Kirschenbaum Harold L, Brown Martin E, Kalis Michelle M
Arnold & Marie Schwartz College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Long Island University, USA.
Am J Pharm Educ. 2006 Feb 15;70(1):8. doi: 10.5688/aj700108.
To categorize the manner in which programmatic curricular outcomes assessment is accomplished, identify the types of assessment methodologies used, and identify the persons or groups responsible for assessment.
A self-administered questionnaire was mailed to 89 institutions throughout the United States and Puerto Rico.
Sixty-eight of 89 surveys (76%) were returned. Forty-one respondents (60%) had a written and approved plan for programmatic curricular outcomes assessment, 18% assessed the entire curriculum, and 57% had partial activities in place. Various standardized and institution-specific assessment instruments were employed. Institutions differed as to whether an individual or a committee had overall responsibility for assessment.
To move the assessment process forward, each college and school should identify a person or group to lead the effort. Additional validated assessment instruments might aid programmatic assessment. Future studies should identify the reasons for selecting certain assessment instruments and should attempt to identify the most useful ones.
对课程成果评估的完成方式进行分类，确定所使用的评估方法类型，并确定负责评估的人员或团体。
向美国和波多黎各的89所机构邮寄了一份自填式问卷。
89份调查问卷中有68份（76%）被退回。41名受访者（60%）有一份书面且经批准的课程成果评估计划，18%评估了整个课程，57%开展了部分评估活动。使用了各种标准化和特定于机构的评估工具。各机构在由个人还是委员会对评估负总责方面存在差异。
为推动评估进程，各学院和学校应确定一个人或一个团体来牵头开展这项工作。更多经过验证的评估工具可能有助于课程评估。未来的研究应确定选择某些评估工具的原因，并应尝试找出最有用的工具。
