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 still want to keep seminar‑based cases, frequent low‑stakes checks, and experiential practice

In the Keep responses students reiterated that case seminars, weekly quizzes, and hands‑on clinics/labs are the most helpful learning practices; cohort items for instructional coherence (75.3% agree/strongly agree) and integration across courses (79.1% agree/strongly agree) are strongly positive.

Seminar mechanics and assessment format/weighting emerged as the sharpest Fix items

Structured prompts focused student attention on seminar team size, insufficient seminar time, repetitive debriefs, unclear assignment expectations, and high‑stakes item formats (multi‑select/time pressure); these operational issues were foregrounded more explicitly than in prior narrative prompts.

Sequencing, workload clustering, and unclear assignment scaffolding continue to complicate learning

Students described lectures and seminars scheduled too close together, content split across courses in ways that hindered sense‑making, clustered assessments/assignments (including new AI care‑plan work) and inconsistent instructor feedback — themes that echo earlier cycles but with new emphasis on assignment scaffolding and novel activities.

Overall story aligns with prior years but the emphasis and wording shifted

Like 2024–25, 2025–26 keeps the same basic pattern: seminars, formative checks, and integration are valued while assessment clarity, sequencing, and workload remain concerns. What differs is the emphasis in the 2025–26 responses (driven by the Keep/Fix/Sequencing prompt): students call out specific seminar logistics (team size, time management), new assessment/assignment types (AI care plans), and clearer scaffolding needs—issues that persist but are described with more operational detail under the new question frame.

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
Sufficient opportunities for guided practice of skills†——
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?

Finding: The 2025–26 Overall picture is positive but conceals marked program-year differences. Instructional approaches working together and integration of knowledge show high Overall agreement (~75–79% agree+), yet program-year profiles show Year 3 concentrated at very high agreement (e.g., integration ~91% agree+) while Year 1 is substantially lower on several items (instructional approaches ~65% agree+). Timely and specific feedback is mixed overall (~70% agree+) because Year 3 is very positive while Year 2 is noticeably less positive.

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 my 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.
Sufficient opportunities for guided practice of skills—There were sufficient opportunities for guided practice of skills (which may have included some of the following: professional collaboration, patient assessment, evidence based decision making)—
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?

Finding: Graduating students in 2025 report very strong agreement that instruction, learning activities, assessment and feedback worked together (≈90% agree+). This item is highly concentrated toward agreement in the 2025–26 AFPC results.

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 describe clear strengths—Seminar-based, case-focused learning should be retained; Formative, low-stakes quizzes and knowledge checks; Experiential practice and integration with skills labs (including BP clinics); and Assessment structure features that reduce stress—and they value Integration of cases across lectures, seminars, and skills labs. At the same time, tensions arise around Seminar format, team size, timing, and debrief experience; Assessment design, weighting, and item format concerns; Unclear assignment and assessment expectations and alignment; and Lecture–seminar sequencing and scheduling problems, cross-course fragmentation, and assessment/assignment clustering that create feedback and workload pressures.

What is working well

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

  • Seminar-based, case-focused learning should be retainedStudents repeatedly described seminars (weekly and course-specific) that use patient cases and group discussion as central to their learning — helping them apply lecture content, practice clinical reasoning, and prepare for examinations. Multiple comments spoke positively about the length, realism, and structure of seminar cases and the opportunity to present or debrief together.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Practice to keep
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    Very common — appears in a large proportion of comments — High confidence: this theme is strongly and consistently represented across comments from multiple courses and program years.
  • Formative, low-stakes quizzes and knowledge checks are valuedStudents favor frequent low-stakes assessments (weekly quizzes, knowledge checks, pre- and post-seminar quizzes, formative GI quizzes) for reinforcing learning, reducing pressure on major exams, and identifying knowledge gaps.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Practice to keep
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    Common — many comments reference quizzes/knowledge checks positively — High confidence: multiple explicit mentions across courses and cohorts.
  • Experiential practice and integration with skills labs (including BP clinics) is importantHands-on activities such as blood-pressure screening clinics, integration with skills lab sessions, and other clinical practice opportunities were noted as highly practical and relevant to future practice, helping students consolidate technical and communication skills.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Practice to keep
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    Common — many comments highlight BP clinics and skills lab integration — High confidence: repeated references to specific experiential activities across comments.
  • Assessment structure features that reduce stress are appreciated (e.g., split midterms)Students noted that assessment design choices such as breaking large subject examinations into two midterms and providing completion-graded quizzes helped manage workload and stress while supporting learning.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Practice to keep
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    Several — multiple positive references to specific assessment structures — Moderate confidence: referenced across a number of assessment-related comments but less uniformly than seminars/quizzes.
  • Integration of cases across lectures, seminars, and skills labs supports learningStudents appreciated when lecture content, seminar cases, and skills-lab activities were aligned (e.g., same therapy topics across formats), saying this helped them apply knowledge and see how content loops across years.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Practice to keep
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    Common — many comments mention integrated cases and alignment — High confidence: integration was noted in many areas and across course references.

What could be improved

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

  • Seminar format, team size, timing, and debrief experienceMany students described seminars as poorly structured for learning: large teams (commonly eight members) create chaotic workflows and mask individual learning; seminar time is frequently insufficient to work through cases end-to-end; substantial time is spent on group presentations and formatting rather than clinical discussion; whole‑class debriefs can feel repetitive or punitive and limit individual feedback.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Practice to improve
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    many comments — High confidence — numerous explicit references across the dataset to team size, time pressure, presentation burden, and negative debrief experiences; several course-specific mentions (e.g., PHARM 448).
  • Assessment design, weighting, and item format concernsStudents report heavy reliance on high‑stakes midterms/finals with large grade weight, limited formative marks, and item types perceived as punitive (e.g., multi‑select penalizing partial knowledge). Time allocations on exams and perceived misalignment of assessed content with taught material were also highlighted.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Practice to improve
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    many comments — High confidence — recurring remarks about finals worth >50%, heavy exam weighting, multi‑select scoring, and time limits.
  • Desire for more frequent, low‑stakes formative assessmentsMultiple students suggested replacing or supplementing 'weekly learning posts' with short quizzes that award completion or small marks (examples: Therapy 4 model; requests in ID and other modules), and urged more regular participation checks to reinforce continuous learning.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Practice to improve
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    several comments — Moderate to high confidence — several explicit contrasts drawn between courses with quizzes and those with posts, and direct requests for quizzes or participation marks.
  • Unclear assignment and assessment expectations and alignmentStudents reported unclear instructions for care plans and other assignments, uneven alignment between lecture content and exam questions, insufficient sample / practice exam items, and uncertainty about 'high‑yield' material to prioritize.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Practice to improve
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    many comments — High confidence — many comments describe ambiguous care plan requirements, mismatches between taught content and assessment, and requests for sample responses or workshops on expectations.
  • Lecture delivery, pacing, content density, and access to recordingsStudents noted dense/overrunning lectures and variability in instructional clarity (including requests for subject‑matter specialists for some topics). Several asked for seminar/lecture recordings (audio/video) to support review, and some technical issues (e.g., Yuja recordings missing) were mentioned.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Practice to improve
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    several comments — Moderate confidence — multiple comments reference lecture density, overruns, and recording availability, plus a few requests for different lecturers on specialized topics.
  • Care plan activities and use of AI tools perceived as unclear or low valueStudents found some care plan activities (including an AI-based care plan) confusing with inadequate instructions or scaffolding; concerns included insufficient examples of completed care plans and questions about whether large-team care plans reflect individual clinician skills.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Practice to improve
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    several comments — Moderate confidence — multiple explicit references to unclear care plan instructions, confusion about AI care plan usefulness, and desire for more scaffolding or individual assessment.

Curriculum sequencing, gaps & redundancy

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

  • Lecture–seminar sequencing and scheduling problemsStudents report that lectures and associated seminars are sometimes scheduled too close together or out of an instructional sequence (e.g., seminar on same day as lecture; seminar content not spaced to allow consolidation). There are also reports of seminars with poor time management and excessive pre-class reading expectations, reducing the perceived effectiveness of seminar activities.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Sequencing, gaps or redundancy
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    frequent (approximately 12–18 comments) — High confidence—multiple comments referenced seminar timing, same-day seminars, pre-reading burden, and seminar time management in clear terms.
  • Cross-course fragmentation and misplaced topic sequencingLearners describe topics being split across courses or presented in an order that hinders understanding (examples include sexual/reproductive content interleaved with MSK in one course, PMDD promised in another course but not covered, anemia presented first within CKD rather than anemia fundamentals, pediatric topics deferred to later course, IBS/IBD minor-ailment material taught in Year 1 that might fit better in a later GI-focused course). Students perceive gaps (e.g., substance use withdrawal physiology and therapy not cohesively taught) and occasional mismatch between when content is taught and when it is assessed (e.g., influenza/COVID content delivered after a midterm).
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Sequencing, gaps or redundancy
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    frequent (approximately 10–15 comments) — High confidence for existence of fragmentation and misplaced sequencing—several specific course examples were provided though attribution to exact program years varies.
  • Assessment and assignment sequencing, workload clustering, and feedback gapsStudents described clusters of assignments and assessments occurring at similar times, making workload management difficult. Specific points include heavy pre-class reading volumes, multiple major assignments and a novel AI care-plan critique concentrated in March, perceived over-weighting of exams (e.g., two exams per course perceived as overly dominant), and reliance on peer feedback with insufficient instructor feedback for care plans and seminars.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Sequencing, gaps or redundancy
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    moderate (approximately 7–10 comments) — High confidence that assessment timing and feedback practices are a recurring student concern; comments consistently referenced clustering and inadequate instructor feedback.
  • Perceived redundant or excessive lecture content and unclear expectations for some topicsSome students flagged extra lectures or content that felt redundant or disproportionate in time allocation (example: complementary and alternative medicine content perceived as taking more lecture time than warranted and having unclear learning expectations). Wording on assessments was also described as overly specific in some cases, complicating clinical reasoning when multiple answers could be appropriate.
    About this theme
    Prompt
    Sequencing, gaps or redundancy
    Responses
    Students across Years 1–3
    Support for this theme
    some (approximately 4–6 comments) — Moderate confidence—several comments point to excess lecture time or unclear expectations, though fewer in number than the major themes.
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 want to keep seminar‑based, case‑focused learning but report problems with large team sizes, limited time, and repetitive debriefs—how should we preserve seminar case work while addressing team size, timing, and feedback mechanisms?
  • Students value frequent low‑stakes quizzes but also report heavy high‑stakes exams and punitive item formats—what should we consider about the balance and sequencing of formative and summative assessment in Therapeutics to support learning and reduce perceived unfairness?
  • Integration ratings are high in 2025‑26, yet students report cross‑course fragmentation and misplaced topic sequencing—what local scheduling or course‑level sequencing details do we need to reconcile these apparently conflicting perspectives?
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.