Pharmacy Education 2023 Session Evaluation Criteria

Criterion 1

The program description is well-written and describes the program clearly (4 points)

• The program description describes the proposal succinctly and is very well written. (4)
• The program description describes the proposal adequately, but has minor need for improvement in either detail or syntax. (3)
• The program description cursorily indicates what the session might entail but omits 1 or more pieces of critical material and/or requires significant editing. (2)
• The program description is not well written and/or does not clearly describe the proposal. Omits 2 or more pieces of critical material and requires extensive developmental editing. (1)

Criterion 2

The program incorporates current methods of learning (personalized, learner-centered, active learning, etc.) (4 points)

• The program includes sound learning methodologies. (4)
• The program reflects a fair attempt to include learning methodologies. (3)
• The program poorly attempts to include learning methodologies. (2)
• The program does not include learning methods. (1)

Criterion 3

The submission provides up to and no more than three relevant learning objectives (4 points)

• The program includes up to three learning objectives related to the program description. (4)
• The submission contains more than three learning objectives and they relate to the program description. (3)
• The program includes up to three learning objectives but they relate poorly to the program description. (2)
• The program includes up to three learning objectives but they do not relate to the description. (1)

Criterion 4

The proposed learning objectives provide a good description of what participants will be able to do as a result of attending the session (4 points)

• The learning objectives clearly describe what participants will be able to do as a result of attending the session. (4)
• The learning objectives partially describe what participants will be able to do as a result of attending the session. (3)
• The learning objectives do not clearly describe what participants will be able to do as a result of attending the session. (2)
• The learning objectives do not describe what participants will be able to do as a result of attending the session. (1)

Criterion 5

The proposed learning objectives are measurable (4 points)

• The learning objectives for the proposal are clearly measurable. (4)
• The learning objectives for the proposal are partially measurable. (3)
• The learning objectives are not clearly measurable. (2)
• The learning objectives for the proposal are not measurable. (1)

Criterion 6

The proposal is a collaborative effort (4 points)

• The proposal includes collaboration between faculty from three institutions or from three disciplines AND demonstrates a seamless approach to the program design. (4)
• The proposal includes collaboration between faculty from three institutions or from three disciplines BUT does not demonstrate a seamless approach to program design. (3)
• The proposal includes collaboration between two faculty from the same institution or the same discipline. (2)
• The proposal has either a single presenter or the number of speakers proposed is unsuitable for the program design. (1)

Criterion 7

The proposed topic is relevant to pharmacy education and/or the goals of AACP and its members (4 points)

• The proposal presents issues of immediate relevance and importance to pharmacy education and/or the goals/ initiatives of AACP and its members. It is solidly based on best or recommended practice in pharmacy education. (4)
• The proposal presents issues of immediate relevance and importance to pharmacy education and/or the goals/initiatives of AACP and its members. (3)
• The proposal is relevant, but the focus is on issues tangential to the field of pharmacy education. (2)
• The proposal focuses on low priority materials or practice. (1)

Criterion 8

The proposed topic advances pharmacy education (4 points)

• The proposal presents information which advances pharmacy education and includes at least 2 relevant sources to support the current need for the activity. (4)
• The proposal presents information which advances pharmacy education but does not include at least two relevant sources to support the current need for the activity. (3)
• The proposal presents information which weakly advances pharmacy education. (2)
• The proposal does not advance pharmacy education. (1)

Criterion 9

Scholarly Rigor: The program was conceptualized on a sound theory, model or research method (4 points)

• The program was conceptualized on a sound theory, model, or research method which is clearly connected to the program goals. (4)
• The program was adequately conceptualized on a sound scholarly theory, model, or research method and connection to the program goals is somewhat apparent. (3)
• The program mentions a scholarly theory, model, or research method, but is weakly incorporated into the program. (2)
• The program fails to incorporate a sound theory, model, or research method. (1)

Criterion 1

The program description is well-written and describes the program clearly (4 points)

• The program description describes the proposal succinctly and is very well written. (4)
• The program description describes the proposal adequately, but has minor need for improvement in either detail or syntax. (3)
• The program description cursorily indicates what the session might entail but omits 1 or more pieces of critical material and/or requires significant editing. (2)
• The program description is not well written and/or does not clearly describe the proposal. Omits 2 or more pieces of critical material and requires extensive developmental editing. (1)

Criterion 2

The program incorporates current methods of learning (personalized, learner-centered, active learning, etc.) (4 points)

• The program includes sound learning methodologies. (4)
• The program reflects a fair attempt to include learning methodologies. (3)
• The program poorly attempts to include  learning methodologies. (2)
• The program does not include learning methods. (1)

Criterion 3

The submission provides up to and no more than two relevant learning objectives (4 points)

• The program includes up to two learning objectives related to the program description. (4)
• The submission contains more than two learning objectives and they relate to the program description. (3)
• The program includes up to two learning objectives but they relate poorly to the program description. (2)
• The program includes up to two learning objectives but they do not relate to the description. (1)

Criterion 4

The proposed learning objectives provide a good description of what participants will be able to do as a result of attending the session (4 points)

• The learning objectives clearly describe what participants will be able to do as a result of attending the session. (4)
• The learning objectives partially describe what participants will be able to do as a result of attending the session. (3)
• The learning objectives do not clearly describe what participants will be able to do as a result of attending the session. (2)
• The learning objectives do not describe what participants will be able to do as a result of attending the session. (1)

Criterion 5

The proposed learning objectives are measurable (4 points)

• The learning objectives for the proposal are clearly measurable. (4)
• The learning objectives for the proposal are partially measurable. (3)
• The learning objectives are not clearly measurable. (2)
• The learning objectives for the proposal are not measurable. (1)

Criterion 6

The proposed topic is relevant to pharmacy education and/or the goals of AACP and its members (4 points)

• The proposal presents issues of immediate relevance and importance to pharmacy education and/or the goals/initiatives of AACP and its members. It is solidly based on best or recommended practice in pharmacy education. (4)
• The proposal presents issues of immediate relevance and importance to pharmacy education and/or the goals/initiatives of AACP and its members. (3)
• The proposal is relevant, but the focus is on issues tangential to the field of pharmacy education. (2)
• The proposal focuses on low priority materials or practice. (1)

Criterion 7

The proposed topic advances pharmacy education (4 points)

• The proposal presents information which advances pharmacy education AND includes at least two relevant sources to support the current need for the activity. (4)
• The proposal presents information which advances pharmacy education but does not include at least two relevant sources to support the current need for the activity. (3)
• The proposal presents information which weakly advances pharmacy education. (2)
• The proposal does not advance pharmacy education. (1)

Criterion 8

Scholarly Rigor: The program was conceptualized on a sound theory, model or research method (4 points)

• The program was conceptualized on a sound theory, model, or research method which is clearly connected to the program goals. (4)
• The program was adequately conceptualized on a sound scholarly theory, model, or research method and connection to the program goals is somewhat apparent. (3)
• The program mentions a scholarly theory, model, or research method, but is weakly incorporated into the program. (2)
• The program fails to incorporate a sound theory, model, or research method. (1)

Criterion 1

The program description is well-written and describes the program clearly (4 points)

• The program description describes the proposal succinctly and is very well written. (4)
• The program description describes the proposal adequately, but has minor need for improvement in either detail or syntax. (3)
• The program description cursorily indicates what the session might entail but omits 1 or more pieces of critical material and/or requires significant editing. (2)
• The program description is not well written and/or does not clearly describe the proposal. Omits 2 or more pieces of critical material and requires extensive developmental editing. (1)

Criterion 2

The program submission provides up to and no more than one relevant learning objective (4 points)

• The program includes up to one learning objective related to the program description. (4)
• The submission contains more than one learning objective and they relate to the program description. (3)
• The program includes up to one learning objective but it relates poorly to the program description. (2)
• The program includes up to one learning objective but it does not relate to the description. (1)

Criterion 3

The proposed learning objective provides a good description of what participants will be able to do as a result of attending the session (4 points)

• The learning objective clearly describes what participants will be able to do as a result of attending the session. (4)
• The learning objective partially describes what participants will be able to do as a result of attending the session. (3)
• The learning objective does not clearly describe what participants will be able to do as a result of attending the session. (2)
• The learning objective does not describe what participants will be able to do as a result of attending this session. (1)

Criterion 4

The proposed learning objective is measurable (4 points)

• The learning objective for the proposal is clearly measurable. (4)
• The learning objective for the proposal is partially measurable. (3)
• The learning objective is not clearly measurable. (2)
• The learning objective for the proposal is not measurable. (1)

Criterion 5

The proposed topic is relevant to pharmacy education and/or the goals of AACP and its members (4 points)

• The proposal presents issues of immediate relevance and importance to pharmacy education and/or the goals/ initiatives of AACP and its members. It is solidly based on best or recommended practice in pharmacy education. (4)
• The proposal presents issues of immediate relevance and importance to pharmacy education and/or the goals/ initiatives of AACP and its members. (3)
• The proposal is relevant, but the focus is on issues tangential to the field of pharmacy education. (2)
• The proposal focuses on low priority materials or practice. (1)

Criterion 6

The proposed topic advances pharmacy education (4 points)

• The proposal presents information which advances pharmacy education AND includes 2 relevant sources to support the current need for the activity. (4)
• The proposal presents information which advances pharmacy education but does not include two relevant sources to support the current need for the activity. (3)
• The proposal presents information which weakly advances pharmacy education. (2)
• The proposal does not advance pharmacy education. (1)