Pharmacy Education 2020 Session Evaluation Criteria

AACP Article
Special Sessions

Criterion 1

The program description clearly describes the session
(4 points)

  • The program description describes the proposal succinctly and is very well written (4)
  • The program description describes the proposal well, but too much unnecessary information is included. Omits 1 or more pieces of critical material (3)
  • The program description cursorily indicates what the session might entail but omits 1 or more pieces of critical material (2)
  • The program description 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 2

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

  • The program includes multiple learning theories (4)
  • The program includes one learning theory (3)
  • The program weakly attempts to include a learning theory (2)
  • The program does not include learning theory (1)

Criterion 3

The program submission provides up to three learning objectives
(4 points)

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

Criterion 4

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

Criterion 5

The proposal is a collaborative effort
(4 points)

  • The proposal includes collaboration between faculty from three institutions OR from three disciplines (4)
  • The proposal includes collaboration between faculty from two institutions OR from two disciplines (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 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 low priority materials or practice (2)
  • The proposal’s focus is of low priority and limited 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)
Mini-Sessions

Criterion 1

The program description clearly describes the session
(4 points)

  • The program description describes the proposal succinctly and is very well written (4)
  • The program description describes the proposal well, but too much unnecessary information is included. Omits 1 or more pieces of critical material (3)
  • The program description cursorily indicates what the session might entail but omits 1 or more pieces of critical material (2)
  • The program description 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 2

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

  • The program includes multiple learning theories (4)
  • The program includes one learning theory (3)
  • The program weakly attempts to include a learning theory (2)
  • The program does not include learning theory ;(1)

Criterion 3

The program submission provides up to two learning objectives
(4 points)

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

Criterion 4

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 weakly measurable (3)
  • The learning objectives are not clearly measurable (2)
  • The learning objectives for the proposal are 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 is relevant, but the focus is on issues tangential to the field of pharmacy education (3)
  • The proposal focuses on low priority materials or practice (2)
  • The proposal’s focus is of low priority and limited importance to the field (1)

Criterion 6

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)
Micro-Sessions

Criterion 1

The program description/topic clearly describes the session
(4 points)

  • The program description/topic describes the proposal succinctly and is very well written (4)
  • The program description/topic describes the proposal well, but too much unnecessary information is included. Omits 1 or more pieces of critical material (3)
  • The program description/topic cursorily indicates what the session might entail but omits 1 or more pieces of critical material (2)
  • The program description/topic 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 2

The program submission provides up to one learning objective
(4 points)

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

Criterion 3

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

Criterion 4

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 low priority materials or practice (2)
  • The proposal’s focus is of low priority and limited importance to the field (1)

Criterion 5

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)