Perceptions and Utility of Course Evaluations in US Pharmacy Schools

被引:4
作者
Chen, Aleda M. H. [1 ]
Park, Sharon K. [2 ]
Bechtol, Robert A. [1 ]
Shah, Bupendra K. [3 ]
Anderson, Heather D. [4 ]
Young, M. Andrew [5 ]
Hardinger, Karen L. [6 ]
Odem, Samantha [7 ]
Augustine, Jill [8 ]
机构
[1] Cedarville Univ, Sch Pharm, Cedarville, OH 45314 USA
[2] Notre Dame Maryland Univ, Sch Pharm, Baltimore, MD USA
[3] Touro Univ, Touro Coll Pharm, New York, NY USA
[4] Univ Colorado, Pharmaceut Sci, Skaggs Sch Pharm & Pharmaceut Sci, Anschutz Med Campus, Aurora, CO USA
[5] East Tennessee State Univ, Bill Gatton Coll Pharm, Johnson City, TN USA
[6] Univ Missouri Kansas City, Kansas City, MO USA
[7] William Carey Univ, Sch Pharm, Biloxi, MS USA
[8] Mercer Univ, Coll Pharm, Atlanta, GA USA
关键词
Course evaluation; Pharmacy education; Continuous quality improvement; Faculty evaluation; FACULTY;
D O I
10.1016/j.ajpe.2024.100646
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 18 条