Prior to workshop: individual idea generation and completion of entrepreneurial product idea sheet 2 hours
Workshop: introduction and allocation of groups/necessary paperwork 15 minutes
Workshop: completion of group entrepreneurial product idea sheet 1 hour, 10 minutes
Workshop: group marketing pitches; question and answer session 1 hour, 15 minutes
Workshop: provision of faculty members and peer feedback 15 minutes
Workshop: concluding comments and submission of relevant paperwork 5 minutes

lecture that they were required to formulate an innova- further as a team. The chosen idea had to be fully de-
tive product, business, or service related to pharmacy veloped within 70 minutes, with the aim of providing
and indicate what the idea was, what problem it solved, time-related pressure. The authors decided this was the
and name of product or service before attending the best mechanism to create an environment involving dis-
workshop. continuities, crises, and critical events, especially as stu-
At this stage, students were required to work individ- dents did not have to consider financial risk.17,21,41
ually, and 2 hours of self-study was designated for this Introducing less control to the group dynamic and un-
task. Students were encouraged to submit these individual familiar tasks is inherent to the development of entrepre-
concepts, and a £20 gift voucher was awarded for the best neurial learning.34,42
individual idea in each workshop (3 prizes). This in- Each student then was assigned a specific part of the
creased the likelihood of student commitment to their de- pitch to deliver (Table 2 outlines the main questions that
signs. Cope believed emotional “self-investment” to be an had to be addressed by the team during their pitch, and
important aspect of entrepreneurial-based learning in that students had to provide relevant information to support
it effectively shaped learning. Self-investment was espe- their topic), meaning all students had to present. No com-
cially important as academic performance was not puterized presentations were allowed, but students were
awarded to the task and student’s scores did not contribute informed they could use the tutorial room’s whiteboard
to their final degree grade, given that it was new to faculty during the presentation if necessary.
members and students.34 Some of these ideas would be Each team, rather than individual student, received
further developed during the workshop. an overall score (maximum score 65) based on peer (audi-
For the workshops, the fourth-year cohort (n5134) ence) and faculty members assessments using the 3 main
was divided into 3 groups (n544, n545, n545), and each criteria (idea, development of idea, and sales pitch; see
student attended a designated workshop. Attendance was Table 4 and Appendix 1 for further information). To
compulsory and monitored. Each session was divided into ensure the assessment was fair and reliable, the authors
5 teams of 9 students, with one team comprising 8 students. prepared a comprehensive assessment checklist grid, out-
The multitude of topics and factors associated with entre- lining how each key aspect should be scored (see Appen-
preneurship makes it difficult to replicate as a teaching dix 1 for further information). A maximum score of 5 and
format, and publications relating to teaching methods are minimum score of 1 was assigned for each criterion. The
limited.35,36 In addition, uncertainty is a requirement in same assessment sheet was used by both faculty members
order to replicate the insecurity associated with starting and students. Peer assessment forms were submitted by
a new business or launching a new product/service.37,38 each student to a designated submission box at the end of
Students were assigned to teams at the start of the work- the workshop. Faculty member scores contributed 60% of
shop to ensure full development of the entrepreneurial idea the overall score, with the remaining 40% attributed to peer
only within the boundaries and timescales of the work- grading. The overall score was therefore derived from the
shop. While some promote students working in self-selecting following equation: (mean peer score x 0.4)1(faculty
groups to facilitate argument, collaboration, and debate,39,40 members score x 0.6)5overall student score.
we believed predetermined groups created a discontinuous Peer assessment, as recommended by Heywood,43
environment more akin to the real working world, where was an important contribution to the workshop. Self-
entrepreneurs often are required to work with individuals and peer assessment provide students with more owner-
they would not necessarily have chosen.21,36,41 ship of the learning they are undertaking. Assessment is
Having prepared an idea and been allocated into not a process performed on them but is a participative
teams, students had to decide which idea to work on process in which they are fully involved.44 Self- and peer
4
 American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 2015; 79 (7) Article 106.

Table 4. Entrepreneurial Workshop Key Assessment Criteriaa (with Mean Scores)

Mean Faculty Mean Student Mean Combined
Criteria Member Scoreb (SD) Scoreb (SD) Scoreb (SD)
The Idea
Level of innovation 3.6 (0.15) 4.0 (0.16) 3.8 (0.12)
Relevance to pharmacy 4.2 (0.09) 4.6 (0.41) 4.4 (0.13)
Development of the Idea
Product/service/business name 3.9 (0.12) 4.3 (0.16) 4.1 (0.11)
Website name 3.7 (0.09) 4.3 (0.19) 3.9 (0.09)
Company slogan/statement 4.1 (0.17) 4.4 (0.52) 4.2 (0.33)
Chosen demographic 3.7 (0.14) 4.3 (0.19) 3.9 (0.17)
Advertising 4.1 (0.15) 4.3 (0.09) 4.1 (0.09)
Distribution to consumer 3.8 (0.17) 4.2 (0.01) 4.0 (0.07)
Cost 3.3 (0.23) 3.9 (0.34) 3.5 (0.3)
Funding 3.8 (0.19) 4.2 (0.28) 4.0 (0.25)
The Sales Pitch
Delivery 3.4 (0.09) 4.3 (0.01) 3.8 (0.04)
Likelihood of securing an investment 3.6 (0.10) 3.7 (0.43) 3.6 (0.22)
Time keeping 3.1 (0.14) 4.5 (0.19) 3.7 (0.07)
Overall mean score (%) 48.2 (74.2) 55.0 (84.6) 50.9 (78.3)
a
Further information on the assessment criteria is provided in Appendix 1
b
Scores for each criterion ranged from a minimum mark of 1 to a maximum of 5; each criterion carried equal weighting to make up the overall score

assessment “promote lifelong learning, by helping stu- score for the students was 50.9 (1.4) out of 65, with a range
dents to evaluate their own and their peer’s achievements of scores from 45.9 to 54.1. These were further analyzed
realistically, not just encouraging them to rely on (tutor) based on individual workshop groups, using a one way
evaluation from on high.”45 Peer assessment is seen as an analysis of variance (ANOVA). Overall mean scores
opportunity for deeper learning, and evaluation is at the (maximum 65) were as follows: workshop 1: 52.3; work-
highest level with respect to Bloom’s Taxonomy.46 It also shop 2: 50.8; workshop 3: 49.6. Statistical analysis was
meets the requirement that students should “contribute to performed using GraphPad Prism 6 (GraphPad Software
the education and training of other members of the team, Inc, La Jolla, CA). No significant difference was observed
including peer review and assessment.”8 between these results when an a priori level of less than
An opportunity for verbal peer and faculty member 0.05 (p,0.05) was used to indicate significance. Skill
questioning was provided at the end of each presentation. development from the perspective of the faculty member
The facilitator provided feedback at the end of each work- was determined by calculating the mean faculty member
shop, rather than the end of each pitch, so no group would score for each criterion (Table 4). The idea and the devel-
be at an advantage/disadvantage. Students also were opment of the idea scored the highest, with the sales pitch
asked to submit a vote for their favorite pharmacy-related scoring the lowest. This indicated that problem solving,
entrepreneurial idea for each workshop. This vote did not lateral/creative thinking, and the ability to recognize op-
directly affect scores. Two weeks after completion of the portunities and research skills scored the highest, with
final workshop, students were sent an e-mail that included communication skills scoring the lowest.
a breakdown of the scores showing faculty member and At the end of each of the 3 workshops, students were
peer contributions, the workshop, and the year group asked to complete the questionnaire. Five of the questions
mean scores. However, these scores did not contribute involved quantitative data collected from preformed
to any part of their overall grade (degree classification). questions, including the 5-point Likert scale (15strongly
At the end of the workshop, students were invited to com- agree to 55strongly disagree). The remaining 4 questions
plete an anonymous evaluation form and post it in the were open-response. Open-response questions were ex-
allocated post-box. amined via thematic analysis,47 with no identifiable data
obtained. The questionnaire had a response rate of 100%
EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT (n 5134). Seventy-five percent of students strongly
The entrepreneurial workshop was completed by the agreed or agreed that the workshop was a useful teaching
full cohort of 134 students (100%). The mean overall method within the MPharm program. Furthermore, 63%
5
 American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 2015; 79 (7) Article 106.

strongly agreed or agreed that the workshop should be The entrepreneurial workshop was discussed at the
used more within the pharmacy degree. Only 29% of Business, Government, and Industry module review
students believed that before the workshop they would attended by the module coordinator and assistant coor-
have strongly agreed or agreed that the development of dinators. Module review forms submitted anonymously
entrepreneurial skills was important in order to have a suc- by the students were positive with regard to the work-
cessful career in pharmacy. This increased to 64% after shop, with most stating the assessment score should
completion of the workshop. Students were asked within contribute to the overall module grade. Authors agreed
which area(s) of pharmacy (community, hospital, indus- during the module review that the workshop allowed the
try, none or all) was it most important to possess entre- development of key skills within the module, including
preneurial skills to have a successful career—49% those relating to communication, problem solving,
indicated industry only; 26.7% community only; 0.12% teamwork, and leadership. This was demonstrated in
hospital only; 22.9% chose all 3 areas, and 1.2% chose the high range of scores obtained (45.9 to 54.1 out of
none of the areas. 65). It also promoted the importance of entrepreneurial
To evaluate skills development, students were skills within community, hospital, and industrial phar-
requested to check the skills they believed they had ac- macy settings. Thus, based on the positive feedback
quired, and 48.5% of students indicated they had devel- from faculty members and students, it was agreed that
oped problem-solving skills; 68.7% communication entrepreneurship would continue to be taught within the
skills; 9.7% research skills; 59% skills relating to lateral module in this format. The main change for subsequent
thinking; 82.1% teamwork skills, and 49.3% skills relat- years would be that the score obtained for this exercise
ing to recognizing opportunities. Ninety-nine percent of should also contribute to 5% of the overall module
students strongly agreed or agreed the workshop material grade, thus acknowledging the feedback provided by
was made available to them within a reasonable time. students in both the evaluation questionnaire and the
For the open-response section of the questionnaire, module review forms.
students were provided the opportunity to state what they
liked and disliked the most about preparing for and par- DISCUSSION
ticipating in the workshop. A number of common topics The use of workshops to teach students is common.
emerged. Positive aspects included: the opportunity to However, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first
observe innovative ideas from other students; working recorded instance within the UK MPharm degree that
in groups; the need for creative thinking; the capacity entrepreneurial skills have been taught and assessed via
for peer-marking; and that the workshop was different, a developed sales pitch. Based on the reflective evaluation
enjoyable, and more interactive compared to other forms by faculty members and students, discussions within the
of learning within the degree. module review and between faculty members and stu-
The most negative theme was that the workshop did dents, and the assessment scores obtained, the entrepre-
not contribute a formal score to the student’s final degree neurial workshop format was widely accepted as positive
(24% of students stated this). Other negative aspects in- by both faculty members and students. The majority of
cluded: the difficulty associated with generating an orig- students agreed they had developed skills in relation to
inal idea; the large team size; preorganized groups; and communication, lateral thinking, and teamwork. The suc-
the dates on which the workshops were held. Students cess of skills development was demonstrated by the high
stated that the workshops were held at a busy time when overall mean score.
they were undertaking their final-year research projects. To successfully implement the workshops, faculty
When asked within what month in the second semester members (authors) met to develop the project, including
(February to May) they should be held, 77% stated Feb- assessment criteria, weighting of scores, the questionnaire,
ruary. Many stated they would be best held in the first and the workshop and lecture (10 hours). One faculty mem-
semester (October to December) or earlier in the degree ber outlined to the students via lecture and via e-mail what
pathway. Unfortunately, the workshop has to be offered in the workshop entailed, developed the “Entrepreneurship
semester 2, as this is when the corresponding module is for Pharmacists” booklet and remained the point of contact
scheduled. When asked to suggest other entrepreneurial (30 hours). One faculty member served as facilitator for all
issues that could be covered, students suggested the fol- 3 workshops and the associated lecture (10 hours).
lowing: more scenarios and case studies in community, The same venue was used for each workshop over
hospital, and industrial pharmacy; further development of 3 subsequent afternoons. The venue did not require com-
product ideas—specifically, releasing them to market; puter facilities but had to be large enough to accommodate
and a focus on opening their own community pharmacy. 50 people, with 5 large tables to hold 5 teams of 9 students.
6
 American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 2015; 79 (7) Article 106.

An area also was required for each team to deliver their Because of the success of the initial cohort, we
pitch collectively facing the audience, with a whiteboard agreed at the module review that in the future, the work-
provided for those who chose to use it. One member of shop would contribute 5% of the overall module grade.
faculty scored the workshop, collated peer scores and The module review consisted of faculty members in-
feedback, and calculated the overall score for each team volved in the module (and workshop) completing an
(10 hours). The scores and feedback comments were com- evaluation of its content annually and was based largely
piled in a Word document and forwarded to respective on feedback provided by the student module evaluation.
student teams via e-mail (3 hours). Students were pro- Four students stated that, because the workshop did not
vided with a breakdown of their mean overall score, the carry a formal grade, it allowed them to think more
mean score of their respective workshop, and the mean creatively, as there was less pressure associated with
score of the year group. the development and pitching of their idea. This con-
The workshop resulted in a change of opinion about trasted with the majority who preferred that their con-
the importance of entrepreneurial skills in a pharmacy- tribution be graded. Peer evaluation is a useful and
based career. A variety of pharmacy-related ideas were effective tool,43 and training students in this area prior
proposed and developed. These included a mobile phone to the workshop may have increased their ability to ef-
application that could serve as a compendium of clinical fectively perform this task. The use of one faculty mem-
texts used by pharmacists in practice, with quick and easy ber to perform all assessments limited the capacity for
access to drug doses and indications; a watch for patients bias. This faculty member had been fully involved in the
that could be set to vibrate or give an audible alarm to development of the comprehensive scoring scheme
remind them a drug dose was required; a mobile licensed (Appendix 1). The faculty members had concerns ini-
pharmacy that could deliver to rural communities; and tially that the students would not take the exercise seri-
a set of scales that could quickly convert patient weight ously, but this was not demonstrated in practice.
to doses for specific drugs in a hospital pharmacy. Because students were placed in groups, rather than be
The major limitation was that the entrepreneurial allowed to choose their colleagues, there could have
workshop could not be compared directly with a similar been a reluctance to show they had not prepared prop-
entrepreneurial-based study. A similar approach was suc- erly. Furthermore, in schools of pharmacy across the
cessfully adopted by Perepelkin to teach pharmacy stu- United Kingdom, all students are required to abide with
dents the importance of management within a community a code of conduct that requires them to engage fully with
pharmacy context, with formation of a group-led business assessment.49 There was no significant difference in the
plan and presentation.48 Faculty members involved with mean scores of the workshops, suggesting neither an
our project believed the hypothesis was correct : entrepre- advantage or a disadvantage in the timing of the work-
neurship and entrepreneurial skills were effectively pro- shop relative to the distribution of material or to the
moted and enhanced through the workshop. The authors entrepreneurial lecture. In the future, a standard operat-
believed it was important to include all disciplines of ing procedure will be developed to outline the course of
pharmacy (community, hospital, and industry) in the action should a student fail to attend the workshop or to
workshop. The aims of the current project also were provide sufficient contribution to warrant a passing
achieved; that is, to design, implement, and evaluate the grade. Attendance at the entrepreneurial lecture was
workshop as a method of teaching undergraduate phar- high; though, in the future, it also may be made com-
macy students about the importance of innovation and pulsory, with attendance recorded, so all students are
entrepreneurial issues. The faculty members involved in aware of the importance of the workshop in relation to
developing the project had experience in teaching all module grades. The workshop may have potential to be
aspects of the MPharm degree.29,30 This allowed evi- introduced to other degree programs available at the
dence-based judgments to be made in the creation of the school of pharmacy or throughout courses available at
workshop. One limitation was that the final assessed the university.
scores did not contribute anything to the overall degree
grades. As the workshop was new, we felt it wouldn’t be SUMMARY
fair to formally grade it. We assumed students would still There is an increasing need for entrepreneurial skills
benefit from the set of skills and experience that such in health care to encourage the creation of new and
a workshop would provide. When students were asked innovative health-related services, technologies, and
in the open-response portion of the evaluation question- therapies. A workshop was, therefore, formulated to ef-
naire what grade the workshop should contribute to the fectively promote and enhance entrepreneurship and en-
overall module, a majority (n577) stated 5%. trepreneurial skills in undergraduate pharmacy students.
7
 American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 2015; 79 (7) Article 106.

Skills including peer assessment, peer development, com- 16. Hermansen-Kolbulnicky CJ, Moss CL. Pharmacy student
munication, critical evaluation, creative thinking, prob- entrepreneurial orientation: A measure to identify potential
pharmacist entrepreneurs. Am J Pharm Educ. 2004;65(5):Article 113.
lem solving, and numeracy were developed. The
17. Cope J. Toward a dynamic learning perspective of
workshop was relatively easy to design and apply. Over- entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2005;29
all, it served as an effective teaching tool for the promo- (4):373-397.
tion of entrepreneurship in the pharmacy degree and could 18. Weldy TG, Turnipseed DL. Assessing and improving learning in
be easily adapted to other university programs. business schools: Direct and indirect measures of learning. J Educ
Business. 2010;85(5):268-273.
19. Kolb D. Experiential Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Hall; 1984.
The authors thank Ward Biotech Ltd for permission 20. Young JE, Sexton DL. Entrepreneurial learning: A conceptual
to use their product as a case study and also express grat- framework. J Enterpris Culture. 1997;5(3):223-248.
itude to the students who participated in the work. 21. Cope J, Watts G. Learning by doing: An exploration of
experience, critical incidents and reflection in entrepreneurial
REFERENCES learning. Intl J Entrepren Behav Res. 2000;6(3):104-124.
1. Venkataraman S. The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship 22. Keegan A, Turner JR. Quantity versus quality in project-based
research: an editorʼs perspective. In: Katz J, Brockhaus J, eds. learning practices. Manag Learn. 2001;32(1):77-98.
Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth. 23. Young MR. Experiential learning 5 hands-on 1 minds-on.
Greenwich CT: JAI Press; 1997 Market Educ Rev. 2002;12(1):43-51.
2. Martin CM. Entrepreneurs: Leading the way to pharmacyʼs future. 24. Gujarathi MR, McQuade RJ. Service-learning in business
Consult Pharm. 2011;26(12):903-906. schools: A case study in an intermediate accounting course. J Edu
3. Bluml BM. Definition of medication therapy management: Business. 2002;77:144-150.
development of profession-wide consensus. J Am Pharm Assoc. 25. Yoder JD, Hochevar CM. Encouraging active learning can
2005;45(5):566-572. improve students’ performance on examinations. Teach Psychol.
4. Reidel K, Tamblyn R, Patel V, Huang A. Pilot study of an 2005;32:91-95.
interactive voice response system to improve medication refill 26. Bloom BS. The Classification of Educational Goals. Taxonomy
compliance. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008;8(46). of Educational Objectives Book I Cognitive Domain. New York:
5. Stinchcomb AL. The role of entrepreneurial activities in McKay; 1956.
academic pharmaceutical science research. J Pharm Sci. 2010; 27. Fink LD. Creating significant learning experience: an integrated
99(6):2532-2537. approach to designing college courses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass;
6. Bissell P, Anderson C, Blenkinsopp A. Has community pharmacy 2003.
a role in dealing with health inequalities? Pharm J. 2001;267 28. Miller GE. The assessment of clinical skills/competence/
(7179):880. performance. Acad Med. 1990;65(9 Suppl):S45-S47.
7. Brazeau G. Entrepreneurial spirit in pharmacy. Am J Pharm Educ. 29. Hughes F, Barry J, Belaid L, et al. Development of an objective
2013;77(5):Article 88. structured clinical examination (OSCE) to assess formulation and
8. General Pharmaceutical Council. Future pharmacists: Standards extemporaneous dispensing skills in MPharm undergraduates. Pharm
for the initial education and training for pharmacists. May 2011. Educ. 2013;13:1-3.
http://www.pharmacyregulation.org/sites/default/files/ 30. Hanna LA, Barry J, Donnelly R, et al. Using debate to teach
GPhC_Future_Pharmacists.pdf. Accessed August 6, 2014. pharmacy students about ethical issues. Am J Pharm Educ. 2014;
9. Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education. Accreditation 78(3):Article 57.
standards and guidelines for the professional program in pharmacy 31. Heidari F, Galvin K. Action learning groups: can they help
leading to the Doctor of Pharmacy degree. 2011. https://www. students develop their knowledge and skills? Nurse Educ Pract 3.
acpe-accredit.org/pdf/FinalS2007Guidelines2.0.pdf. Accessed 2003:49-55.
August 6, 2014. 32. Brown G, Manouge M. Refreshing lecturing: A guide for
10. Medina MS, Plaza CM, Stowe CD, et al. Center for the lecturers. AMEE Medical Education Guide. 2001;23:231-234.
advancement of pharmacy education 2013 educational outcomes. 33. Goldstein GS, Benassi VA. Students’ and instructors’ beliefs
Am J Pharm Educ. 2013;77(8):Article 162. about excellent lecturers and discussion leaders. Res Higher Educ.
11. Dundee FD, McDonough RP. Writing a business plan for a new 2006;47:685-707.
pharmacy service. The dynamics of pharmaceutical care: Enriching 34. Cope J. Entrepreneurial learning and critical reflection:
patientʼs health. Washington D.C.: American Pharmacists Discontinuous events as triggers for “higher-level” learning. Manag
Association; 2003. Learn. 2003;34(4):429-450.
12. Holdford D. Marketing for pharmacists. Washington D.C.: 35. Romme GL. Learning outcomes of microworlds for management
American Pharmacists Association; 2003. education. Manag Learn. 2003;34(1):51-61.
13. Jesson J, Wilson KA, Langley CA, Hatfield K. Entrepreneurial 36. Pittaway L, Cope J. Simulating entrepreneurial learning:
ambition: The strong desire to own a pharmacy business. British Integrating experiential and collaborative approaches to learning.
Pharmaceutical Conference Manchester 2007. Manag Learn. 2007;38:211-233.
14. Tindall WN. Entrepreneurism as a means of faculty 37. Gartner WB. Who is an entrepreneur? is the wrong question.
development. Am J Pharm Educ. 1985;49:372-374. Amer J Small Business. 1988;13(1):11-32.
15. Vandel JH. Developing a spirit of entrepreneurism and 38. Smilor RW. Entrepreneurship: Reflections on a subversive
managerial attitude in students. Am J Pharm Educ. 1985;49:371-372. activity. J Business Ventur. 1997;12(5):341-346.

8
 American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 2015; 79 (7) Article 106.

39. Raelin JA. A model of work-based learning. Organiz Sci. 1997; 45. Brown S. Assessment, in DeLiberations. http://www.lgu.ac.uk/
8(6):563-578. deliberations/assessment/invite.html. Accessed August 6, 2014.
40. Taylor DW, Thorpe R. Entrepreneurial learning: A process of 46. Bloom BS. Reflections on the development and use of the
coparticipation. J Small Business Enterprise Developt. 2004;11(2): taxonomy. In: Anderson LW, Sosniak LA, eds. Blooms
203-211. Taxonomy: A Forty Year Perspective. Chicago: University Press;
41. Deakins D, Freel M. Entrepreneurial learning and the growth 1994.
process in SMEs. The Learning Organization. 1998;5(3):144-155. 47. Ezzy D. Qualitative Analysis: Practice and Innovation. Crowʼs
42. Mumford A. Effective learners in action learning sets. Employee Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin; 2002.
Counselling Today. 1996;8(6):5-12. 48. Perepelkin J. Redesign of a required undergraduate pharmacy
43. Heywood J. Assessment in Higher Education: Student Learning, management course to improve student engagement and concept
Teaching, Programs and Institutions. London and Philadelphia: retention. Am J Pharm Educ. 2014: 76(10):Article 201.
Kingsley; 2000. 49. General Pharmaceutical Council. Student code of conduct.
44. Brown S, Knight P. Assessing Learners in Higher Education. 2010. http://www.pharmacyregulation.org/education/pharmacist/
Oxon: Routledge; 1994. student-code-conduct. Accessed August 6, 2014.

Appendix 1. Assessment Checklista Used to Score Teams

The IDEA
Score 5 4 3 2 1
Level of Highly Good innovative Innovative but Low level of No innovation:
Innovation innovative and idea, does not exist. such a product innovation: idea already product will fail
realistic: no other Likely to succeed if exists. May be exists in a market that is and has done so
product exists. developed properly, able to challenge competitive. Product is in the past. Idea
Likely to succeed. but lacks realism. within the market. highly likely to fail. is of no use,
unmarketable.
Relevance to Completely Mostly relevant to Could be adapted An idea that has only Not relevant to
Pharmacy relevant to pharmacy to suit pharmacy slight relevance to pharmacy in any
pharmacy pharmacy context
a
This is an abridged version to exemplify how it helped the grade to score the team for a particular criterion. The full version with all criteria is
available on request from the corresponding author