Souraya EL-Sayed Abdallah, Pharm D
PGY-1 Resident
Holy Cross Hospital
Structure is a crucial part of implementing a successful program. It builds the foundation on which the program will run and if the foundation is obscure so will the learning experience. Pharmacy schools and Residency programs are accredited by accrediting bodies such as the Accreditation Council of Pharmacy Education (ACPE) and American Society of Hospital Pharmacists (ASHP).1-2 They are to follow standards and guidance that develop a competent pharmacist and clinician. These standards are very general in order to give leeway for those building the program establishing criteria for training allowing the student/pharmacist in training to achieve competency, allowing for autonomy for the educators creating the program.1-2 This is why each program may differ from one another and may have a specific focus and structure to the program in comparison to other programs.
Not all programs are the same whether Doctor of Pharmacy programs or Pharmacy residency programs. They are organized in a manner to implement the mission and vision of the program. Expectations are standardized even if the experience differs based on the organization itself; i.e. a Veteran’s Affairs Hospital vs. a Trauma center vs. a children’s hospital. At the end of the experience, the expectation is to bring about a more competent and experienced practitioner. Additionally, each experience may differ based on the actual rotation and preceptor. Not all rotations are created equal and not all preceptors are created equal. Internal medicine rotation has a different patient demographic than the neonatal intensive care unit rotation and that is okay. Each preceptor may have a different teaching styles, and, again, that is okay. Having the standards and guidance related to the program is very important because it standardizes the experience and gives the educator an outline of objectives that should be met during his/her rotation.1 ASHP’s standards have clear instruction on the resident understanding the purpose, goals, and objectives of the residency.1 By implementing standards each post graduate year one (PGY-1) residency will have a foundation to build on. This will help in organizing the program and aiding in creating a program that will bring about strong practitioners.
As a fourth year student on my APPE experience I had the pleasure of rotating at ACPE; this gave me a second perspective from a macro perspective as compared to my experience as a student which was more of a micro perspective of pharmacy programs, both being an experience from different spectrums of the educational process. As a resident I see this as well, there is so much that goes into accreditation and although a program may fit the standards, its organization is crucial for an effective and enriching learning experience. Organization is a key component in this process because it will bring about competent students with at least a minimal required understanding of the field.2 For example, if the preceptor is organized and has a clear and concise schedule for the student, or resident, with clear deadlines and checkpoints throughout to assess progress, the experience will be positive and well defined. If the organization is unclear and not as structured, the student or resident may feel lost in what is expected of him/her leading to an experience that may or may not be as positive and enriching. Having standards to be followed by accrediting bodies may not always translate to an organized strong preceptor, this is why it is important to for accrediting bodies to have site visits; ask students, faculty, and personnel questions; and look at CV’s for all individuals with faculty positions, teaching and precepting.
Not all programs have a great structure even if on paper a program may appear to abide by the standards the accrediting body expects to be followed. During my experience in ACPE, reading through monographs, I learned, was not enough. Going through the appendices attached in regard to each standard was helpful to see if what is said is being done, coincides with what is actually being done. Auditors through ACPE also conduct site visits in order to ensure that all individuals are on the same page and what is depicted on paper is actually implemented in practice. This is the most important part of accrediting because some programs would look great on paper, however the professors, students, and/or faculty may not think so. This allows accrediting bodies to address any issues and gives responsibility for the individuals in charge of the program to make changes that are necessary to improve the program.
In summary, educational programs such as Pharm D’s and residencies need to be standardized in a way to ensure the success of the student or practitioner. Accrediting bodies are important in doing so by setting their standards for programs to abide by these minimum requirements.2 Ensuring effectiveness of a program is a crucial and is done through site visits. By standardizing programs, the student’s education or resident’s experience becomes organized and more clear. It gives the individual a purpose in mind, goals to meet and objectives to reach. Not all programs are created equal; having comprehensive site visits allows to shed light on any issues that may have not been conveyed in the program’s written material. It allows for in person contact with the many individuals that are part of the program and if issues do arise the accrediting body will work with the program to come to a solution or resolution of the issue.
References
1. American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. ASHP Accreditation standard for postgraduate year one pharmacy residency programs (2016). https://www.ashp.org/-/media/assets/professional-development/residencies/docs/pgy1-residency-accreditation-standard-2016.ashx?la=en&hash=9FF7C76962C10562D567F73184FAA45BA7E186CB
2. Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education. Accreditation standards and key elements for the professional program in pharmacy leading to the Doctor of Pharmacy degree. (“Stardards 2016”). https://www.acpe-accredit.org/pdf/Standards2016FINAL.pdf
Tuesday, November 19, 2019
Role of Tracking in Education
Grace Hsu, PharmD
PGY-1 Pharmacy Resident
University of Maryland Medical Center
By the time Sarai stepped into her first pharmacy classroom, she had finished 16 years of school. She is very sharp and well-liked by all her teachers. Sarai came straight out of college with great ambitions. On the other hand, Nicole had taken the non-traditional route. After getting her associate degree in paralegal studies, she worked for two different law firms for five years before deciding to go back to school to be a pharmacist. Nicole may not be book smart, but she worked hard to be where she is today. Sarai and Nicole each took very different paths to get to the same place but what, if anything, do they have in common?
The tracking system in education is a prevalent practice in the United States public school system for nearly a century. In a tracking system, students are separated into groups based on their academic ability. By separating students below, at, and above average into different classes, students can learn with peers who are of similar aptitude as themselves. It is different from ability grouping. Though both essentially separates students by their performance, ability groups are confined to a single classroom and tracking system is more permanent and will impact a student’s year to year experience.1
Sarai and Nicole were both subjected to the tracking system with very different results. Sarai’s consistently stellar performance in academic classes put her on a higher track. As she interacted with peers who are also high achieving, she was also motivated to prove herself more. Nicole struggled in a few of her classes early on. Thus, she was shuffled to the lower track. While she did well compare to other peers in the track, she never sought out extracurricular activities because no one else in her classes did either.
What are some ways that tracking may benefit education? When students have similar abilities, they tend to progress through the curriculum at a similar pace. The teachers can then focus solely on teaching and challenging the students academically as they progress through the curriculum. Proponents of the tracking system do not want struggling students to burden the teacher and stall the performance of high achieving students. Some argue this also benefits the students who may need more individualized attention too. If the teacher was able to progress at a slower pace, these students can learn the fundamental knowledge well before being exposed to more complex concepts. By allowing students of similar aptitude to learn together, the tracking system can also help address the self-esteem issues that sometimes arise in a classroom of students with mixed abilities. High achieving students may overshadow other students in their eagerness to answer questions, finish tests faster, and learn new things. Therefore, in theory, the smaller classrooms in a tracking system may provide a safe space for students to learn at their own pace.2
Despite these theoretical advantages, the tracking system in education has its drawbacks. Unlike Nicole, some students sent to a lower tracking group may stay in that group their whole time in the education system. Expecting less of these students, a teacher may change the way he or she teaches and this may lead to a self-fulfilling prophesy when the students do not excel. Additionally, the tracking system can unintentionally promote segregation within the school system; separating minority and low-income students from students from generations of higher socioeconomic standing.2
Tracking system in pharmacy schools have less to do with academic ability of the students and more to do with the intended career goals. For example, students geared towards retail pharmacy are less inclined to take inpatient clinically focused electives such as internal medicine or critical care. Likewise, students who want to be clinical specialists may be sparse in the pharmacist-in-charge classes. This form of tracking may be beneficial so that students can focus on improving skills that are useful for their future careers.
The tracking system has its pros and cons. As educators, we have to be aware of potential prejudices and help all students succeed in their desired career paths.
References:
1. What Tracking Is and How to Start Dismantling It. http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/108013/chapters/What-Tracking-Is-and-How-to-Start-Dismantling-It.aspx. Accessed 27 Oct. 2019.
2. “The Pros and Cons of Tracking in Schools | PublicSchoolReview.Com.” Public School Review, https://www.publicschoolreview.com/blog/the-pros-and-cons-of-tracking-in-schools. Accessed 27 Oct. 2019.
PGY-1 Pharmacy Resident
University of Maryland Medical Center
By the time Sarai stepped into her first pharmacy classroom, she had finished 16 years of school. She is very sharp and well-liked by all her teachers. Sarai came straight out of college with great ambitions. On the other hand, Nicole had taken the non-traditional route. After getting her associate degree in paralegal studies, she worked for two different law firms for five years before deciding to go back to school to be a pharmacist. Nicole may not be book smart, but she worked hard to be where she is today. Sarai and Nicole each took very different paths to get to the same place but what, if anything, do they have in common?
The tracking system in education is a prevalent practice in the United States public school system for nearly a century. In a tracking system, students are separated into groups based on their academic ability. By separating students below, at, and above average into different classes, students can learn with peers who are of similar aptitude as themselves. It is different from ability grouping. Though both essentially separates students by their performance, ability groups are confined to a single classroom and tracking system is more permanent and will impact a student’s year to year experience.1
Sarai and Nicole were both subjected to the tracking system with very different results. Sarai’s consistently stellar performance in academic classes put her on a higher track. As she interacted with peers who are also high achieving, she was also motivated to prove herself more. Nicole struggled in a few of her classes early on. Thus, she was shuffled to the lower track. While she did well compare to other peers in the track, she never sought out extracurricular activities because no one else in her classes did either.
What are some ways that tracking may benefit education? When students have similar abilities, they tend to progress through the curriculum at a similar pace. The teachers can then focus solely on teaching and challenging the students academically as they progress through the curriculum. Proponents of the tracking system do not want struggling students to burden the teacher and stall the performance of high achieving students. Some argue this also benefits the students who may need more individualized attention too. If the teacher was able to progress at a slower pace, these students can learn the fundamental knowledge well before being exposed to more complex concepts. By allowing students of similar aptitude to learn together, the tracking system can also help address the self-esteem issues that sometimes arise in a classroom of students with mixed abilities. High achieving students may overshadow other students in their eagerness to answer questions, finish tests faster, and learn new things. Therefore, in theory, the smaller classrooms in a tracking system may provide a safe space for students to learn at their own pace.2
Despite these theoretical advantages, the tracking system in education has its drawbacks. Unlike Nicole, some students sent to a lower tracking group may stay in that group their whole time in the education system. Expecting less of these students, a teacher may change the way he or she teaches and this may lead to a self-fulfilling prophesy when the students do not excel. Additionally, the tracking system can unintentionally promote segregation within the school system; separating minority and low-income students from students from generations of higher socioeconomic standing.2
Tracking system in pharmacy schools have less to do with academic ability of the students and more to do with the intended career goals. For example, students geared towards retail pharmacy are less inclined to take inpatient clinically focused electives such as internal medicine or critical care. Likewise, students who want to be clinical specialists may be sparse in the pharmacist-in-charge classes. This form of tracking may be beneficial so that students can focus on improving skills that are useful for their future careers.
The tracking system has its pros and cons. As educators, we have to be aware of potential prejudices and help all students succeed in their desired career paths.
References:
1. What Tracking Is and How to Start Dismantling It. http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/108013/chapters/What-Tracking-Is-and-How-to-Start-Dismantling-It.aspx. Accessed 27 Oct. 2019.
2. “The Pros and Cons of Tracking in Schools | PublicSchoolReview.Com.” Public School Review, https://www.publicschoolreview.com/blog/the-pros-and-cons-of-tracking-in-schools. Accessed 27 Oct. 2019.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)