A Course Assessment Process for Curricular Quality Improvement

Peterson, Steven L.; Wittstrom, Kristina; Smith, Mark

doi:10.5688/ajpe758157

Cited by 24 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Penn State's IMPROVE model, which is an expansion of Shewhart (1939)/Deming (1986) 'plan-do-check [study]-act' model, demonstrates how to facilitate problem solving, decision making, and process improvement in higher education (Kelly, 2010). Peterson et al (2011) have described a systematic assessment process that provides CI in the curriculum, supports faculty development, and enhances student learning outcomes and concluded that the curriculum assessment plan provides a structured method of monitoring and delivering continuous quality improvement. Haug and Keleman (1996) have discussed about CI concept and related tools in the context of introducing total quality management (TQM) into the process of teaching management.…”

Section: Attainment Of Student Learning Objectives Through 'Ci'mentioning

confidence: 99%

A 'continuous improvement'-based approach for the assessment of student learning

Vanteddu

Somarajan

2012

IJIOME

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Student learning is primarily a function of teacher centric and institution centric processes. For sustained gains in student learning, it is important to have a feedback mechanism between 'teaching' and 'assessment', which we have addressed through the adoption of continuous improvement (CI) philosophy. In this paper, through assessment of student performance, we demonstrate the effectiveness of the application of CI theory for teacher centric processes particularly in attaining student learning related goals by the adoption of plan, do, check and act (PDCA) cycle to one of the quantitative methods courses that we teach. The demonstration of the application of CI theory for teacher centric processes could be easily extended to other facets of student learning not explicitly considered in this research paper for the holistic treatment of the issue of student learning.

show abstract

Section: Attainment Of Student Learning Objectives Through 'Ci'mentioning

confidence: 99%

A 'continuous improvement'-based approach for the assessment of student learning

Vanteddu

Somarajan

2012

IJIOME

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…6 Our program is similar to this example and other published course review procedures in that it uses a standardized data collection platform. 7 However, while some information (such as the instructor's responses to the questionnaire) can be extracted from the online survey for review, copies of syllabi and course materials are not retained as part of the online data collection process and the online system is not a searchable, robust database. 6 One other difference between our program and others is that our program's initial review is done by one committee member, rather than a review team.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 Examples of published curricular quality improvement processes in the pharmacy and medical literature are growing, with several papers that describe processes to examine and make improvements to didactic and experiential courses. [2][3][4][5][6][7] Established, ongoing curricular review processes are imperative to ensure course materials, teaching strategies, and assessments are appropriate to adequately prepare practice-ready pharmacists. While published examples demonstrate the importance of curricular mapping to outcomes using course syllabi, formalized systematic review remains a challenge in higher education.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lessons Learned from Evaluating a Process for Systematic Curriculum Review

Kirwin

Miller

DiVall

2019

American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. To describe an evaluation of and improvements made to a process of systematic curriculum review. Methods. The systematic curriculum review process was developed with the goal of continuous curriculum assessment and improvement. Information on impact and feedback on the processes were collected from curriculum committee experience and an anonymous web-based survey sent to instructors of courses offered by the pharmacy school, and current and past curriculum committee members. Results. Thirty (88%) participants completed the survey with 72% reporting course changes due to systematic curriculum review, such as changes to programmatic outcomes covered (77%), assessment strategies/grading (46%), course outcomes (38%), and content (38%). Based on feedback received, revisions were made to the process: changing the frequency of course review (from every 3 years to 4 years), including experiential and elective courses (supported by 63% of faculty), and streamlining the logistics of course review and presentation to the curriculum committee. Conclusion. The development of the systematic curriculum review process resulted in course improvements and a system to keep curricular mapping current. It was valuable in the most recent preparation of the self-study and could be readily transferred to other institutions.

show abstract

“…While all these factors should be evaluated, the literature regarding pharmacy faculty evaluation has focused largely on classroom teaching, [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] with the most common evaluation strategies being peer assessment of classroom teaching [5][6][7][8] and student evaluations (print and Web-based). [9][10][11][12][13] There is a paucity of published data regarding the assessment/evaluation of faculty members in experiential or clinical teaching settings.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Full-time Faculty Preceptors By Colleges and Schools of Pharmacy in the United States and Puerto Rico

Kirschenbaum¹,

Zerilli²

2012

American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. To identify the manner in which colleges and schools of pharmacy in the United States and Puerto Rico assess full-time faculty preceptors. Methods. Directors of pharmacy practice (or equivalent title) were invited to complete an online, selfadministered questionnaire. Results. Seventy of the 75 respondents (93.3%) confirmed that their college or school assessed fulltime pharmacy faculty members based on activities related to precepting students at a practice site. The most commonly reported assessment components were summative student evaluations (98.5%), type of professional service provided (92.3%), scholarly accomplishments (86.2%), and community service (72.3%). Approximately 42% of respondents indicated that a letter of evaluation provided by a sitebased supervisor was included in their assessment process. Some colleges and schools also conducted onsite assessment of faculty members. Conclusions. Most colleges and schools of pharmacy assess full-time faculty-member preceptors via summative student assessments, although other strategies are used. Given the important role of preceptors in ensuring students are prepared for pharmacy practice, colleges and schools of pharmacy should review their assessment strategies for full-time faculty preceptors, keeping in mind the methodologies used by other institutions.

show abstract

A Course Assessment Process for Curricular Quality Improvement

Cited by 24 publications

References 8 publications

A 'continuous improvement'-based approach for the assessment of student learning

A 'continuous improvement'-based approach for the assessment of student learning

Lessons Learned from Evaluating a Process for Systematic Curriculum Review

Assessment of Full-time Faculty Preceptors By Colleges and Schools of Pharmacy in the United States and Puerto Rico

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About