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?

Students explicitly endorse keeping seminar case work, PK practice, and hands‑on labs

In the Keep/Fix framing students named seminar‑based application, weekly/topic pharmacokinetics practice, and compounding/sterile‑tech labs as high‑value practices to retain — echoed by higher agreement that instructional approaches worked together and improved integration of pharmaceutical science across courses.

Feedback timeliness shows quantitative improvement, but TA support and assessment alignment remain problematic

Agreement that feedback was timely and specific rose notably this cycle, yet teaching‑assistant support ratings declined and students still raised concerns about exam formats, question styles, and misalignment between stated objectives and assessed content.

Sequencing, redundancy, and misalignment across lectures, seminars and labs continue to affect learning efficiency

Structured sequencing responses highlighted repeated content across courses, misordered topics (foundational vs therapeutic timing), and conflicts between lab manuals, seminar slides, and instructor expectations that slow students’ ability to build vertical progression.

Same core strengths but with clearer student priorities and some measurable shifts

Compared with 2024‑25, the 2025‑26 story preserves seminar and practicum strengths but places stronger, more specific student emphasis on keeping PK practice and hands‑on labs; quantitatively, students report better timeliness of feedback and greater integration of pharmaceutical sciences, while TA support and recurring pharmaceutics/assessment alignment problems remain salient.

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
Labs facilitated application of concepts to support learning
Pharmaceutical Science concepts were well integrated into other courses in the year
Teaching assistants were effective guides in teaching and learning——
Teaching assistants were used effectively to support learning†—
Instructional approaches, learning activities, and assessments 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 Annual Cohort Survey?

Timely and specific feedback shifted toward stronger agreement in 2025–26 (Agree+Strongly Agree 45.1), a clear change from the lower levels in prior cycles. Instructional approaches, learning activities, and assessments working together (Agree+Strongly Agree 56.3) and pharmaceutical integration (56.9) are also relatively positive in 25–26. Teaching‑assistant support, however, sits lower (Agree+Strongly Agree 35.2), so overall gains in feedback and integration coexist with weaker TA support. Laboratory experiences recovered somewhat (Agree+Strongly Agree 53.1).

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.When used 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.
Labs facilitated application of concepts to support learningLabs facilitated application of concepts to support learning.Labs facilitated application of concepts to support learning.Lab sessions offered effective opportunities to apply my knowledge and skills.
Pharmaceutical Science concepts were well integrated into other courses in the yearPharmaceutical Science concepts were well integrated into other courses in the year.Pharmaceutical Science concepts were well integrated into other courses in the year.Knowledge and skills were meaningfully integrated into other streams/courses.
Teaching assistants were effective guides in teaching and learningTeaching assistants were effective guides in teaching and learning.——
Teaching assistants were used effectively to support learning—Teaching assistants were used effectively to support learning.Teaching assistants were used effectively to support learning.
Instructional approaches, learning activities, and assessments worked together——Instructional approaches, learning activities, and assessments worked together to help me achieve stated learning outcomes.
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 — Foundational Biomedical Sciences—
Learning outcomes were communicated clearly — Foundational Biomedical Sciences—
Assessment methods evaluated achievement of learning outcomes — Foundational Biomedical Sciences—
Learning experiences supported achievement of learning outcomes — Pharmaceutical Sciences—
Learning outcomes were communicated clearly — Pharmaceutical Sciences—
Assessment methods evaluated achievement of learning outcomes — Pharmaceutical Sciences—
Instruction, learning activities, assessment and feedback worked together — Foundational Biomedical Sciences†——
Instruction, learning activities, assessment and feedback worked together — Pharmaceutical Sciences†——
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?

Instruction, learning activities, assessment and feedback — foundational biomedical sciences: graduating students in 2025–26 were very positive (Agree+Strongly Agree 74.1). Instruction and alignment in pharmaceutical sciences received more moderate endorsement (Agree+Strongly Agree 55.4), so graduates again rate foundational biomedical elements more strongly than the pharmaceutical‑specific strand in 25–26.

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 outcomes — Foundational Biomedical SciencesLearning 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 clearly — Foundational Biomedical SciencesLearning 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 outcomes — Foundational Biomedical SciencesAssessment 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.—
Learning experiences supported achievement of learning outcomes — Pharmaceutical SciencesLearning 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 clearly — Pharmaceutical SciencesLearning 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 outcomes — Pharmaceutical SciencesAssessment 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 — Foundational Biomedical Sciences——Instructional approaches, learning activities, and assessment/feedback worked well together to help me achieve the intended learning outcomes.
Instruction, learning activities, assessment and feedback worked together — Pharmaceutical Sciences——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 report valued elements—seminar-based case activities and small-group application sessions; pharmacokinetics topic-based online assignments; and hands-on pharmaceutics and compounding labs (including sterile technique)—alongside tensions: pharmaceutics/ceutics labs and seminars are frequently described as disorganized and misaligned; assessment design and alignment with learning objectives and practice and timeliness, consistency, and accuracy of grading and feedback; and sequencing and vertical progression issues including inter-course redundancy and misalignment between learning activities.

What is working well

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

  • Seminar-based case activities and small-group application sessionsStudents consistently endorsed seminar formats (case work, seminar debriefs, problem‑solving groups) as valuable for applying lecture material and preparing for exams. Several comments noted seminars help socialize learning and facilitate peer discussion; some course-specific seminar references (e.g., Medicinal Chemistry, PHARM 243, TPP BASE) were given.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Practice to keep
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    High (multiple respondents across the cohort mentioned seminars repeatedly) — High confidence — references to seminars appear broadly and across course examples.
  • Pharmacokinetics topic-based online assignments and external practice websiteMany students highlighted PK weekly/topic assignments and an external PK practice website as especially helpful practice that prepared them for midterms and finals; they want these assignments kept and continued annually.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Practice to keep
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    High (repeated, specific mentions of PK assignments/website across responses) — High confidence — the PK assignment item recurs with consistent positive framing.
  • Hands-on pharmaceutics and compounding labs (including sterile technique)Students emphasized keeping practical lab experiences (compounding labs, sterile lab, foam‑a‑derm, pre‑lab seminars) as they provide relevant, applied skills for future placements and professional practice; some comments asked for more consistency in how these labs are delivered.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Practice to keep
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    High (many mentions across lab types and explicit support for hands‑on practice) — High confidence — multiple distinct lab activities are referenced and described as impactful.
  • Regular low‑stakes quizzes and formative assessment spread across termsStudents value frequent quizzes (weekly, end‑of‑week, mini in‑class quizzes) and formative activities tied to seminars or lecture cases; they reported these help retention and exam preparation. Several also praised non‑cumulative midterm configurations (e.g., splitting midterm content or having three exams rather than two) for reducing stress.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Practice to keep
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    High (numerous references to quizzes, mini‑quizzes, and midterm structure) — High confidence — assessment format is a clear, recurrent theme with specific design preferences noted.
  • Skills lab simulations, practice patient interactions, and OSCE practiceStudents reported that simulations (e.g., 'a day in the life' hospital activity), practice counselling with physical product handling, graded LF‑led interactions, and practice OSCEs were highly useful for developing clinical skills; some references were specific to Skills 1 vs Skills 2 contexts.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Practice to keep
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    Moderate to high (multiple mentions across skills lab activities and program years) — High confidence about usefulness; moderate confidence about distribution across specific program years since references are occasionally course‑specific.

What could be improved

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

  • Pharmaceutics/ceutics labs and seminars are frequently described as disorganized and misalignedMany students reported that pharmaceutics/ceutics labs and associated seminars lacked coordination: lab manuals, seminar slides, and in-lab instructions often conflicted; TAs gave inconsistent guidance; some labs felt aimless or overly simulation-based; and seminar content was sometimes ahead of or not matched to laboratory activities.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Practice to improve
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    high (many comments across the dataset, often repeated with course identifiers such as PHARM 202 and "ceutics") — High confidence based on numerous, detailed, and repeated references to the same component (labs/seminars) and to specific inconsistencies between materials and in-person instruction.
  • Assessment design and alignment with learning objectives and practiceStudents reported that many exams and quizzes did not reflect stated learning objectives or practice-relevant material, included question styles perceived as 'trick' or overly memory-focused, and sometimes differed from taught material. There was concern about open- versus closed-book exam formats not matching instructional emphasis and about heavy weighting of midterms/finals.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Practice to improve
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    high (frequent comments about exams, quiz design, and relevance to practice/PEBC preparation) — High confidence; assessment concerns appear in many comments and across multiple courses within the stream.
  • Timeliness, consistency, and accuracy of grading and feedbackStudents noted delays in returning graded lab reports and midterm results, inconsistent marking between TAs, and errors/regrades in quiz answer keys. Lack of timely feedback was repeatedly mentioned as limiting opportunities for improvement before subsequent assignments.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Practice to improve
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    high (many references to late or inconsistent grading, and to quiz regrading) — High confidence; several comments give specific instances of delayed or inconsistent grading and quiz regrading errors.
  • Seminar utility, timing, and integration with lectures and assessmentsStudents frequently described seminars as unclear, redundant, or disconnected from lecture content and subsequent assessments. Timing problems were noted (seminars scheduled poorly relative to labs or debriefs delayed), and some seminars were perceived as taking time away from core learning.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Practice to improve
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    frequent — Moderate-high confidence: many comments describe similar experiences, though a few indicate seminars were valuable when well-structured.

Curriculum sequencing, gaps & redundancy

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

  • Inter-course redundancy and duplicationStudents reported frequent content overlap across courses in the stream (examples cited: geriatrics/toxicology overlap with PHARM 448, repeated immune hypersensitivity coverage, anatomy duplicating prior physiology content, repeated substance-use topics, and overlapping pharmaceutics 1 and 2 material). Some students said redundancy felt unnecessary, while a few appreciated overlap for reinforcement.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Sequencing, gaps or redundancy
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    High (many comments across the dataset referencing duplication between specific courses and topics) — High confidence based on multiple independent comments naming similar course pairs/topics and explicit statements of repetition.
  • Sequencing and vertical progression issuesLearners identified problems with the order of topic presentation and progression across program years: examples include preferring pharmacotherapy before pharmacology or greater coordination between them; moving key kinetics topics earlier for conceptual clarity; suggestion that toxicology topics could be placed earlier in the program; and base/skills ordering where base content should precede skills practice. Some first-year and third-year perspectives differed (e.g., early pharmacology utility vs. later therapeutic application).
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Sequencing, gaps or redundancy
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    High (multiple comments describing suboptimal order of topics and requests to reposition specific content) — High confidence because specific sequencing concerns are repeatedly referenced and sometimes linked to program year (e.g., early-year vs later-year placement).
  • Misalignment between learning activities (lectures, seminars, labs, manuals)Students reported poor alignment among learning formats: seminar instructions and lab manuals conflicting, seminars not preparing learners for lab activities, lab manuals containing discrepancies with seminar guidance, seminars with delayed debriefs, and med-chem seminars pitched above students' baseline. These misalignments affected students' preparation and learning efficiency.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Sequencing, gaps or redundancy
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    High (multiple comments describing inconsistencies between manuals, seminars, and labs, and reporting timing issues for debriefs) — High confidence given repeated and detailed accounts of mismatches between documents, seminar activities, and lab expectations.
  • Course-level organization, pacing, and missing contentLearners noted disorganization and pacing problems in specific courses (examples: missing USP slides/content due to poor time management, rushed or shortened classes, compressed modules like immunology being 'rushed,' and courses described as disorganized with inconsistent instructor/TA messaging). These issues sometimes left material un-taught or unclear.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Sequencing, gaps or redundancy
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    Moderate to High (several distinct comments referencing missing content, pacing problems, and course disorganization) — Moderate to high confidence; multiple comments reference time-management or course-disorganization problems, though specific courses are variably named.
  • Assessment design and feedback delays affecting continuity of learningStudents reported problems with assessment and feedback that intersect sequencing concerns: lab report grades and feedback in pharmaceutics took many weeks, open-book exams were seen as promoting searching skills rather than deep learning, high-weighted exams with little formative assessment, and assignment errors or unclear cutoffs creating confusion about tested material.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Sequencing, gaps or redundancy
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    Moderate (several comments specifically mention slow lab feedback, exam format concerns, and exam-content misalignment) — Moderate confidence because comments are consistent about feedback delays and exam design but come from a subset of respondents.
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?

  • Students explicitly asked to keep seminar‑based case activities, PK weekly assignments, hands‑on pharmaceutics labs, and regular low‑stakes quizzes—what should we consider to sustain these practices consistently across sections and years so students experience them reliably?
  • The 2025‑26 structured 'Fix' responses again highlight disorganized pharmaceutics labs, conflicting manuals, inconsistent TA guidance, and feedback delays while TA support ratings are low (agree_strongly_agree 35.2); what course‑level documentation and TA supports should reviewers request to understand these operational failures?
  • Students described inter-course redundancy, sequencing and vertical progression issues, and misalignment between lectures, seminars, and labs; what mapping or curricular questions should reviewers ask to determine whether topics are unnecessarily duplicated, taught out of sequence, or lack clear vertical progression?
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.