Pharmacy Education 2019 Special Session Evaluation Criteria

Chicago skyline at dusk.

Criterion 1: The proposal title is appropriate and clearly describes the session (4 points)

  • Title is well written and summarizes main concept of proposal. No adjustments necessary (4)
  • Title represents main concept of proposal, but minor revisions are warranted (3)
  • The title cursorily represents the main concept of the proposal but major revisions are warranted (2)
  • Title does not represent main concept of proposal and is not well written. It requires extensive developmental editing (1)

Criterion 2: The program description/design clearly describes the session (4 points)

  • The program description/design describes the proposal succinctly and is very well written. No adjustments are necessary (4)
  • The program description/design describes the proposal well, but too much unnecessary information is included. Omits 1 or more pieces of critical material (3)
  • The program description/design cursorily indicates what the session might entail but omits 1 or more pieces of critical material (2)
  • The program description/design is not well written and does not clearly describe the proposal. Omits 2 or more pieces of critical material and requires extensive developmental editing (1)

Criterion 3: The learning objectives/goals are clear and appropriate for the session (4 points)

  • The objectives/goals for the proposal clearly describe the session (4) 
  • The objectives/goals for the session are generally described. One objective may need revision (3)
  • The objectives/goals for the session are unclear. Two or more objectives require modification (2)
  • The objectives/goals for the session are missing, incomplete, or require significant modifications (1)

Criterion 4: The proposal is a collaborative effort (4 points)

  • The proposal includes collaboration between faculty from two or more institutions and two or more disciplines (4)
  • The proposal includes collaboration between faculty from two or more institutions or two or more different disciplines (3)
  • The proposal includes collaboration between two or more faculty members from the same discipline (2)
  • The proposal has a single presenter (1)

Criterion 5: The proposed topic is timely (4 points)

  • The proposal presents timely issues solidly based on best or recommended practice in pharmacy education (4)
  • The proposal is timely but includes a major focus on issues from the last decade and alludes to best or recommended practice in pharmacy education (3)
  • The proposal focuses on out-of-date materials or practice (2)
  • The proposal's focus is of no importance to the field (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 is relevant, but the focus is on issues tangential to the field of pharmacy education (3)
  • The proposal focuses on irrelevant materials or practice (2)
  • The proposal's focus is irrelevant and of no importance to the field (1)

Criterion 7: The proposed topic is innovative (4 points) 

  • The proposal presents innovative issues solidly based on best or recommended practice in pharmacy education (4)
  • The proposal is innovative but the focus is on issues in the field over the last decade and contains topics that have already been covered previously (3)
  • The proposal focuses on outdated materials or practice (2)
  • The proposal’s focus is outdated and of no importance to the field (1)     

Criterion 8: The proposal emphasizes active learning (4 points)

  • Active learning included and detailed, and appropriately tied to session objectives/outcomes (4)
  • Active learning mentioned but not in detail, and it is somewhat tied to the session objectives (3)
  • Active learning included but not appropriately connected to the session objectives/outcomes (2)
  • Active learning not included (1)

Criterion 9: This session will positively contribute to the AACP Annual Meeting and pharmacy education (Consider “purpose” of session) (4 points)

  • The session will make significant, memorable contributions to the AACP Annual Meeting and effective educational practice. It fills an identified educational need in pharmacy education (4)
  • The session will positively contribute to the AACP Annual Meeting and to effective educational practice. It is unkown whether it will fill an educational need in pharmacy education (3)
  • AACP Annual Meeting attendees may question the validity of the inclusion of this session. It most likely will not fill an educational need in pharmacy education (2)
  • AACP Annual Meeting attendees may choose to not attend this session (1)