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 Practice Skills

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

Reviewer orientation

What stands out?

Year one showed a large rise this academic year

Course-level performance for Year one climbed substantially compared with the previous academic year and is higher than two academic years ago, reversing earlier dips.

Year one scores concentrated in the top band this academic year

In the selected academic year most Year one students cluster in the highest score band, shifting upward from the previous academic year where scores were mainly in the upper middle band.

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 215Year 12025-202613592.3%96.0%7.3%
PHARM 215Year 12024-202513595.4%96.0%3.3%
PHARM 215Year 12023-202413685.2%88.0%13.8%
PHARM 220Year 12024-202513581.7%82.7%6.7%
PHARM 220Year 12023-202413684.7%85.4%5.8%
PHARM 223Year 12024-202513481.5%82.3%7.1%
PHARM 223Year 12023-202413676.7%77.6%6.4%
PHARM 320Year 22025-202613474.6%76.1%8.6%
PHARM 320Year 22024-202513376.3%77.3%7.7%
PHARM 320Year 22023-202413975.8%76.7%7.5%
PHARM 323Year 22025-202613373.6%74.3%7.9%
PHARM 323Year 22024-202513374.2%74.7%8.2%
PHARM 323Year 22023-202413975.5%77.1%8.5%
PHARM 420Year 32025-202613077.8%78.2%7.1%
PHARM 420Year 32024-202513582.2%83.2%7.1%
PHARM 420Year 32023-202412574.9%74.3%7.9%
PHARM 423Year 32025-202613076.3%76.5%8.4%
PHARM 423Year 32024-202513373.9%74.9%6.8%
PHARM 423Year 32023-202412675.8%76.1%5.3%

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.

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
Care Provider2025–26
2024–25
2023–24
Collaborator2025–26
2024–25
2023–24
Communicator2025–26
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
practical compounding
physical assessment
virtual care provision
diagnostic and point-of-care testing
critical appraisal of medical literature
evidence-based decision making
care plan implementation
drug information provision
Very underdevelopedUnderdevelopedSomewhat underdevelopedSomewhat developedDevelopedVery developed
CCAPP knowledge & skill detail
accessing patient health information2025587.3
accessing patient health information2024585.9
administration of drugs by injection2026593.8
best possible medication history and medication reconciliation20265.593.8
care plan development2026591.2
care plan implementation2026583.8
collaborative care and shared decision-making2026585
collection of patient data2026697.5
compounding2025315.2
compounding2024316.3
critical appraisal of medical literature2026566.2
diagnostic and point-of-care testing2026566.2
diagnostic testing (i.e. ordering and interpreting)2025557.7
diagnostic testing (i.e. ordering and interpreting)2024550.5
dispensing and prescription processing2026586.2
dispensing and prescription processing2025582.3
dispensing and prescription processing2024573.7
documentation of care2026588.8
documentation of care2025588.6
documentation of care2024580.6
drug information2025577.2
drug information2024570.7
drug information provision2026585
emergency first care2025432
emergency first care2024428.1
evidence-based decision making2026578.8
evidence-based decision making2025568.4
evidence-based decision making2024559.6
health promotion and disease prevention2025573.1
health promotion and disease prevention2024561.6
immunization and administration of drugs by injection2025587.3
immunization and administration of drugs by injection2024585.9
information technology and practice support tools2025555.8
information technology and practice support tools2024554.6
literature evaluation2025555.7
literature evaluation2024449.5
medication and patient safety practices2025578.2
medication and patient safety practices2024571.4
medication therapy management2025585.9
medication therapy management2024574.7
monitoring & follow-up2026588.8
outcomes monitoring2025583.3
outcomes monitoring2024580.8
patient and professional communications2026590
patient assessment2025587.3
patient assessment2024583.8
patient assessment/pharmacotherapy work-up2026591.2
patient education2025589.9
patient education2024578.8
patient safety2026592.5
pharmacist patient care process2026596.2
physical assessment2026432.1
physical assessment2025435.9
physical assessment2024425.8
point-of-care testing (i.e. conducting and interpreting)2025555.1
point-of-care testing (i.e. conducting and interpreting)2024550.5
practical compounding2026433.8
prescriptive decision making (i.e. prescribing, deprescribing, adapting a prescription)2026587.5
prescriptive decision making (i.e. prescribing, deprescribing, adapting a prescription)2025581
prescriptive decision making (i.e. prescribing, deprescribing, adapting a prescription)2024571.7
shared decision-making2025584.8
shared decision-making2024573.7
virtual care provision2026441.8

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

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

Health Promotion

2024–25
0.74
2023–24
0.71
2022–23
0.74

Communication and Education / Intra- and Inter-Professional Collaboration

2024–25
0.80
2023–24
0.79
2022–23
0.80

Quality and Safety

2024–25
0.72
2023–24
0.71
2022–23
0.78

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

Intra- and Inter-Professional Collaboration

2024–25
55.50
2023–24
55.90
2022–23
57.90

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?

Putting these perspectives side‑by‑side makes clearer where different lenses point to strengths: on the most recent graduating‑student survey learners rate themselves highly as care providers, collaborators and communicators; OSCE competency results in 2025 sit above national benchmarks for patient care, knowledge application and inter‑professional collaboration, while MCQ competency metrics in 2025 are generally a bit less favorable than national benchmarks in areas like product distribution, health promotion and quality/safety. The program performance snapshot shows first‑year practical performance notably higher than years two and three, with small declines reported in later years.

Keep in mind

What should stay distinct?

What still needs to be kept separate or interpreted cautiously: these sources use different measures, reporting periods and scales (self‑report vs MCQ vs OSCE vs internal practical metrics), so their numbers should not be pooled or directly equated; MCQ and OSCE scores are on different scales and should be read independently. PEBC results are from 2025 only, AFPC items are from the most recent survey year, and assessment‑quality detail is unavailable, so trends over time and causal conclusions are not supported.

Questions for Review

What questions does the achievement evidence warrant further consideration?

  • What explains the pronounced Year‑1 clustering at the top of the scale versus mid‑range Years‑2/3, and do item‑level or rater metrics substantiate Year‑1’s extreme concentration?
  • Which competencies show consistent signals of weakness across student self‑reports (compounding/physical assessment), internal distributions, and external PEBC measures, and should therefore be prioritized for curricular attention?
  • What specific OSCE assessment‑quality materials (station blueprints, rater‑agreement, station‑level item flags) are needed to understand whether external PEBC OSCE fluctuations relate to internal measurement differences or to true changes in practice‑skill readiness?
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.