Primary responsibility for various assessment activities is shared by both committees in 1/3 of institutions. Communication most frequently involved members of curriculum and assessment committees attending each other’s meetings (86%). Twenty-four categories of charges were reported including traditional curriculum planning, mapping, and review plus newer tasks (eg, EPAs, IPEs, PPCP, co-curriculum, certificates). Over half (53%) have members from other areas including experiential programs, staff, directors, librarians, and PGY1 residents. Committees are composed primarily of faculty members with voting privileges, but most committees have student (94%) and assistant/associate dean (92%) members too. Most (93%) schools and colleges rely on a curriculum committee to provide curriculum oversight. Results: Response rate was 82% one partial response was excluded from analysis. The study design was approved by both campus IRBs. Analysis included descriptive statistics and comparisons to 2008 results. New items were added to explore ties to assessment and Standards 2016. Data were collected on committee membership, leadership, functions, and charges. Data collection occurred between March and September 2020, and requested information about the recently complete academic year (AY19-20). A total of 130 fully-accredited schools and colleges of pharmacy were invited. Objective: Evaluate the status of doctor of pharmacy programs' curriculum committees as an update to the 2008 curriculum committee study. Carter, University of Montana, JoLaine Draugalis, The University of Oklahoma. Medina, The University of Oklahoma, Staci Hemmer, University of Montana, Lauren Sinko, The University of Oklahoma, Jean T.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |