The American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) Curricular Outcomes and Entrustable Professional Activities (COEPA, pronounced COPA) 2022 document represents the fifth version (preceded by AACP Academic Affairs panels in 1994, 1998, 2004 and 2013) of the Center for the Advancement of Pharmacy Education (CAPE) educational outcomes (EO). EOs are statements that describe what a learner should be able to do at the end of a program.  EOs represent the knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSAs) of pharmacists that all students should demonstrate upon graduation The EOs were created to facilitate curricular discussions with faculty and preceptors within the Academy and to guide curriculum planning, delivery, and assessment within pharmacy programs.

The Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) 2022 document represents the second version. EPAs for new pharmacy graduates were originally established in 2016 by the AACP Academic Affairs Committee to translate the CAPE educational outcomes into practice activities. The EPAs describe the work of pharmacists as workplace tasks and responsibilities that all students are entrusted to do in the experiential setting with direct or distant supervision. It is important to note that EPAs are activities and are broad tasks or groups of tasks. These activities become the focus of an assessment when an individual is observed performing the activity. As such, preceptors assess the level of supervision a student needs to perform or execute the clinical activity/task using an entrustment decision scale.

Center for the Advancement of Pharmacy Education 2013 Educational Outcomes

Excellence in Teaching

Narrative

The candidate describes in the narrative, along with appendix, evidence related to excellence in teaching that may include two or more of the following areas:

1. Positive student-faculty contact,
2. Effective active learning,
3. Achievable yet high expectations,
4. Respects diverse talents and ways of learning,
5. Effective communication skills,
6. Commitment to teaching well.
7. High student achievement or level of learning

Artifacts 

The candidate provides high quality artifacts to support themes addressed in the narrative.

• Examples of artifacts:
  • Awards for teaching (local, regional, national, international)
  • Letters of support from current and/or former students and trainees, or peers (up to 3 letters count as 1 artifact)
    • Content should describe the impact and/or value of the applicant’s “Excellence in Teaching and Learning” on the letter writer.
  • Peer evaluations of teaching (max 3 evals from past 5 years count as 1 artifact)
    • Must include an assessment of the applicant’s ability to: 
      • plan and execute a learning event or experience 
      • assess learning outcomes
      • goes beyond simply evaluating the applicant’s presentation skills. 
  • Summary data from learner evaluations from 3 of the last 5 years 
    • (e.g., end-of-course or rotation evaluations)
    • Graphical/tabular presentation is recommended 
    • An interpretation of the student evaluation data (300 words or less) must be included
  • Summary data from alumni evaluations from 3 of the last 5 years.
    • Graphical/tabular presentation is recommended

Scholarly Teaching

Narrative

The candidate describes in the narrative statement evidence regarding their growth as an educator and how the scholarly works of others have influenced his/her teaching. The narrative may include a description/evidence of the process, for example:

1. Observing a teaching-learning problem or opportunity
2. Making an improvement that impacts learning (this could be an educational intervention but may also be other types of improvements or changes that have ultimate impact on students)
3. Conducting systematic observation or analysis of impact
4. Documenting observations or impact
5. Analyzing results 
6. Obtaining peer evaluation 
7. Consulting literature
8. Adapting instruction based on feedback 

Artifacts

The candidate provides high quality artifacts to support themes addressed in the narrative. Examples of artifacts:

• Designing a course or lesson plan taking a scholarly approach 
  • literature foundation
  • peer review
• Analysis of teaching related artifacts (e.g., assignment) with description of scholarly approach to development, implementation and evaluation (e.g., baseline measures, pre-post results).  
• A self-assessment and reflection on teaching, including
  • a description of development over time, including failures
  • evidence of student and/or faculty discussion and input
• A list and brief description of self-development/CPD activities completed by the applicant that have enhanced the applicant’s ability/ competencies as an educator.   
• Letters of support from current and/or former students and trainees, or peers. (up to 3 letters count as 1 artifact)
  • Content should describe the impact and/or value of the applicant’s “Scholarly Approach to Teaching and Learning” on the letter writer

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

Narrative

The candidate describes in the narrative commenting on SOTL themes and initiatives over the years, including one or more examples of SOTL with description/evidence of:

1. Identifying key issues from ST
2. Analyzing results
3. Placing into context of existing knowledge
4. Preparing a manuscript or proposal for presentation
5. Submitting for peer review
6. Disseminating and adding to existing knowledge base
7. Your role and roles of others involved

Artifacts 

The candidate provides high quality artifacts to support themes addressed in the narrative. Example of artifacts:

• A list of the educational journals or books for which the applicant has served as a reviewer or editor including the number of papers or chapters the applicant has reviewed or edited during each of the past 3 years.
• Recognition by peers for contributions to SOTL as evidenced by awards documented in the CV (e.g., Rufus A. Lyman Award)
• A sample of the applicant’s scholarly works related to teaching and learning. Examples include peer reviewed artifacts (e.g., original research manuscripts, review articles, letters to the editor, awards, abstracts), credentials (e.g., relevant certification or training), non-peer reviewed, non-credentialed work (e.g., podcast, student feedback). Consideration will be given to both the type and quality of each sample.

Presentation of package

Submission is clearly and concisely written and logically presented.

Tips for Successful Award Packages

NEW: To facilitate the review process, an application template is now available!  This file can be filled in with an applicant's personal information.

Overall Organization

Provide a brief summary of take-home points in the beginning or at the end of each section of the narrative

• Think about the reviewer. They are reading several long packages. Up front or concluding summaries help provide the reader with a synopsis of why you think you met the expectations of the award and can help guide the reader when reviewing the narrative

Use headings to demonstrate to the reader where you’re addressing the award criteria

• This helps in writing the package to ensure you are addressing the areas that are being reviewed. In addition, you don’t want reviewers missing information because it was hidden in the narrative. For example, if you want to talk about innovation or impact, a section heading can help make that section stand out versus having it embedded within another section.

Use tables and graphs to summarize, when appropriate

• Tables and graphs can summarize a lot of information succinctly. It allows the reader to see trends over time. Are you getting better course evaluations over time? Is your number  of publications increasing over time?

Tell the reader how to interpret the results…don’t let them guess

• Writing so the reader understands is challenging – we all bring own biases when reading. Help the readers by identifying major take away points.

Write a narrative with reflection, interpretation and evidence; don’t rehash your CV

• Write a compelling narrative that shows thoughtfulness and evidence. Tell the story of your experience and substantiate your points.  We may all believe learning should be fun, but do you have evidence to prove that you do that? And be specific: “I off-load content to allow students to self-pace their learning. Self-pacing helps students learn more efficiently (Smith et al, 2010).”

Help the reader navigate the document

• Don’t submit excessively long applications. Successful application packages in recent years were between 50 and 75 pages. Use Word or Adobe to make bookmarks or a table of contents with links. Make sure to double check that your bookmarks are accurate and work. Some readers also may prefer artifacts at the end of the document so they can read the narratives straight through – much like when submitting a manuscript - all the tables and figures at the end.

Follow the instructions

• The instructions are in place to make the review process as easy as possible. Please follow the word limits (3000 for the narrative). Please include all the information (Demographics, CV, etc)

Excellence in Teaching

Describe the breadth and depth of your teaching experience

• Make sure to discuss different types of teaching methodologies you employ and how this has changed over time. What settings do you teach in? What type of learners do you work with?

Demonstrate your growth as a teacher over time

• Describe trends in quantitative data and/or qualitative feedback from learners

Scholarly Teaching

Evidence-based teaching

• Highlight examples of using data from the literature and your own observations and data from assessments and evaluations to identify and close learning gaps

SOTL

Separate out SOTL research versus other venues (clinical research, foundational science research, etc)

• Often applicants have publications from various scholarly pursuits. As such, it is important to highlight those directly influencing the award.

Artifacts

​​​​​​​Carefully select high quality artifacts that support your narrative 

• Consider the impact and quality of each artifact submitted, and the variety of the artifact evidence as a whole.  Avoid bombarding the reviewer with large files of untabulated objective data (e.g., provide summary and benchmarking data for student teaching evaluations as opposed to raw data alone).  Limit letters of support or testimonials.  

​​​​​​​It is not necessary to submit raw student evaluation reports

• Student evaluation reports are lengthy and difficult to review. Instead, summarize student evaluation data in graphs or tables and include how many students (% response) completed evaluations. Graphic presentation helps to highlight trends over time  Similarly, consider pulling out some qualitative feedback indicative of your teaching excellence or scholarly teaching rather than including all comments

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Consider the scope of scholarly work

• Preference should be given to scholarly work with national/ international audiences for publications, presentations, and peer review. 
   

Eligibility

To be considered for the American Associations of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) Council of Faculties Emerging Teaching Scholar recognition, the prospective recipient:

1. must be a current, full member of the AACP Council of Faculties;
2. must have  authored at least three (3) scholarly works related to teaching and learning accepted in peer reviewed forums (e.g. peer-reviewed journal, peer-reviewed book or book chapter, peer-reviewed abstract for a poster/ podium presentation at a professional meeting);
3. must be the first/primary author or senior author of at least two (2) scholarly works related to teaching and learning;
4. must have NO MORE than 8 years since first publicly available scholarly work as a faculty member in the field of teaching and learning;
5. may be any faculty academic rank; and
6. has adhered to all award submission requirements (e.g., word count, number of artifacts).

Criteria for Evaluating Applicants

1. Teaching and learning excellence.  Definition of Teaching Excellence: Common characteristics of good teachers include: positive student-faculty contact, effective active learning, achievable yet high expectations for learners, respects diverse talents and ways of learning, effective communication skills, commitment to teaching well.
2. Excellence and contributions in scholarly teaching.  Proof of efforts (direct or indirect) that impact the activity of teaching, and resulting learning, in a scholarly fashion.  Definition of Scholarly Teaching (ST):  Scholarly Teaching promotes student engagement and learning using systematically and strategically gathered evidence, which is related and explained by well-reasoned theory and philosophical understanding, with the goal of maximizing learning through effective teaching. Scholarly Teaching involves: Self-reflection, observing a teaching-learning problem or opportunity, consulting literature, developing and revising teaching philosophy and/or methods informed by literature and self-reflection, instituting changes and improvements, conducting systematic observation, documenting observations, analyzing results and obtaining peer evaluation
3. Excellence and contributions in the scholarship of teaching and learning that are disseminated.  Proof of contributions to the advancement of the scholarship of teaching and learning in education literature.  Definition of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SOTL):  SOTL builds on the end product of Scholarly Teaching.  It involves identifying key issues from scholarly teaching, analyzing results and putting them into the context of the existing knowledge base. Best practices for SOTL involve systematic study of teaching and learning, using established or validated criteria of scholarship, to understand how teaching (beliefs, behaviors, attitudes, and values) or systems that support teaching can maximize learning, and/or develop a more accurate understanding of learning, resulting in products that are publicly shared for critique and use by an appropriate community.  Once a venue for dissemination is chosen (i.e. presentation and/or publication), peer review is conducted on the manuscript or proposal. Therefore, SOTL results in formal, peer-reviewed products, which then become part of the knowledge base of teaching and learning.  In short, the scholarship of teaching communicates the goals, preparation, methods, results, presentation and reflection of teaching in the literature.

Application Process / Content

1. Demographic Information, CV,  and Administration Acknowledgement
2. One narrative (3000 word limit) describing Teaching Excellence, Scholarly Teaching and Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
3. Appendix 1: Up to 3 artifacts as evidence of Excellence in Teaching and Learning
4. Appendix 2: Up to 3 artifacts as evidence of Scholarly Approach to Teaching
5. Appendix 3: Up to 3 artifacts as evidence of Contributions to the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
6. Each artifact includes an explanation (no more than 300 words) explaining its rationale for inclusion in the corresponding appendix.

Part 1

Demographic Information and Administrative Acknowledgement

1. Administrative Acknowledgement Letter (completed)

• Name of applicant, contact information, signature of applicant
• Name and title of academic administrator (e.g., Department Chair, Division Head, Associate Dean, or Dean) who is supporting application; signature of academic administration on submission letter.

2. Current CV

• The first scholarly work disseminated by the applicant (as primary or co-author/senior author) related to teaching and learning will be clearly BOLDED. The first scholarly work must have been disseminated when the applicant was a faculty member and must have been disseminated eight (8) years or less from the application deadline.
• A complete list of the applicant’s publicly disseminated scholarly works including publications, books, book chapters, blog essays, webpages/sites, instructional tools or videos, poster presentations, and podium presentations related to the teaching or learning should be included in the CV.  If the applicant is the primary author or senior author of the work, the item should be designated with an insertion character (^).   Items that were peer-reviewed should be designated.

Part 2

Narrative; A narrative (no more than 3000 words) describing the following:

1. Evidence of Excellence in Teaching and Learning:  Describe evidence of excellence in two or more of the following areas:

• positive learner-faculty contact
• effective active learning
• sets achievable, yet high expectations for learners
• respecting diverse talents and ways of learning
• effective communication skills
• commitment to teaching well
• high student achievement or level of learning 

2. Evidence of a Scholarly Approach to Teaching and Learning:  A self-reflective statement regarding the applicant’s growth as an educator and how the scholarly works of others have influenced his/her teaching. In addition, comment on ST themes and initiatives over the years including one or more examples of ST with description/evidence of:

• Observing a teaching-learning problem or opportunity
• Consulting literature
• Making an improvement that impacts learning (this could be an educational intervention but may also be other types of improvements or changes that have ultimate impact on students)
• Conducting systematic observation or analysis of impact
• Documenting observations or impact
• Analyzing results
• Obtaining peer evaluation

3. Evidence of Contributions to the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning:  Narrative/reflection commenting on SOTL themes and initiatives over the years, including one or more examples of SOTL with description/evidence of:

• identifying key issues from ST
• analyzing results
• placing into context of existing knowledge
• preparing a manuscript or proposal for presentation
• submitting for peer review
• disseminating and adding to existing knowledge base
• your role and roles of others involved

Artifacts

Each artifact must include an explanation (no more than 300 words) explaining its rationale for inclusion in the selected appendix.  Each appendix must have a unique item (e.g., no artifact can be used for more than one narrative).    

If an artifact is considerable in length and/or detail, the applicant should make every effort to clearly highlight those segments that are the most relevant to the award application.

Within required documentation and appendices, applicants are encouraged to use hyperlinks to electronic portfolios, publications, websites, and any other electronically available media.

Appendix 1

Example Artifacts of Excellence in Teaching and Learning (in no particular order)

• Award for teaching excellence (copy of certificate or other proof) – this includes awards and related forms of formal recognition bestowed for teaching excellence in classroom, laboratory, or experiential learning environments and may be at the national, state, university, school/college or departmental level.  A brief description of the selection process and criteria for the teaching award must be included.
• Letters of support from current and/or former students and trainees, or peers. It is strongly encouraged that the applicant provide guidance to the letter writers so that the letter content supports the narrative content. It is highly recommended that letter content should describe the impact and/or value of the applicant’s “Excellence in Teaching and Learning” on the letter writer.  No more than three (3) letters of support may be included and count as one artifact. 
• Peer evaluations – this may include formal peer evaluations conducted as part of the annual or promotion review process at the applicant’s academic institution.  The formal evaluation must (at a minimum) include an assessment of the applicant’s ability to plan and execute a learning event or experience as well as assess learning outcomes.  In other words, the assessment must go beyond simply evaluating the applicant’s presentation skills.  No more than three (3) peer evaluations conducted over the five (5) years preceding the application may be included and count as one artifact.
• Summary data from learner evaluations (e.g., end-of-course or rotation evaluations) from three (3) of the last five (5) years. Graphical presentation is recommended when applicable. An interpretation of the student evaluation data (300 words or less) must be included in the artifact explanation.
• Summary data from alumni evaluations from three (3) of the last five (5) years. Graphical presentation is recommended when applicable. 

Appendix 2

Example Artifacts of Scholarly Approach to Teaching and Learning (in no particular order)

• Example(s) of designing a course or lesson plan taking a scholarly approach (e.g., including literature foundation and peer review).
• Analysis of teaching related artifacts (e.g., assignment) with description of scholarly approach to development, implementation and evaluation (e.g., baseline measures, pre-post results).  A self-assessment and reflection on teaching, including: 1) a description of development over time, including failures, 2) with evidence of student and/or faculty discussion and input.
• A list and brief description of self-development/CPD activities completed by the applicant that have enhanced the applicant’s ability / competencies as an educator.  This may include degrees in education (or closely related fields), formal coursework, certificate training programs, and continuing education programs.   
• Letters of support from current and/or former students and trainees, or peers. It is strongly encouraged that the applicant provide guidance to the letter writers so that the letter content supports the narrative content. It is highly recommended that letter content should describe the impact and/or value of the applicant’s “Scholarly Approach to Teaching and Learning” on the letter writer.  No more than three (3) letters of support may be included and count as one artifact. 

Appendix 3

Example Artifacts of Contributions to the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (in no particular order)

• A list of the educational journals or books that the applicant has served as a reviewer or editor,  the number of papers or chapters the applicant has reviewed or edited during each of the past 3 years.
• Recognition by peers for contributions to SOTL as evidenced by awards documented in the CV (e.g., Rufus A. Lyman Award).  Applicant must include copy of certificate or other proof and a brief description of the selection process and criteria of the award.
• A sample of scholarly works.  These works are selected by the applicant as a representative sample of the applicant’s best scholarly work related to teaching and learning.   Sample works may include copies of written scholarly works or digital audio or video files. A description of the applicant’s role in the project should be included in the artifact explanation.  Number of citations and impact factor may be included.  
   

The Pharmacy Opportunity Network (PharmON) was established collaboratively by the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP), the American Foundation for Pharmaceutical Education (AFPE) and the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) in 2022 to provide a diverse array of corporations, associations and other entities one national career center to promote internships, fellowships and other experiential learning opportunities to current PharmD students, residents, fellows, and graduate students, as well as practicing pharmacists that might be interested in exploring new career paths. The co-sponsors share the commitment to enable current and future pharmacists to explore the myriad career pathways that exist today and will emerge in the future.

This page will provide answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs). If you are unable to find an answer, please contact Tom Maggio, AACP's Manager of Public Affairs and Engagement.

The Financial Survey is administered to all colleges/schools of pharmacy in December to January. It collects monetary figures related to school expenditures, revenues, and funding for research and training. The version of the survey used through 2021 was launched in December 2012 and contains a key questions section that rotates annually.  

In 2022, the Institutional Research and Assessment Committee, in collaboration with the Administrative and Financial Officers SIG, approved a new survey instrument to be rolled out for administration winter 2022-23. A copy of the survey instrument, as well as national data reports for each fiscal year can be found below.

The national data reports contain participating institutions with enrollments in all four professional years (three years for accelerated programs). Reports that are inclusive of all participating institutions, including newer programs that are not yet at full enrollment, are available for download within the AACP survey system for authorized users at participating institutions.

AACP asks U.S. colleges and schools of pharmacy about the number of vacant, lost and interim positions within their institutions. The survey collects data on type of position, reason for the vacancy and how the recruitment process is going towards filling the position. The most recent briefs on this survey are available below. Please contact the Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness (OIRIE)  helpdesk for information on previous briefs.

• Research Brief Volume 16: Vacant Budgeted and Lost Faculty Positions, Academic Year 2013–14
• Research Brief Volume 18: Vacant Budgeted and Lost Faculty Positions, Academic Year 2014–15
• Research Brief Volume 20: Vacant Budgeted and Lost Faculty Positions, Academic Year 2015–16
• Research Brief Volume 21: Vacant Budgeted and Lost Faculty Positions, Academic Year 2016–17
• Research Brief Volume 22: Vacant Budgeted and Lost Faculty Positions, Academic Year 2017–18

Important Note

In 2022, the Institutional Research and Assessment Committee decided to officially sunset the survey. Therefore, the last year of administration for the Survey of Vacant Budgeted and Lost Faculty Positions was 2021.