Good outcome development is good science.

To the Editor: We read with interest “Good Teaching Is Good Science” in the first issue of AJPE this year (vol 71, issue 1, page 10). The editorial made some excellent, and indeed important, points in drawing parallels between good scientific practices and good educational practices. However, the current efforts of schools and colleges of pharmacy to articulate, map, and assess curricular outcomes, and to use that information for continuous programmatic improvement, clearly fall into this category as well. The concepts underlying the broad area of curricular outcomes are viewed as abstract by many faculty members, especially classically trained scholars. In reality, these concepts relate very closely to the scientific method, and parallel such research-related activities as the construction of grant proposals. In the grant proposal process, the applicant is expected to plan and prioritize research activities so that the granting agency will clearly understand the nature and scope of the project, as well as the time and effort necessary to accomplish the work. A successful research project must address a relevant question, and well-conceived hypotheses represent the requisite first step in designing studies that effectively address the question(s) at hand. Once a hypothesis is formulated, methodologies and protocols are designed to address that question. Based upon the study design, data analysis and reporting strategies are developed. As the editorial noted, this process is quite applicable to inquiry related to teaching, learning, and assessment, whether at the curriculum, classroom, or instructional-activity level. Furthermore, if inquiry in this area is to have a significant impact on the quality of education and preparation of pharmacy professionals, then well-conceived research questions must be drawn from clearly defined, relevant educational outcomes. The vast majority of our curricular or classroom efforts should then promote student achievement of these outcomes in a thoughtfully considered and well-planned manner and assessment strategies should provide valid measures of the success of those efforts. As an educational community, we will be successful only to the extent that our “study design” acknowledges and reflects the complexities of defined educational outcomes that require integration of knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviors, and that we approach inquiry related to teaching and learning with the same enthusiasm, respect, and rigor that we reserve for other forms of scholarship. In clinical research, informed consent of patients or other volunteers is essential to ensure that they know what to expect and why their participation in the study is being asked. In the classroom, we should inform learners about the goals of instruction (desired educational outcomes) as well as strategies for achieving and assessing those outcomes. This “informed consent” promotes cooperation and an open-dialogue among instructors and students. Finally, our assessments and evaluation of educational innovations and related student learning should be approached in a manner similar to the data analysis section of a research project. Assessment or evaluation methods and tools focus on the primary research question (desired learning outcomes) and should be appropriate for the type of learning under inquiry. The best researchers align carefully conceived ideas, clear goals, superb study design, and analytical methods; curricular and classroom innovations should follow similar orchestration. Our schools of pharmacy rarely have the benefit of individuals with educational degrees. Among the more typical clinician and scientist faculty members, few have significant formal training in teaching, learning, and assessment. In order to change the way our schools do business from an educational standpoint, it is important that we all understand the concepts underlying the entire educational process, from conceptualization to conclusion, regardless of what terminology might be currently used. The scientific method, as stated in the original editorial, is familiar to most of us, regardless of discipline. By contrast, educational terminology is unfamiliar and seems to be in a constant state of evolution. Thinking of teaching and related inquiry in terms of the more familiar scientific process may be very beneficial to faculty members as they struggle to understand and engage in educational innovations to promote student achievement of contemporary learning outcomes in the professional curriculum. Adam M. Persky, PhD Wendy C. Cox, PharmD Kim Deloatch, MEd, BSPharm, Gary M. Pollack, PhD College of Pharmacy The University of North Carolina