Achievement of Learning Outcomes
Interim Stream Review · Prototype

Achievement of Learning Outcomes

What does the available evidence tell us about how well students are achieving the intended learning outcomes of this stream?

This workspace brings together what students demonstrate in program assessments, external licensure performance, and graduating-student self-report. These perspectives remain distinct so reviewers can understand what each contributes before considering the overall achievement picture.

Evidence at a Glance

What evidence am I reviewing?

Program performance

What students demonstrated through program assessments across Years 1–3 and academic years.

External performance

PEBC MCQ and OSCE results provide an external perspective on achievement. The two components remain separate because they use different measures.

Graduating-student perspective

AFPC and CCAPP self-report evidence shows how graduating students describe preparedness and where they report developing knowledge and skills.

Performance in Pharmaceutical Sciences

What do program assessments show about student performance in this stream?

Reviewer orientation

What stands out?

Year three dropped notably then recovered slightly

Scores fell after two academic years ago into the next year and remained lower for several years before a modest rise in the selected academic year.

Selected academic year shows stronger Years one and two

In the selected academic year Year one and Year two moved higher compared with the previous academic year, with Year two showing no students in the lowest score band and Year three only modestly higher.

How has performance changed within each program year?Read from the most recent academic year to earlier academic years within each program year.
<6060-<7070-<8080-<9090-100
Year 1
2025-2026
2024-2025
2023-2024
Year 2
2025-2026
2024-2025
2023-2024
Year 3
2025-2026
2024-2025
2023-2024
Course performance detail
PHARM 201Year 12025-202613782.9%85.2%8.3%
PHARM 201Year 12024-202513583.2%84.5%9.1%
PHARM 201Year 12023-202413694.3%94.4%2.4%
PHARM 202Year 12025-202613980.3%80.2%6.3%
PHARM 202Year 12024-202513469.4%69.6%10.1%
PHARM 202Year 12023-202413666.7%67.1%11.0%
PHARM 203Year 12025-202613980.8%82.1%11.0%
PHARM 203Year 12024-202513577.5%76.8%11.1%
PHARM 203Year 12023-202413676.9%78.4%10.7%
PHARM 204Year 12025-202613985.1%86.1%8.0%
PHARM 204Year 12024-202513585.2%87.2%7.8%
PHARM 204Year 12023-202413681.2%82.7%8.8%
PHARM 233Year 12025-202613981.7%83.0%9.6%
PHARM 233Year 12024-202513482.7%84.2%8.9%
PHARM 233Year 12023-202413679.9%80.4%9.3%
PHARM 302Year 22025-202613470.9%70.6%8.3%
PHARM 302Year 22024-202513369.6%70.0%7.6%
PHARM 302Year 22023-202413867.7%67.2%7.2%
PHARM 303Year 22025-202613275.6%75.5%8.1%
PHARM 303Year 22024-202513372.2%72.1%8.5%
PHARM 303Year 22023-202414070.4%70.3%9.8%
PHARM 310Year 22025-202613489.0%90.0%5.9%
PHARM 310Year 22024-202513385.7%87.0%7.0%
PHARM 310Year 22023-202413987.1%88.0%6.0%
PHARM 401Year 32025-202613074.3%73.9%7.0%
PHARM 401Year 32024-202513572.8%72.7%8.3%
PHARM 401Year 32023-202412673.1%73.0%7.9%

Calculation note. For each student, exam scores were averaged within each course. Those course averages were then averaged to summarize performance across the stream. Years 1, 2 and 3 are shown separately.

Exam Reliability and Item Statistics Evidence

How well are our assessments functioning as measures of student performance?

How consistently are our exams measuring student performance?

Each dot is one written exam in the selected academic year. Higher values mean the questions on that exam worked together more consistently.

Year 1Year 2Year 3
0.400.500.600.700.800.901.00

Exam reliability is not course-grade reliability. A final course grade based on several related assessments may be more stable than any one exam, but course-grade reliability is not estimated here.

Exam reliabilities vary by program year

Year one exams generally show higher and more consistent reliability while Year three exams are lower and tighter, suggesting multiple related assessments could increase overall score stability.

What contributes to exam consistency? One important part is how the individual questions work together. Questions that are very easy or very difficult for most students can provide less information about differences in performance, while questions that do not separate stronger from weaker overall exam performance may deserve closer review.

Are our exam questions giving us useful information about differences in student performance?

Each dot is one scored question from written exams in the selected academic year. Choose a program year to bring those questions forward while keeping the rest in view.

1059 questions reviewed · 3% very difficult · 16% very easy · 14% low discrimination · 5% negative discrimination
0.000.250.500.751.00-0.20.00.20.40.6
How well the question separates stronger and weaker overall exam performance
How often students answered correctly — fewer ← → more

Item discrimination is the most informative signal

Whether higher-scoring students on the rest of the exam were more likely to answer correctly gives the clearest cue for which items need content, key, or alignment review, including negative movers.

One important limit: question functioning and exam consistency tell us how the assessment is behaving. They do not tell us whether the exam adequately covers the intended learning.

Graduating-Student Perspective

How prepared do graduating students say they are, and where do they believe knowledge and skills were developed?

Self-reported preparedness by AFPC professional role

Graduating students rated how prepared they felt across the statements that make up each professional role. Within each role, read down from the most recent academic year to see how the response distribution has changed over time.

AFPC professional roleAcademic yearOverall graduating-student rating
Scholar2025–26
2024–25
2023–24
Very unpreparedUnpreparedSomewhat unpreparedSomewhat preparedPreparedVery prepared

Each row pools the six-point ratings across the governed statements contributing to that professional role. Point to or focus a bar for the median and share rated Prepared or Very prepared.

Self-reported knowledge & skill development

The eight lowest-rated stream-relevant topics in the most recent graduating-student survey are shown as full response distributions. The mean is used only to determine which topics appear.

TopicGraduating-student rating
pharmaceutics
pharmaceutical biotechnology
biopharmaceutics
biochemistry
molecular and cell biology
anatomy
pharmacokinetics
medicinal chemistry
Very underdevelopedUnderdevelopedSomewhat underdevelopedSomewhat developedDevelopedVery developed
CCAPP knowledge & skill detail
anatomy2026436.9
biochemistry2026424.7
immunology2026567.9
microbiology2026552.9
molecular and cell biology2026434.1
pathophysiology2026579.8
physiology2026570.6
biopharmaceutics2026421
biopharmaceutics2025421
biopharmaceutics2024422
medicinal chemistry2026553
medicinal chemistry2025440.2
medicinal chemistry2024446.1
pharmaceutical biotechnology2026411.4
pharmaceutical biotechnology2025420
pharmaceutical biotechnology2024416.5
pharmaceutics2026425.3
pharmaceutics2025322
pharmaceutics2024319.8
pharmacogenomics2025433.8
pharmacogenomics2024436.3
pharmacokinetics2026433.7
pharmacokinetics2025430.9
pharmacokinetics2024320.8
pharmacology2026581.9
pharmacology2025577.8
pharmacology2024571.6
toxicology2026561.4
toxicology2025445.1
toxicology2024446.1

These are graduating-student self-reports. They describe perceived preparedness and development, not demonstrated competence.

Licensure Examination Performance

What does PEBC evidence add to the picture of achievement?

PEBC MCQ longitudinal performance

Within each area, read from the most recent reporting year to earlier reporting years. MCQ average item-difficulty scale. Lower values indicate stronger relative performance on this PEBC measure. National values are shown only where they are already available in the governed PEBC evidence. To keep the stream view focused, the figure shows the highest-relevance competencies identified by the governed PEBC-to-AFPC-to-stream crosswalk.

UAlbertaNational
0.000.501.00

Ethical, Legal and Professional Responsibilities

2024–25
0.80
2023–24
0.80
2022–23
0.82

Patient Care

2024–25
0.76
2023–24
0.76
2022–23
0.76

Product Distribution

2024–25
0.70
2023–24
0.72
2022–23
0.70

Practice Setting

2024–25
0.74
2023–24
0.75
2022–23
0.77

Knowledge and Research Application

2024–25
0.70
2023–24
0.73
2022–23
0.73

PEBC OSCE longitudinal performance

Within each area, read from the most recent reporting year to earlier reporting years. OSCE competency-rating scale shown on the axis. National values are shown only where they are already available in the governed PEBC evidence. To keep the stream view focused, the figure shows the highest-relevance competencies identified by the governed PEBC-to-AFPC-to-stream crosswalk.

UAlbertaNational
50.0067.5085.00

Ethical, Legal and Professional Responsibilities

2024–25
50.60
2023–24
67.40
2022–23
84.00

Patient Care

2024–25
72.10
2023–24
71.50
2022–23
74.80

Product Distribution

2024–25
67.00
2023–24
71.30
2022–23
67.10

Knowledge and Research Application

2024–25
70.30
2023–24
70.90
2022–23
74.10

Quality and Safety

2024–25Unavailable
2023–24Unavailable
2022–23
81.90

PEBC OSCE global ratings

Within each area, read from the most recent reporting year to earlier reporting years. 1–4 OSCE global-rating scale. Higher values indicate stronger ratings. National values are shown only where they are already available in the governed PEBC evidence.

UAlbertaNational
1.002.504.00

Communication

2024–25
3.60
2023–24
3.60
2022–23
3.70

Outcome

2024–25
2.80
2023–24
2.80
2022–23
3.00

Overall performance

2024–25
3.00
2023–24
3.00
2022–23
3.20

MCQ and OSCE retain their own original measures and scales. Stream relationships establish relevance, not causal attribution.

Where the Evidence Connects

What becomes clearer when these perspectives are considered together?

Across the evidence

What becomes clearer?

Bringing internal program performance, assessment-quality estimates, graduating‑student self-report, and the 2025 PEBC results together makes clearer where different measures align and where they diverge. Internal course averages for 2025–2026 are highest in Year 1, lower in Year 2, and lowest in Year 3, with modest increases from earlier reporting years in each year. Test-quality information is available at the stream level for all years, while test‑level reliability estimates vary: many Year 1 estimates sit in a generally acceptable range, Year 2 is mixed, and some Year 3 estimates are noticeably lower. In the most recent survey graduating students report relatively strong preparedness for the Scholar role. The 2025 PEBC MCQ and OSCE results (single reporting year) show a mixed picture versus national values: some MCQ competencies are slightly weaker than national values while others are slightly stronger; OSCE competencies are stronger in Patient Care and Knowledge but weaker in Product Distribution. Taken together, these perspectives suggest relative strengths in applied and patient‑centred skills on performance and OSCE measures, alongside less consistent performance on some MCQ competency measures.

Keep in mind

What should stay distinct?

These sources use different measures, scales, and reporting periods and must be kept separate when interpreting results. Do not pool internal means, test reliabilities, PEBC MCQ and OSCE scores, or self‑report data; differences in test‑level reliability—particularly the lower estimates in Year 3—mean comparisons across years or tests require contextual information about test design and scope. The PEBC data are from 2025 only, so movement over time cannot be assessed, and the graduating‑student AFPC rating is from the most recent survey year only, so stability across earlier years is not known.

Questions for Review

What questions does the achievement evidence warrant further consideration?

  • Which year‑level courses contributed most to the observed early‑cycle gains (Years 1–2) versus the smaller Year‑3 increase, and do exam‑level diagnostics support those gains as robust?
  • Do student self‑reports of high Scholar/clinical readiness alongside lower pharmaceutical‑science confidence correspond to the program’s year‑specific score shifts, and which competency families should be jointly reviewed across internal and external indicators?
  • What additional assessment‑quality documentation (blueprints, station‑level OSCE metrics, rater‑agreement) is necessary before attempting cross‑evidence interpretation between internal exam gains and external licensure OSCE declines?
About this Evidence

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

What information is included

This workspace brings together several different perspectives on achievement for the selected pharmacy stream: performance in program assessments, information about how written exams are functioning, graduating-student self-report, and PEBC licensure results.

These sources answer different questions and are kept separate. Program assessments show performance within the curriculum, graduating-student surveys describe perceived preparedness and development, and PEBC provides an external perspective after the program.

How program performance and assessment quality are shown

Program-performance figures summarize student exam performance within each course and then across courses in the stream. Program years are shown separately, and the most recent academic year can be compared with earlier academic years using the same calculation.

Assessment-quality figures provide additional context about how individual written exams and exam questions are functioning. Exam reliability and item statistics can help identify results that deserve closer review, but they do not establish whether an exam adequately covers the intended curriculum.

Exam reliability describes an individual assessment, not the reliability of a final course grade that combines several assessments.

How graduating-student ratings are shown

AFPC professional-role preparedness and CCAPP knowledge-and-skill development use six-point response scales. The coloured bars show the full distribution of student responses rather than reducing the result to a single score. Hover or keyboard focus provides the median and the share of responses in the two most favourable categories.

The professional-role figure compares the same role across available survey years. The knowledge-and-skill figure shows the eight lowest-rated stream-relevant topics in the most recent survey; the mean is used only to select those topics, while the displayed evidence remains the full response distribution.

These are student self-reports. They complement demonstrated achievement evidence but are not treated as direct measures of competence.

How PEBC results are shown

PEBC results are displayed on their original assessment-specific scales. MCQ competency results, OSCE competency results, and the available 1–4 OSCE global ratings are shown separately. Within each figure, the most recent reporting year appears first so changes can be followed over time.

UAlberta results are shown alongside the national value when that comparison already exists in the governed PEBC evidence. Missing national values are left absent rather than reconstructed.

PEBC reporting years are not treated as equivalent to the academic-cycle selector, and relationships to a stream establish relevance rather than showing that the stream caused the result.

How the written summaries and review questions are created

The report first prepares the quantitative evidence and its source-specific limits. AI-assisted writing is then used to create concise educator-facing What stands out notes, cross-evidence orientation, and review questions from those prepared records.

AI-assisted writing does not calculate the figures, combine unlike scales, decide whether learning outcomes have been achieved, determine why a pattern occurred, or recommend curriculum changes. Those judgments remain with the educators reviewing the evidence.

The written summaries 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 and missing information

A visible difference between academic years, survey years, or PEBC reporting years does not by itself establish an educationally important improvement or decline. Each source should first be interpreted on its own scale and within its own reporting period.

When evidence is missing, not comparable, unavailable for a stream, or reported on a different scale, the workspace keeps that limitation visible rather than filling the gap or creating a combined achievement score.