An Updated National Profile of Curriculum Committees at US Schools and Colleges of Pharmacy

RESULTS

The survey response rate was 80% but was adjusted to 79% after removing one partially completed questionnaire from analysis. Responders and nonresponders had similar institutional characteristics regarding the proportions of public institutions (51% and 48%, p=.79), private institutions (49% and 52%, p=.79), and the mean (SD) years since they were established, 70.6 (56.3) and 70.58 (61), p>.99, respectively.

Most programs (58%) were organized in traditional quarter- or semester-long courses, 29% offered a combination of traditional and shorter block-style courses, and 12% used only block courses, which is a significant increase from the 4% that used block courses in 2011 (p=.049). Almost all programs (93%) charged their curriculum committee with curricular oversight, sometimes in collaboration with an assessment committee, academic affairs office, or an academic dean (3%). Rarely was oversight the sole responsibility of an academic affairs committee (3%) or a curriculum office (1%).

The curriculum committee was the only entity to address curricular topics in 43% of programs, down from 70% in 2011 (p<.001). Less frequently, the curriculum committee shared responsibility for curricular matters with the administration (34%) or assessment committees or directors (13%). For a small fraction of programs, some curricular topics were addressed by committees that focused on specific courses or course sequences (6%), ad hoc curriculum review or revision committees (4%), interprofessional education committees (5%), cocurricular committees (4%), the experiential education office (3%), and the full faculty (2%). Individual programs listed other entities that address curricular topics: student services, university curriculum committees, continuing professional development coordinators, and committees focused on cultural diversity, teaching, or student well-being.

Regarding the structure of curriculum committees, they tended to be led by a single chair (80%), two cochairs or vice chairs (14%, which represents a significant increase from 1% in 2011, p=.001), or a single vice chair (1%). Faculty most frequently served in the leadership position (91%), but to a lesser degree than in 2011 (99%, p=.016), followed by assistant and associate deans (7%) or combinations of a chair and an academic affairs administrator (2%). Some of the faculty chairs (9%) also had additional administrative roles, usually in academic affairs (no significant decrease from 2011).

Appointments to curriculum committee chair were made by either the dean (57%), members of the curriculum committee (32%), or by assistant/associate deans (9%). The deans’ appointments were often guided by input from executive committees or department heads. Two percent of the committee chairs were elected by faculty. The chairs served a mean (SD) of 2.5 (2.9) years, with terms ranging from less than one year to 13 years; this did not significantly differ from 2011 (p=.27).

The curriculum committee size ranged from seven to 27 members with a mean (SD) of 14.5 (4.2) members, which is a significant increase from the 2011 mean (SD) of 10.6 (3.8) (p<.001). Most committees’ members included faculty (100%), students (94%), and assistant or associate deans (92%), which was not significantly different from 2011. There was a significant increase in other types of members, from 39% in 2011 to 54% in 2020 (p = .041). Voting status varied by member type, with faculty and students having the highest percentages of voting members, and these percentages have not changed from 2011. Department chairs with voting status did decrease from 80% to 53% (p=.026). Table 1 lists committee members by type and voting status. The length of service for committee members ranged from one to six years, with some colleges allowing a second term or an indefinite appointment. Reappointments occurred annually (31%), every two years (24%), every three years (29%), or every six years (14%). In some programs, the curriculum committee members and chairs served different term lengths.

Like curriculum committee chairs, faculty members were most frequently appointed to the curriculum committee by their dean (87%), usually upon being recommended by executive committees, assessment deans, or department chairs (76%). For some programs, faculty members were selected by their peers as a whole or as a department (16%) or through self-nomination, input by a “committee on committees,” or a recommendation by the curriculum committee chair (12%). Faculty members were selected based on department affiliation (91%), willingness to serve (75%), workload (74%), area of expertise (41%), years of service (38%), and rank or tenure status (22%). Three programs also considered selections based on core course coordination, campus location, and current or prior service on the committee.

Student members were selected based on their response to a call to participate (53%), appointment by the dean (34%), nomination by classmates (25%), and invitation by committee members (18%) or faculty members (3%). In a few programs, student members were also elected by their classmates or selected by their student council, class officers, class advisor, or student affairs director.

Preferred qualities in committee members were commitment to the program’s mission (68%), objectivity (46%), educational experience (33%), and vision (18%); these four were the top qualities selected in both prior surveys. Other qualities identified were interest in teaching (17%), leadership (12%), willingness to be engaged and actively participate (6%), dependability (1%), teamwork skills (1%), and an understanding of educational theory (1%).

Most committees met monthly (72%) or every two weeks (19%). The use of monthly meetings significantly increased from 33% in 2011 (p<.001), while the use of meetings every two weeks was unchanged. Some committees met at least once a semester (5%) or weekly (3%). Six percent of the committees with regularly scheduled meetings indicated that they also had additional meetings as needed. The use of as-needed meetings only instead of scheduled meetings dropped from 27% in 2011 to 2% in 2020 (p<.001).

Regarding the functions of curriculum committees, annual charges were assigned to 89% of curriculum committees during the 2019-2020 academic year. Charges were received from the dean or associate dean (75%), the curriculum committee itself (39%), via standing charges (38%), or an executive committee (5%). Curriculum committees often received charges from multiple sources (44%).

Current charges for the curriculum committees included reviewing or mapping the curriculum (55%), adding or revising courses (51%), evaluating courses (51%), and reviewing or restructuring committee policies and practices (36%). Rates were similar to 2011 levels for curriculum review and course evaluation, but higher in 2011 for adding/revising courses (70%, p=.009) and restructuring policies (2%, p<.001). Table 2 lists the top charges for the 2019-2020 academic year and the next academic year (2020-2021).

While the charges indicated specific foci for the year, curriculum committees generally have the following responsibilities: reviewing proposals for new courses (96%), ensuring the curriculum meets ACPE standards (95%), reviewing and revising the entire curriculum (91%), performing systematic reviews of didactic courses (87%), reviewing the timing/placement of courses within the curriculum (82%), ensuring new information is added to the curriculum (74%), ensuring integration of topics across courses (64%), conducting systematic reviews of the experiential courses (63%), reviewing credit hours (57%), and changing content (53%). These frequencies are similar to the 2011 list of functions. Some curriculum committees were also responsible for promoting innovative teaching (37%), organizing the co-curriculum (29%), handling student and faculty curriculum grievances (27% and 25%, respectively), and monitoring the use of examinations (8%); these functions were not measured in 2011. Very few curriculum committees were also involved in approving and reviewing certificate or dual degree programs, updating and reviewing the curriculum map, and reviewing course policies such as remediation or attendance.

Course changes that would prompt curriculum committee involvement were credit hour adjustments (96%), elective course proposals (92%), changes to prerequisites (77%), and addition (61%) or deletion (64%) of curricular content. In some programs, a 10%-25% change in course content required the curriculum committee’s involvement. Committees were also involved when changes affected instructional methods (34%), assessment methods (12%), course objectives (12%), course coordinator assignment (12%), or when the change would impact other courses or mapped content (11%). A few curriculum committees were responsible for reviewing and approving changes to a course name, focus, and catalog information.

In academic year 2019-2020, curriculum committees implemented curriculum revisions (42%), conducted full curriculum reviews (21%), planned revisions (14%), planned to do a major review in the next five years (14%), or had no plans to review their curriculum within the next five years (7%).

Curriculum committees performed systematic and scheduled reviews of individual pharmacy courses every three years (21%), every four years (19%), annually (16%), every five years (5%), every two years (4%) or using a variable schedule depending on type of course (10%). The rest did their individual course reviews on an as-needed basis (25%). There were significant increases from 2011 to 2020 in the systematic reviews of required lecture-based courses (63% to 100%, p<.001); required laboratory courses (57% to 99%, p<.001), and required experiential IPPE/APPE courses (35% to 66%, p<.001). Review of elective courses by 38% of curriculum committees was not significantly different from 2011. Two curriculum committees were reviewing all courses as part of implementing a new curriculum, while another was monitoring tracks within their program.

Data used for course reviews came from syllabi (88%), student evaluations (68%), student examination scores (55%), contributions to student outcomes (46%), formative, high-stakes assessments (40%), assignments (36%), feedback from IPPE/APPE preceptors (34%), standardized assessments (31%), and faculty peer course evaluations (18%). Some curriculum committees also used faculty self-evaluations and reflections (8%), overall course grades (6%), and reviews of lecture and assessment materials (5%). Two programs had faculty review their own course evaluations from peers and students instead of asking the curriculum committee to do it. Individual curriculum committees reported using published sources such as white papers, ⁹ survey results from pharmacy organizations, ¹⁰ and accreditation standards. ⁴

On a five-point scale, mean (SD) faculty conservatism and reluctance to change was 2.8 (1.2), which was rated, once again, as the greatest barrier to curriculum committee effectiveness. The next greatest barrier was a reliance on “quick fixes” and not long-term change, which received a mean (SD) rating of 2.2 (1.2). In 2011, the mean (SD) for faculty conservatism was 3.0 (1.2), whereas the next barrier was departmental autonomy, rated with a mean (SD) of 2.8 (1.3). Table 3 compares the average (SD) ratings for barriers to curriculum committee effectiveness in 2011 and 2020, and it shows significant reductions in barriers related to departmental autonomy, lack of interdisciplinary collaboration, and lack of authority of the curriculum committee.

Regarding CAPE outcomes, most respondents (97%) linked their student outcomes to the CAPE domains through mapping to (39%), adoption of (31%), or integration with (25%) the CAPE domains. Two respondents (2%) used multiple methods to align student outcomes with CAPE domains. The process of mapping student outcomes to Standards 2016 domains was an ongoing process for many curriculum committees with varying degrees of completion, as shown in Table 4. Of all committees, 40% had a nearly completed mapping their curriculum to the 15 domains in Standards 1, 2, 3, and 4 plus the PPCP, teamwork, and co-curriculum elements, while another 16% were more than halfway done mapping to all categories. Twenty-eight percent of committees were close to done mapping most but not all the domains and elements (ie, 12-15 domains completed), and 23% had fully mapped to fewer than four of the domains. Two curriculum committees indicated no intention of mapping their curriculum to any of the domains.

Regarding how curriculum committees worked with assessment committees, the most common mode of communication between the curriculum committee and those responsible for assessment was to have a member of one committee attend the meetings of the other group (86%). Of these, 57% of the programs sent a representative to each other’s committee meetings, 39% sent an assessment member to the curriculum meeting, and 3% sent a curriculum representative to assessment meeting. Other communication modes between curriculum and assessment were holding a separate meeting between designated members of the two oversight groups, usually the chairs (46%), exchanging meeting minutes (13%), using an administrator that linked both groups (8%), or holding joint meetings between the full membership of the two groups (7%). No mechanism of communication was reported when a single group was responsible for both curriculum and assessment matters (3%) or when the assessment oversight group did not exist or was newly formed (2%).

The curriculum committees continued to be involved in many curriculum assessment activities, although this was most often done in collaboration with the assessment committee (Table 5). Assessment of interprofessional education was the only area for which more curriculum committees (42%) had primary responsibility rather than shared responsibility (38%). More than half of curriculum committees had responsibility for assessments related to content or structure of the program, such as the co-curriculum, entrusted professional activities, student course/instructor evaluations, and APPE readiness, but this responsibility was commonly shared with the assessment committee. Conversely, fewer than half of the curriculum committees were involved in outcomes-oriented assessments, such as high-stakes examinations, licensing examinations, graduating student surveys, AACP quality surveys, ¹⁰ or the Pharmacy Curriculum Outcomes Assessment (PCOA). ¹¹ Here, the primary responsibility was more frequently assigned to the assessment committee (33%-66%) or shared (22%-39%). Other entities such as assessment or academic affairs deans or offices were frequently assigned primary responsibility for assessment activities.