Objective. To determine how accredited Doctor of Pharmacy programs implement and evaluate the cocurriculum requirement as mandated by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE). Methods. A survey was administered to all ACPE-accredited pharmacy programs to collect information regarding how co-curriculum models were being implemented, including types of activities, structure, learning outcomes, oversight, and assessment. The frequency of responses to items were presented to describe the general features of co-curriculum models. Results. The types of co-curricular activities reported by programs were generally consistent, with the majority of programs categorizing these activities and allowing students to choose which they would engage in. Most respondents reported that the program mapped co-curricular activities to learning outcomes, primarily ACPE Standards 1-4. The structural oversight of the co-curriculum typically included a co-curriculum committee, subcommittee, or task force, and supporting offices. The most common offices/departments involved in the co-curriculum were assessment, student affairs/services, experiential education, and academic/curricular affairs. The most common assessments were reflections, selfassessment surveys, and checklists. Conclusion. In most programs, implementation of the co-curriculum was a joint effort among various individuals, committees, and offices. Given the developing nature of programs, descriptive studies should be repeated to identify how programs develop and enhance co-curriculum models. The study results may be useful to members of the Academy when evaluating the current state of co-curriculum implementation and potential areas for program development.

Objective. To describe a process for identifying skills that students can gain through co-curricular involvement and to map these skills to curricular outcomes. Methods. This pilot study used a mixed-methods approach involving document reviews, student involvement surveys, and focus groups/interviews to evaluate skill development opportunities in three pharmacy student organizations. Investigators reviewed key documents (eg, student organization websites, annual review forms) to identify skills emphasized by the organization. Student participants completed modified Extracurricular Involvement Inventory surveys to measure the intensity of their student organization involvement. Two student focus groups, one student leader focus group and one general student member focus group, were held for each student organization. Interviews were conducted with each student organization's faculty advisor. Data sources were triangulated to identify and map skill development opportunities to program core competencies. Results. Six of nine core competencies were identified as skills pharmacy students can develop through involvement in the pilot student organizations. All three organizations provided opportunities for members to develop communication skills and in-depth knowledge and proficient skills of the discipline of pharmacy. Two organizations provided opportunities for students to develop collaboration skills. Conclusion. A mixed-methods approach can be used to identify and map skills that students can develop through co-curricular involvement. This approach provides several advantages: objective evaluation and triangulation of skill development opportunities, evaluation of students' involvement, and identification of linkages between the co-curriculum and curriculum in the context of curricular outcomes.

Context In an era of medical education reform and increasing accountability at all levels of higher education, there is a need to understand how the time in which students engage in academic activities can inform evidence‐based quality improvement of the curriculum. Time logging provides an opportunity to quantify student use of academic time and guide data‐informed decision making in curriculum design. Objectives This study aimed to evaluate faculty staff and student predictions of students’ academic time use and to assess students’ reported academic time use. Methods Graduate‐level professional students engaged in a time use exercise during the first semester of Year 1 (autumn 2015) and second semester of Year 2 (spring 2017) of a redesigned curriculum launched in autumn 2015. This exercise involved three key activities: (i) prediction of time use; (ii) time logging, and (iii) reflection on time use. Key faculty staff predicted students’ weekday time use in both semesters. Results Students’ predictions of academic time use strongly correlated with their reported academic time use during both the first semester of Year 1 and second semester of Year 2 (r = 0.55 and r = 0.53, respectively). Faculty members’ predictions of academic time use did not correlate with student academic time use during either semester. Although 63.8% of Year‐1 students reported the time use exercise motivated them to change their time use, students reported spending similar amounts of time on academic activities during the first semester of Year 1 (7.8 ± 1.5 hours per weekday) and the second semester of Year 2 (7.9 ± 2.0 hours per weekday). Most students reported that the exercise had been useful and indicated that their logged time accurately reflected their actual time use. Conclusions Although curriculum reform efforts may always require that some assumptions be made, time logging can quantify students’ academic use of time. Although students predict their use of time more accurately than do faculty staff, negligible changes in students’ academic time use despite reported desires to make changes indicate that students’ academic time use may remain inelastic. Educators must consider these findings as they design curricula, identify academic rigour, and establish student expectations of academic time use.

No abstract

Objective. To use institution-specific curricular outcomes as a framework to map skill development opportunities available through cocurricular involvement in pharmacy student organizations. Methods. Participants completed a modified Extracurricular Involvement Inventory individually to measure the intensity of their involvement in each student organization. Participants also completed the Co-Curriculum Outcomes Assessment Mapping Survey (COAMS) instrument as a group to indicate what skills (ie, curricular outcomes) they developed through involvement in a student organization and student organization activities, programs, and events, and to provide examples of these skills. Data sources were triangulated to map skill development opportunities in the co-curriculum to curricular outcomes. Results. The COAMS identified all curricular outcomes as skills students have the opportunity to develop through student organization involvement in the co-curriculum. Communication was the most common skill identified. Other common skills included professionalism and ethical behavior, collaboration and influence, and in-depth knowledge and proficient skills. A co-curriculum heat map was used to illustrate the degree to which students reported these skills were emphasized through student organization involvement in the co-curriculum. Conclusion. Evaluation of activities in the context of curricular outcomes can provide a more comprehensive understanding of how the co-curriculum complements the curriculum, thereby complying with accreditation expectations. Cocurricular mapping provides valuable information regarding student skill development opportunities to multiple stakeholders (eg, students, faculty, curriculum leadership). This process can be applied to diverse programs, adapted to measure institution-specific experiences, and measure various constructs of interest.