Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Perceptions and Utility of Course Evaluations in US Pharmacy Schools.
Chen, Aleda M H; Park, Sharon K; Bechtol, Robert A; Shah, Bupendra K; Anderson, Heather D; Young, M Andrew; Hardinger, Karen L; Odem, Samantha; Augustine, Jill.
Affiliation
  • Chen AMH; Cedarville University, School of Pharmacy, Cedarville, OH, USA. Electronic address: amchen@cedarville.edu.
  • Park SK; Notre Dame of Maryland University, School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • Bechtol RA; Cedarville University, School of Pharmacy, Cedarville, OH, USA.
  • Shah BK; Touro University, Touro College of Pharmacy, New York, NY, USA.
  • Anderson HD; University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Aurora, CO, USA.
  • Young MA; East Tennessee State University, Bill Gatton College of Pharmacy, Johnson City, TN, USA.
  • Hardinger KL; University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, USA.
  • Odem S; William Carey University, School of Pharmacy, Biloxi, MS, USA.
  • Augustine J; Mercer University, College of Pharmacy, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Am J Pharm Educ ; 88(2): 100646, 2024 Feb.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38211883
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

This study aimed to describe the purpose, implementation, and perceived utility of course evaluations in pharmacy programs.

METHODS:

After a literature review, a 34-item survey was developed, pretested, and sent to assessment administrators at accredited pharmacy programs (N = 139) with at least 3 follow-ups. Descriptive and inferential statistics were performed in IBM SPSS Statistics software.

RESULTS:

A total of 90 programs responded (64.7% response rate). Most students (94%) were offered the opportunity to complete course evaluations. Some students completed evaluations during the course (47%), while others did so within 1 week of completion of the course (49%). Whether or not class time was given for students to complete the survey was often dependent on faculty choice (52.2%). Results were typically released after final grades were posted (92%), in time to use for the next semester of teaching (77%). Faculty were chosen to be evaluated by the number of teaching hours (50%) followed by all instructors (45.6%). Programs used the results for performance reviews by chairs (91%), course coordinator reviews (84%), and committee continuous quality improvement efforts (72%). Most programs did not provide faculty guidance on using evaluations (78%) nor development/mentoring (57%); only 22% of programs offered student development in completing evaluations.

CONCLUSION:

While most programs invite feedback from all students via evaluations, most did not provide guidance to faculty on how to use this feedback for faculty or course development purposes. A more robust process to optimize the use of course evaluations should be developed.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Students, Pharmacy / Education, Pharmacy Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Year: 2024 Document type: Article Country of publication:

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Students, Pharmacy / Education, Pharmacy Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Year: 2024 Document type: Article Country of publication: