Experiences of the Learning Environment
Interim Stream Review · Prototype

Experiences of the Learning Environment

How do students experience teaching, assessment, and learning activities within this stream?

This workspace moves from student-experience ratings to student-described evidence and then to connections across those perspectives, helping reviewers understand the learning environment, inspect the evidence behind the summaries, and identify questions for curriculum review.

Evidence at a Glance

What evidence am I reviewing?

Longitudinal student experience

Student-experience ratings across recent academic cycles, with change indicators shown only when the measures can be compared directly.

Two student perspectives

Annual Cohort Survey and AFPC Graduating Student Survey are shown separately because they provide different perspectives on the learning environment.

Student-described context

Student comments are summarized to add context to the ratings. Annual Cohort Survey evidence can also be inspected by program year where the source supports it. These summaries do not indicate how common a view was.

Review Summary

What should I notice as I review this evidence?

First‑year experiences remain strong; later‑year integration and seminar value weaken

Program‑year splits show Year 1 students reporting high agreement that teaching, integration, and feedback work together, while Year 3 students report much lower agreement—integration of knowledge and seminar usefulness are particularly weak in later years.

Students still want to keep seminar case‑work and weekly low‑stakes quizzes, but ask for clearer seminar design

In the structured Keep/Fix prompts students advocated retaining case‑based seminars and weekly quizzes, while asking that seminars be shorter, more focused, better linked to project steps, and supported with clearer objectives and materials.

Semester‑long projects, assessment weighting, and sequencing gaps are the most actionable fix themes

Across Keep/Fix/Sequencing responses students converged on problems with project scaffolding (unclear scope, inconsistent mentor alignment, equity in team work), concerns about midterm/quiz weighting and exam clarity, and timing misalignments that leave some content distant from applied courses or rotations.

Same core pattern but emphasis shifts to fixing project scaffolding and later‑year integration

Relative to 2024‑25 the broad narrative remains: students value applied seminars and frequent quizzes, but 2025‑26 places stronger, explicit emphasis on fixing semester projects and seminar design and highlights a sharper program‑year divide (Year 1 positive; Year 3 persistent deficits in integration, seminars, and feedback). This persists despite the 2025‑26 change to Keep/Fix sequencing prompts, so interpret thematic continuity with instrument change in mind.

Learning Environment Evidence

What changed over time, and does the experience differ across program years?

How to read these ratings

Students rated each statement from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree). Each cell shows how responses were distributed across all six ratings. The ordered colour scale moves from blue at Strongly Disagree to green at Strongly Agree. Point to or focus a cell for median, IQR, and Agree + Strongly Agree.

Use Overall for the combined Annual Cohort Survey view or select a program year for closer inspection. In a selected program-year view, items with no evidence in any visible cycle are omitted; a dash means that the retained item is unavailable for that statement and cycle. The survey-measure detail explains changes in wording or measurement.

Annual Cohort Survey

Ratings from students in Years 1–3. Each cell shows the full six-point response distribution; point to or focus a cell for median, IQR, and Agree + Strongly Agree.

Aspect of the learning environment2023-20242024-20252025-2026
Learning outcomes were communicated clearly—
Teaching methods supported achievement of learning outcomes—
Assessment methods were fair—
Seminars supported and extended learning
Timely and specific feedback supported learning
Instructional approaches, learning activities, and assessments worked together†——
Knowledge and skills were meaningfully integrated into other streams/courses†——
Strongly DisagreeDisagreeSomewhat DisagreeSomewhat AgreeAgreeStrongly Agree

Each cell shows the full six-point response distribution. The ordered colour scale moves from blue at Strongly Disagree to green at Strongly Agree. Point to or focus a cell for median, IQR, and Agree + Strongly Agree. In a selected program-year view, items with no data in any visible cycle are omitted. A † marks a statement or measurement change within the visible window.

What stands out in the Annual Cohort Survey?

The 2025–26 cohort overall displays moderate agreement on how teaching, learning activities, assessment and feedback work together and on clarity/integration items, but program‑year profiles reveal a sharp split: Year 1 reports very strong agreement (many agree+ in the mid‑60s to 70s) while Year 3 reports very low agreement on integration and seminars (agree+ often below 30%). Thus the overall moderate picture masks a wide program‑year divergence.

About these Annual Cohort Survey measures

Use this section to check the exact statement wording and where the survey changed across academic cycles.

Aspect of the learning environment2023-20242024-20252025-2026
Learning outcomes were communicated clearlyLearning outcomes were communicated clearly.Learning outcomes were communicated clearly.—
Teaching methods supported achievement of learning outcomesTeaching methods (e.g. lectures, problem based learning, active learning) supported achievement of learning outcomes.Teaching methods (e.g. lectures, problem based learning, active learning) supported achievement of learning outcomes.—
Assessment methods were fairAssessment methods used to evaluate achievement of learning outcomes were fair.Assessment methods used to evaluate achievement of learning outcomes were fair.—
Seminars supported and extended learningSeminars supported and extended learning.Seminars supported and extended learning.Seminars supported and extended learning.
Timely and specific feedback supported learningI received timely and specific feedback that was useful to support my learning.I received timely and specific feedback that was useful to support my learning.I received timely and specific feedback that was useful to support my learning.
Instructional approaches, learning activities, and assessments worked together——Instructional approaches, learning activities, and assessments worked together to help me achieve stated learning outcomes.
Knowledge and skills were meaningfully integrated into other streams/courses——Knowledge and skills were meaningfully integrated into other streams/courses.
Measurement changes
  • No immediately prior result shares this governed canonical item identity; treat this statement as new or changed in this cycle.

AFPC Graduating Student Survey

Graduating students provide an Overall perspective only. Stream-specific evidence membership is preserved rather than pooled across source areas.

Aspect of the learning environment2023-20242024-20252025-2026
Learning experiences supported achievement of learning outcomes—
Learning outcomes were communicated clearly—
Assessment methods evaluated achievement of learning outcomes—
Instruction, learning activities, assessment and feedback worked together†——
Strongly DisagreeDisagreeSomewhat DisagreeSomewhat AgreeAgreeStrongly Agree

Each cell shows the full six-point response distribution. The ordered colour scale moves from blue at Strongly Disagree to green at Strongly Agree. Point to or focus a cell for median, IQR, and Agree + Strongly Agree. In a selected program-year view, items with no data in any visible cycle are omitted. A † marks a statement or measurement change within the visible window.

What stands out in the graduating-student survey?

Graduating students in 2025–26 largely agree that instruction, learning activities, assessment and feedback worked together (agree+ 63%), with the distribution concentrated in the agree category and a median of 5. This graduating‑student response shows a generally positive view of how those elements aligned in 2025–26.

About these AFPC survey measures

Use this section to check the exact statement wording and where the survey changed across academic cycles.

Aspect of the learning environment2023-20242024-20252025-2026
Learning experiences supported achievement of learning outcomesLearning experiences (e.g. lectures, problem based learning, active learning, patient simulations) supported achievement of stated learning outcomes.Learning experiences (e.g. lectures, problem based learning, active learning, patient simulations) supported achievement of stated learning outcomes.—
Learning outcomes were communicated clearlyLearning outcomes were communicated clearly (e.g. in course documents, during learning experiences).Learning outcomes were communicated clearly (e.g. in course documents, during learning experiences).—
Assessment methods evaluated achievement of learning outcomesAssessment methods (e.g. assignments, labs, and/or exams) evaluated achievement of stated learning outcomes.Assessment methods (e.g. assignments, labs, and/or exams) evaluated achievement of stated learning outcomes.—
Instruction, learning activities, assessment and feedback worked together——Instructional approaches, learning activities, and assessment/feedback worked well together to help me achieve the intended learning outcomes.
Measurement changes
  • No immediately prior result shares this governed canonical item identity; treat this statement as new or changed in this cycle.

Annual Cohort Survey and AFPC Graduating Student Survey remain separate perspectives. Program-year comparison is available only where Annual Cohort Survey records for the selected cycle support it. Missing current-cycle evidence is shown as unavailable rather than reconstructed in the renderer.

What Students Described

What are students telling us about their experience of this stream?

2025–26 Annual Cohort Survey · student feedback from Years 1–3. Themes are organized around what students said to keep, improve, and revisit in curriculum sequencing, gaps, or redundancy.

Overall qualitative picture

Students praise seminar-style case-based sessions, weekly low-stakes quizzes, and community advocacy/capstone projects as effective for applied learning, but they also describe tensions: semester projects and seminars can lack clear scope, guidance, and alignment; assessment design and logistical issues (recordings, slides, audio, tech) raise concerns; and curriculum sequencing prompts notes about topic repetition, timing mismatches with applied work, questions about practical relevance of some BASE content, and limited depth of Indigenous integration.

What is working well

Students were asked for an example of an instructional, learning activity, or assessment practice to keep.

  • Seminar-style, case-based learning and debrief sessionsStudents repeatedly encouraged keeping seminar sessions that apply lecture material to real-world cases (pharmacoepidemiology, change management, jurisprudence, licensee operations, TPP/ACP topics). They described these sessions as well-organized, engaging, and effective at supporting learning and discussion.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Practice to keep
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    very_high — High confidence — seminar mentions appear across many comments and multiple BASE course numbers.
  • Weekly low-stakes quizzes for knowledge consolidationFrequent comments recommended retaining weekly quizzes (BASE 2, BASE 3, second semester) as a low-stakes formative practice that helps students stay current with content and solidify learning.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Practice to keep
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    very_high — High confidence — many independent comments cite weekly quizzes across multiple BASE sections.
  • Project-based community advocacy / capstone-style assignments (BASE 5, HAP)Project-based work—particularly community advocacy/HAP projects and the BASE 5 structure—was highlighted as meaningful and well-organized. Students appreciated organised guidance, the opportunity for community impact, and assessment approaches that used reflective and quiz/exam mixes.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Practice to keep
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    moderate — Moderate confidence — several distinct comments reference BASE 5 and advocacy projects positively, with some suggestions about timing.

What could be improved

Students were asked for an instructional, learning activity, or assessment practice to improve.

  • Semester-long BASE projects: unclear scope, guidance, and alignment with seminarsMany students described BASE projects (business/service/HAP) as poorly scaffolded: project objectives, expected deliverables, and assessment criteria were unclear; seminars often did not help groups progress; mentor/community partner roles and alignment with project goals were inconsistent; some felt the project belonged in a different program (e.g., MBA) or should be optional. Students asked for more direction, examples, and checkpoints to ensure equitable group contribution.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Practice to improve
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    high — Multiple comments across the dataset reference BASE projects repeatedly and across different numbered BASE courses (notably BASE 2, BASE 5/6), indicating a consistent concern in the stream-level feedback.
  • Seminar structure and utility: length, interactivity, and alignment with learning goalsStudents frequently reported seminars as too long, often perceived as busywork, poorly aligned with lectures or projects, and inconsistently interactive. Suggestions included shorter seminars, pre-recorded content, better seminar-to-project linkage (stepwise guidance), clearer objectives for seminar sessions, and movement of some seminars online or to different formats.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Practice to improve
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    high — This theme appears across many comments mentioning seminars being 'not helpful', 'disjointed from project', '2 hours too long', or better as online/pre-recorded—supporting a high frequency estimate.
  • Assessment design and weight: quizzes, midterm/final balance, and exam clarityStudents questioned the pedagogical value and weighting of assessments: midterms perceived as overly high proportion of grade, quizzes seen as not supporting learning, unclear or poorly worded exam questions, and interest in alternative forms (pass/fail capstone, weekly BCRs, or different quiz formats). Some wanted clearer links between taught material and assessment expectations.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Practice to improve
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    moderate — Several distinct comments refer to midterm weighting, quiz utility, exam wording, and alternatives; frequency is meaningful but fewer than the two seminar/project themes.
  • Instructional materials, delivery logistics, and use of technology (recordings, slides, sound, AI use)Students identified operational barriers: recordings often missing or posted late, slides lacking explanatory detail or using 'fill-in-the-blank' formats that are hard to follow at lecture pace, soft/poor audio in some sessions, inconsistent use of audience-response tools (preference expressed for Mentimeter over Wooclap), and concerns about AI-generated lecture text and seminar expectations when AI is used.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Practice to improve
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    moderate — Numerous comments reference recordings, slide quality, sound, and tech preferences; while not as numerous as project/seminar complaints, these are recurrent practical issues.

Curriculum sequencing, gaps & redundancy

Students were asked to identify an issue with sequencing, gaps, or redundancies.

  • Perceived redundancy of core topics across BASE coursesMultiple respondents noted that particular topics recur across BASE courses and sometimes across semesters—examples cited include evidence-based medicine concepts (RCTs, observational studies), ADR reporting, CQI, and communication skills—leading to a sense of repetition rather than progression.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Sequencing, gaps or redundancy
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    High (many comments across the survey mention repeated coverage of the same topics) — High confidence: repetition of specific topics appears frequently and consistently across comments.
  • Sequencing/timing misalignment between BASE content and applied courses, assessments, or rotationsStudents reported that some BASE lectures, seminars, or administrative/hospital content occur either after related assessments (e.g., seminar after midterm) or well before rotations such that material (hospital procedures, legal issues) is not fresh when needed. They also raised that skills courses sometimes receive prerequisite material after labs, and that BASE and Skills timing could be better coordinated so base content precedes applied practice.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Sequencing, gaps or redundancy
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    Moderate to High (multiple references to mis-timed seminars, midterms, rotations, and skills sequencing) — Moderate-high confidence: several distinct comments describe timing issues and provide specific course/semester examples.
  • Perceived lack of practical relevance and overlap with non-core topics (notably BASE 6 content)Several students characterized certain BASE offerings—particularly BASE 6—as non-practical or 'filler,' questioning relevance to pharmacy practice. Business/marketing/administration content was singled out as excessive by some, with suggestions that such material might be better offered as electives or placed differently in the program.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Sequencing, gaps or redundancy
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    Moderate (multiple comments focused specifically on BASE 6 or business-focused sessions) — Moderate confidence: consistent sentiment across several comments though some students did find particular projects useful.
  • Gap in depth and practical integration of Indigenous contentAt least one respondent felt Indigenous integration in the stream was limited to high-level acknowledgements and messaging about colonial impacts, leaving unclear how Indigenous healing practices relate to or differ from Western approaches and how to apply this understanding in practice.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Sequencing, gaps or redundancy
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    Low (isolated but specific concern) — Moderate confidence: the comment is explicit but not widely echoed across the dataset.
How to read this qualitative evidence

For each structured stream-feedback question, de-identified comments from students in Years 1-3 were analyzed together. The existing qualitative analysis grouped related observations into named themes and wrote a bounded paraphrase for each theme. These themes are the reviewer-facing qualitative evidence shown above.

The analysis was instructed to preserve disagreement, exceptions, and program-year differences when evident, but the structured theme output did not include a theme-level program-year attribution field. For that reason, C05 reports that Years 1-3 contributed to the analysis and does not infer that a theme belongs primarily to a specific year.

Theme order, the number of themes, and qualitative analysis-support notes are not estimates of prevalence. Raw student comments are not rendered.

Questions for Review

What questions does this evidence warrant further consideration?

  • Year‑3 students report especially low agreement that teaching, learning activities, assessment and feedback work together and that knowledge is integrated across courses—what Year‑3 scheduling, sequencing with Skills or rotations, or course placements might explain these integration concerns?
  • Students repeatedly request clearer scope, milestones, mentor roles, and equitable assessment for semester‑long BASE projects—what specific project design elements are currently inconsistent across instructors or courses and therefore warrant review?
  • Where are core BASE topics (EBM concepts, ADR reporting, communication) being repeated without clear progression, and how might sequencing be adjusted so content is consolidated or reinforced closer to applied practice rather than experienced as redundancy?
About this Evidence

Where did this information come from, and how was it prepared?

What information is included

This workspace brings together student ratings and student-described experience for the selected pharmacy stream. The Annual Cohort Survey represents students in Years 1–3, while the AFPC Graduating Student Survey provides a graduating-student perspective. Student comments from the Annual Cohort Survey provide additional context about teaching, learning activities, assessment, feedback, organization, and curriculum sequencing.

The sources are kept separate because they represent different groups of students and do not always ask the same questions. Evidence is shown for the academic cycles in which it is available rather than filling gaps or treating different sources as interchangeable.

How the student ratings are shown

Students rated the learning-environment statements on a six-point scale from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. The coloured bars show the full distribution of responses rather than reducing the result to one score. Reviewers can inspect the median, the middle 50% of responses, and the percentage who selected Agree or Strongly Agree for additional context.

Annual Cohort Survey
Shows the combined Years 1–3 view and, when available, separate Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3 perspectives.
AFPC Graduating Student Survey
Shows the graduating-student perspective. It is not treated as another program-year view of the Annual Cohort Survey.

Survey statements changed in some years. Results are compared across academic cycles only when the available questions support that comparison. When a result is unavailable or a question changed substantially, the report leaves that limitation visible rather than reconstructing a value or uninterrupted trend.

How student comments are summarized

For 2023–24 and 2024–25, students were asked to explain reasons for their high and low ratings, with particular encouragement to describe lower ratings that could help improve the program. De-identified comments were grouped into named themes through the established structured OpenAI-assisted qualitative analysis, and concise paraphrased summaries were retained for reporting.

In 2025–26, the qualitative questions became more specific. Students were asked about practices worth keeping, things that could be improved, and issues involving curriculum sequencing, gaps, or redundancy. Those responses were analyzed into the three corresponding theme groups shown in the workspace.

Because students were asked different kinds of questions across these years, the qualitative evidence is presented in a way that reflects the questions students actually answered. The older and newer themes are not treated as one directly comparable thematic trend.

How the written summaries and review questions are created

The report first organizes the survey ratings and disclosure-safe student-comment themes for each stream and academic cycle. AI-assisted writing is then used to create concise reviewer-facing orientation and review questions from that prepared evidence. The current Review Summary can also compare the overall story with the immediately preceding academic cycle when both are available.

AI-assisted writing does not calculate the survey distributions, decide whether the stream is effective, determine why a pattern occurred, set priorities, or recommend changes. Those judgments remain with the educators reviewing the evidence.

The written summaries and questions are prepared before the report is displayed. Opening or browsing this report does not send a new request to an AI service.

How to interpret differences, themes, and missing information

The ratings describe students’ experiences of the learning environment; they are not direct measures of learning-outcome achievement. A visible difference between academic cycles or program years does not, by itself, establish that an educationally important improvement or decline occurred.

Qualitative themes show the ideas identified in the analyzed comments. The number of themes, their order on the page, and their visual position should not be interpreted as how common or important an opinion was unless that information is explicitly reported.

The Annual Cohort Survey and AFPC survey are separate perspectives and are not pooled into one score. When evidence is missing, was not asked, or cannot reasonably be compared with another year, the report shows that limitation rather than filling it in.