Pharmacy practice and science faculty interested in pursuing research or scholarship projects that advance practice or curricular transformation are encouraged to attend this series of virtual sessions coupled with an in-person workshop. The series will bring together pharmacy faculty and implementation experts to increase individual competencies in implementation science and understanding of necessary institutional capacity for successful implementation.

Special Interest Group (SIG) Cabinet 

The SIG Cabinet is composed of the administrative officers (chair-elect, chair, immediate past chair, and secretary of knowledge management) of each SIG and the Administrative Board that represents the collective interests of the SIGs. AACP Members may designate up to two SIGs as their Primary SIGs and there is no limit to the number of SIGs they can designate as Informational SIGs. For a full description of each SIG and the officers please see the list of SIGs below.

Measures and Outcomes in Implementation Research in Pharmacy

CPE Activity Announcement

Thursday, January 26, 2023
Noon–1:30 p.m. ET
Virtual

Target Audience

The session is intended for pharmacy practice and science faculty with experience in research, including quality improvement or program evaluation projects. No prior experience with implementation science is required. 

Learning Objectives

At the completion of this activity, participants will be able to:

Please join us for the 2026 AACP Admissions Workshop in Grapevine, Texas!

We invite all administrators, faculty, and staff who play a role in recruitment, admissions, retention, and student affairs to this two-day event. The goal of the Workshop is to provide attendees with the opportunity to learn and network, so the academy can collectively promote the profession and respond to challenges facing pharmacy education. 

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

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

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

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 educational journals, book chapters, or books in which the applicant has published, served as a reviewer, or acted as an editor, including the number of papers or chapters the applicant has published, reviewed, or edited in each of the past three 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.