University of Guelph

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "University of Guelph"

Transcription

1 University of Guelph Institutional Quality Assurance Process (IQAP) Submitted for review and approval: June 17, Joint meeting of the Boards of Undergraduate Studies and Graduate Studies July 1, Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance Revision submitted for review and approval: January 17, 2011 Senate Committee on Quality Assurance February 7, 2011 University of Guelph Senate February 10, 2011 Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance Final revisions submitted for review and approval: April 19, 2011 Senate Committee on Quality Assurance May 30, 2011 University of Guelph Senate June 2, 2011 Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance June 3, 2011 Final approval by Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance

2 Table of Contents Page Acronyms: Institutional and External...iv Preamble and History of Quality Assurance at the University of Guelph...1 Ratification and Revision of the IQAP... 2 Authorities Responsible for the IQAP...2 Authoritative Contact with the Quality Council...2 Scope of Application of the IQAP...3 Protocols, Definitions and Institutional Commitments...3 I. PROTOCOL FOR NEW PROGRAM APPROVALS: UNDERGRADUATE...4 AND GRADUATE II. PROTOCOL FOR EXPEDITED GRADUATE APPROVALS...8 III. PROTOCOL FOR MAJOR MODIFICATION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS...10 IV. PROTOCOL FOR CYCLICAL DEPARTMENT/SCHOOL REVIEWS...14 IV.1. Authorities Responsible for the IQAP and its Application...14 IV.2. Identify the Authoritative Contact between the Institution and the...14 Quality Council IV.3. The Unit or Program(s) to be Reviewed...14 IV.4. Protocols for Cyclical Reviews...14 IV.4. A. The Internal Review Process, and External evaluation:...14 External perspective IV.4.A.(i) Schedule of Reviews...15 IV.4.A.(ii) Objectives of the Internal Review...15 IV.4.A.(iii) Preparation of the Self Study Brief: Internal...15 Program Perspective Part I: The Self-Study...16 Part II: The Faculty...17 Part III: Resources...18 IV.4.A.(iv) Use of Accreditation and Other External Reviews...18 in the Institutional Quality Assurance Process IV. 4.A.(v) Conduct of the Review...18 IV.4.A.(vi) Institutional Perspective and Report...20 IV.4.A.(vii) Reporting Requirements...20 IV.4.B. Cyclical Review of Joint Programs...20 IV.4.B.(i) Schedule of Reviews...21 IV.4.B.(ii) Objectives of the Review of Joint Programs...21 ii

3 IV.4.B.(iii) Preparation of the Self Study Brief: Joint Program...22 (a) Part I: The Self Study...22 (b) Part II: The Faculty...23 (c) Part III: Resources...23 IV.4.B.(iv) Conduct of the Review...24 V. PROTOCOL FOR CYCLICAL UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE...25 PROGRAM REVIEWS V.1. Authorities Responsible for the...26 V.2. Authoritative Contact with the Quality...26 V.3. Undergraduate Programs to be Reviewed...26 V.4. Protocols for Cyclical Reviews: the Internal Review Process and...26 External Evaluation: External Perspective V.4.A.(i) Schedule of Reviews...26 V.4.A.(ii) Objectives of the Internal Review...27 V.4.A.(iii) Preparation of the Self-study: Internal Program...27 Perspective V.4.A.(iv) Use of Accreditation and Other External Reviews...28 in the Institutional Quality Assurance Process V.4.A.(v) Conduct of the Review...29 V.4.A.(vi) Institutional Perspective and Report...30 V.4.A(vii) Reporting Requirements...30 VI. INSTITUTIONAL REPORTING...31 VII. COMPLIANCE WITH THE AUDIT PROCESS...32 Appendix I - Bylaws and Composition of the Senate Committee on Quality Review...33 Appendix II Evaluation Criteria for New Program Approvals...34 Appendix III - Proposal Brief New Undergraduate Programs...36 Appendix IV Proposal Brief New Graduate Programs...40 Appendix V Schedule of Reviews...49 Appendix VI Objectives of the Internal Review of Departments/Schools...57 Appendix VII Objectives of the Internal Review of Joint Programs...59 Appendix VIII Objectives of the Internal Review of Undergraduate Degree Programs...61 Appendix IX Statistical Reports in Aid of Self-Studies, New Program Submissions,...63 and/ or Cyclical Review iii

4 Acronyms: Institutional and External BGS BUGS COU GDLES IRC IRS IQAP LO MTCU OCAV OCGS SCQA QAF UPRAC UUDLES Board of Graduate Studies Board of Undergraduate Studies Council of Ontario Universities Graduate Degree Level Expectations Internal Review Committee Internal Review Subcommittee Institutional Quality Assurance Process University of Guelph Learning Objectives Ministry of Training Colleges and Universities Ontario Council of Academic Vice-Presidents Ontario Council on Graduate Studies Senate Committee on Quality Assurance Quality Assurance Framework Undergraduate Program Review Audit Committee University Undergraduate Degree Level Expectations iv

5 Preamble and History of Quality Assurance at the University of Guelph The University of Guelph is a comprehensive, mid-sized, residential university with a main campus in the city of Guelph and smaller regional campuses in Toronto (University of Guelph- Humber), Ridgetown, Kemptville, and Alfred. The University of Guelph is a research-intensive, learner-centered university and is committed to the delivery of quality education at all levels, as articulated in the University s Mission Statement (http://www.uoguelph.ca/registrar/calendars/undergraduate/current/c02/index.shtml ): The University is committed to the highest standards of pedagogy, to the education and well-being of the whole person, to meeting the needs of all learners in a purposefully diverse community, to the pursuit of its articulated learning objectives, to rigorous self-assessment, critical inquiry, and active learning. The University of Guelph educates students for life and work in a rapidly changing world. The University of Guelph invites public scrutiny of the fulfillment of its mission, especially by the people of Ontario, to whom it is accountable. To meet this commitment to provide the best possible education for its students, the University has, over the years, adhered to well-established institutional standards and measures for the design and review of its academic programs. In 1987, the University adopted campus-wide Learning Objectives that make explicit its commitment to the quality of its educational offerings (http://www.uoguelph.ca/registrar/calendars/undergraduate/current/c02/c02-learningobjectives.shtml ). Since that time, the Learning Objectives have continued to be used as the foundation for all program and course development at the University and as the standard measure of quality across all academic programs. The University Undergraduate Degree Level Expectations (UUDLES) developed by OCAV (approved in June 2008) are consonant with the University s Learning Objectives and both are used as the cornerstone for new program development and program review. In 1996, the University s on-going commitment to rigorous self-assessment (see the Mission Statement above), was demonstrated through the creation of Senate-approved policies and processes for the establishment of periodic reviews of academic departments and undergraduate programs. These internal review processes were updated over the years to comply with the requirements of the Undergraduate Program Review Audit Committee (UPRAC) of the Council of Ontario Universities (COU). In the case of graduate programs, periodic reviews were based on the quality standards of the Ontario Council on Graduate Studies (OCGS). On February 22, 2010, Senate approved the mandate, bylaws, and membership for a new Senate Committee on Quality Assurance to be formally constituted as of September 1, 2010 (Appendix I). The establishment of this new Senate committee is intended to make explicit Senate s responsibility for regulating the quality of the academic programming offered by the University through the cultivation of transparency and accountability in institutional quality assurance review processes and the on-going monitoring of quality assurance standards. 1

6 Commitment to quality assurance, including the review of programs and the development and assessment of learning outcomes, remains a faculty-driven and departmental process supported by Senate. Since 2005, members of the University of Guelph community have engaged in a reinvigoration of the undergraduate curriculum. The Provost's White Paper The Lighting of a Fire (2005) and the Final Report of the 21 st Century Curriculum Committee (2007) continue to serve as catalysts for transformational change of the curriculum. Efforts are focused at the degree, specialization, and course level. Changes to date include, but are not limited to, the embedding of research opportunities more intentionally in undergraduate courses and programs, the development or redevelopment of capstone experiences, and - in some programs and specializations - a significant intensification of the fourth and first year curriculum, as well as an increased emphasis on internationalism and experiential learning. Learning outcomes have long been established and are deeply embedded as a feature of the delivery and assessment of University s professional program offerings. As a result, the institution is well positioned to build on this model by undertaking the development and articulation of learning outcomes within every undergraduate degree program. Consistent with the University s Multi-Year Agreement (MYA) with the provincial government, and the recommendations in the Final Report of the 21 st Century Curriculum Committee, this task is now a University-wide priority, and faculty and staff are currently engaged in a number of studies and activities designed to develop, define, measure, and assess such degree program learning outcomes. Ratification and Revision of the IQAP A draft version of the University's IQAP was reviewed in mid-june, 2010 at a joint meeting of the Boards of Undergraduate and Graduate Studies which are the Senate committees responsible for the integrity of the undergraduate and graduate curriculum, respectively. The Boards endorsed the IQAP and the IQAP was submitted to the Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance (hereafter the Quality Council) on July 1, Feedback from the Quality Council will be incorporated, returned to the Quality Council for ratification and the final version of the IQAP will be presented to the Senate Committee on Quality Assurance (SCQA) for its recommendation for approval to Senate. Once approved by Senate and the Quality Council, any subsequent revisions to the IQAP are subject to SCQA, Senate and Quality Council approval. Authorities Responsible for the IQAP (QAF, 2.2.1) 1 Primary responsibility for the University's Institutional Quality Assurance Process rests with Senate of the University of Guelph. Authoritative Contact with the Quality Council (QAF, 2.2.2) The Authoritative Contact between the University and the Quality Council is the Provost and Vice- President (Academic). 1 Throughout this document, the corresponding section of the Quality Assurance Framework (QAF) is noted in parentheses. 2

7 Scope of Application of the IQAP (from QAF, 1.4) Every publicly assisted Ontario university that grants degrees and diplomas is responsible for ensuring the quality of all of its programs of study, including modes of delivery and those academic and student services that affect the quality of the respective programs under review, whether or not the program is eligible for government funding. Institutional responsibility for quality assurance extends to new and continuing undergraduate and graduate degree/diploma programs whether offered in full, in part, or conjointly by any institutions federated and affiliated with the university. These responsibilities also extend to programs offered in partnership, collaboration or other such arrangement with other postsecondary institutions including colleges, universities, or institutes, including Institutes of Technology and Advanced Learning (ITALs) (QAF, 1.4) The specific Scope of Application of the University of Guelph IQAP is: Undergraduate Degrees (baccalaureate 4-year honours and 3-year general degree programs; majors; minors; including joint or collaborative degree programs or majors; professional degree programs; and for-credit undergraduate certificates and diplomas) Graduate Degrees (thesis- and course-based masters programs, doctoral programs, executive programs, including joint or collaborative graduate programs) Graduate Diplomas (Type 1, Type 2, Type 3) For detailed information on the programs offered at the University of Guelph and, by extension, under the scope of this IQAP, see the academic undergraduate and graduate calendars at: Protocols, Definitions and Institutional Commitments Given the scope of application and the requirements of the Quality Assurance Framework, the University's IQAP includes the following protocols, definitions, and institutional commitments: I. Protocol for New Program Approvals (Undergraduate and Graduate) II. Protocol for Expedited Approvals III. Protocol for Major Modifications to Existing Programs, including Definition of Significant Change IV. Protocol for Cyclical Department/School Reviews V. Protocol for Cyclical Undergraduate Degree Program Reviews VI. Institutional Reporting VII. Compliance with the Audit Process 3

8 I. PROTOCOL FOR NEW PROGRAM APPROVALS: UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE The Protocol for New Program Approvals: Undergraduate and Graduate outlines the process by which new programs are proposed, reviewed and approved through the University s academic governance process and, once approved by Senate, submitted for review to the Quality Council as appropriate. At the undergraduate level, new program is understood as a degree program, major, minor, area of concentration, area of emphasis, for-credit degree-level certificates, and degree-level diplomas. At the graduate level, new program is understood as a graduate degree, field, collaborative program, and graduate diploma (Type 1, Type 2, Type 3). Proposals for new programs require the approval of Senate, as do the closures of undergraduate degree programs, majors, or other program options such as minors, certificates and diplomas. The closure of graduate degree programs, fields, or graduate diplomas also requires the approval of Senate. Proposals for new fields in a graduate program, new collaborative programs, or new graduate diplomas (Type 1, Type 2, Type 3) will normally only require an expedited approval process (see II. Protocol for Expedited Approvals). Proposals for new minors, areas of concentration, areas of emphasis, and for-credit degree-level certificates and diplomas are reported for information to the Quality Council as part of the Annual Report to the Quality Council. Proposals in these areas do not require external review. In order to be reviewed for approval, proposal briefs for new programs must follow the guidelines for submission in the Template for New Program Proposals and include the Evaluation Criteria as outlined in the QAF (sections ) and presented in Appendix II. Senate-approved proposals are submitted to the Quality Council Secretariat for review and approval and, in the case of proposals for new non-core undergraduate programs and new graduate programs, submitted to the Ministry of Training Colleges and Universities (MTCU) for funding approval. The following steps outline the University's internal process for the approval of new program proposals (2.2.3) including undergraduate degree programs and their specializations, and graduate programs and their fields. 1. The development of a New Program Proposal Brief is initiated by Department(s)/School(s) and approved by the College Dean(s) using Senate approved guidelines (Templates for New Program Proposals (Appendix III) and New Graduate Programs (Appendix IV)) and the Evaluation Criteria (2.2.4) as outlined in of the QAF, including program objectives, admission requirements, structure, program content, mode of delivery, assessment of teaching and learning, resources, quality and other indicators. NB: internal forms have been revised to merge the University s current requirements for Senate approval, the Evaluation Criteria outlined in the QA Framework (2.1.1 through ) and the MTCU program approval checklist. The Templates are appended. 2. To ensure consistency with the University s Integrated Plan, and its strategic directions, undergraduate proposals are initially reviewed by the Associate Vice-President (Academic) and graduate proposals are reviewed by Assistant Vice-President (Graduate Studies & Program Quality Assurance). 4

9 3. There will be at least one external reviewer for new undergraduate programs and two external reviewers for new graduate programs (2.2.6). The Department/School submits external reviewer nominations (three, with appropriate expertise, per new program proposal), including a brief curriculum vitae and rationale for the nomination, to the AVPA or the Assist. V.P.(Graduate Studies & Program Quality Assurance). Reviewers will normally be associate or full professors, or the equivalent, with program management experience, and will be at arm s length from the program under review (2.2.6). The Department/School makes initial contact to determine the willingness of the nominee to be nominated and to establish their availability. External Reviewer(s) will be appointed by the AVPA or the Assist. V.P.(Graduate Studies & Program Quality Assurance) (2.2.6) based on this list, but he/she may consult further with others as appropriate. 4. The New Program Proposal Brief for New Undergraduate Programs (2.2.4 and 2.2.5) is submitted to the External Reviewer in preparation for the site visit (2.2.5) and to the relevant Degree Program Committee for review/approval (concurrent submission). 5. The External Reviewer(s) make their site visit. Reviewers of new undergraduate programs, may opt to undertake the review via videoconference; reviewers of new graduate programs will always include a site visit (2.2.6) 6. Pending a positive Reviewer's Report, the Calendar Review Committee (a subcommittee of the Board of Undergraduate Studies) reviews the undergraduate program proposal for recommendation to BUGS; the Programs Committee (a subcommittee of the Board of Graduate Studies) reviews graduate program proposals for recommendation to BGS. 7. The Department/School, Dean(s) and the relevant AVPA receive the Reviewer s Report (2.2.7). 8. The proposing Department/School and Dean(s) submit their Internal Responses to the Provost s office (2.2.8). 9. The Reviewer's Report and Internal Responses are reviewed by the Provost and, for undergraduate proposals, the Associate Vice-President (Academic) or, for graduate proposals, the Assist. V.P. (Graduate Studies & Program Quality Assurance). If deemed unacceptable at this point, the proposal is either returned to the Department/School for changes or does not move forward. 10. If deemed acceptable, the Program Proposal Brief, including the Reviewer s Report and the Internal Responses, are submitted for review to BUGS (through its Calendar Review Sub-committee CRC) or BGS (through its Programs Sub-committee) for recommendation to Senate for approval based on the University s quality assurance standards. (2.2.9). 11. If the proposed program is deemed unacceptable based on the Reviewer's Report and Internal Responses from the Department/School and Dean, the proposal either returns to the academic unit for changes or does not move forward. 12. Upon the approval of Senate, the final Proposal Brief is submitted to Quality Council Secretariat (2.2.10) and, if applicable, the Program Approval/Institutional Checklist is submitted to MTCU for funding approval (concurrent submission). 5

10 13. Upon the approval of the Quality Council, notice is sent to the Senate Committee on Quality Assurance (SCQA) (2.2.11) for information and inclusion in the Cyclical Program Review Schedule. Formal review will be conducted no more than eight years after the program s initial enrolment in accordance with the university s program review schedule (2.4.1). 14. The Program will begin within thirty-six months of the date of program approval; otherwise approval will lapse (2.4.2). 15. Monitoring of the new program(s) (2.4.2, 2.4.3) will be conducted through the academic governance process of Senate, specifically by the Boards of Undergraduate Studies, and Graduate Studies whose mandates include the oversight of the curricular integrity, and the students and their progress in their individual programs. 6

11 Flow Chart 1: University of Guelph Protocol for New Program Proposals Development of New Program Proposal Brief (2.2.4) by Department(s)/School(s) and approval by College Dean(s) Proposal Reviewed by Associate Vice-President (Academic) (Undergraduate) Assistant Vice-President (Academic) & Dean, Graduate Studies (Graduate) External Reviewer nominations submitted by Academic Unit Reviewed and Appointed by AVPA or Assistant Vice-President (Academic) & Dean, Graduate Studies (2.2.6) New Program Proposal Brief submitted to External Reviewer in preparation for site visit (2.2.5) and to relevant Degree Program Committee for review/approval External Reviewer Site Visit (2.2.6) Receive Reviewer s Report (2.2.7) Revised Proposal and Responses from proposing academic unit and relevant dean (2.2.8) Appropriate Undergraduate Programs Committee review for recommendation to CRC Graduate Programs Committee review for recommendation to the BGS CRC review of undergraduate Proposal Brief for recommendation to BUGS Review by BUGS or BGS for Recommendation to Senate for Approval (2.2.9) (including Reviewer s report and responses) Presented to Senate (2.2.9) for institutional approval Appraisal Brief to Quality Council Secretariat (2.2.10) Program Approval/Institutional Checklist to MTCU for Funding Approval Notice sent to Senate Committee on Quality Assurance (SCQA) (2.2.11) for information and inclusion in the Cyclical Program Review Schedule, pending approval by the Quality Council 7

12 II PROTOCOL FOR EXPEDITED GRADUATE APPROVALS The Protocol for Expedited Graduate Approvals outlines the process by which new programs are proposed, reviewed and approved through the University s academic governance process and, once approved by Senate, submitted for review to the Quality Council, as appropriate. The Expedited Approval process is used when proposing: a) a new Field in a graduate program, b) a new Collaborative Graduate Program; c) a new for-credit Graduate Diploma; or d) a change in graduate degree designation. The Expedited Approvals process for a) a new field, b) a new collaborative program, or c) a new forcredit diploma, requires the submission of the New Program Proposal Brief (Parts 1, 2, and 3) as outlined in Section IV of this document. The process is expedited by not requiring the use of external reviewers. The Proposal Brief presents the new program or Major Modifications (which are the significant changes being proposed see section III) including, as appropriate, reference to learning outcomes, faculty and resources, a brief account of the rationale for the changes, and which addresses the Evaluation Criteria listed in of the QAF, where they apply. The process for d) a change in graduate degree designation does not require a full proposal brief. A Department/School wishing to change the degree designation in an approved graduate program, whether in the context of a periodic appraisal or at some other time, must provide sufficient information to permit a decision on the proposed change. These changes do not require separate MTCU funding approval unless additional BIUs are claimed. As part of the submission, the Department/School must provide: a) a statement of the unit s perception of the substantive difference between the currently authorized degree designation and the proposed degree designation; b) a demonstration that there are a sufficient number of faculty members with the appropriate (scholarly) credentials for the proposed change in degree designation c) demonstration that the program requirements for students are appropriate for the proposed change in degree designation; e.g., for a proposal to change a professional designation to a PhD, demonstration that the dissertation research constitutes a substantive original contribution to knowledge; and d) a demonstration that the admissions requirements are appropriate for the proposed degree designation. 8

13 Flow Chart 2: University of Guelph Protocol for Expedited Graduate Approvals Development of Proposal Brief or New Program Proposal (3.1) addressing evaluation criteria where applicable (2.1) by Department(s)/School(s) and approval by College Dean(s) Proposal Reviewed by Associate V.P. (Academic) or Dean of Graduate Studies Program Proposal Brief for Expedited Program (2.2.4 and 2.2.5) submitted to Programs Committee for review and recommendation to BGS Review by BGS for Approval and Recommendation to Senate (2.2.9) OR Return to academic unit for changes Presented to Senate (2.2.9) for institutional approval Appraisal Brief to Quality Council Secretariat (2.2.10) Program Approval/Institutional Checklist to MTCU for Funding Approval (concurrent submission) Notice sent to Senate Committee on Quality Assurance (SCQA) (2.2.11) for information and inclusion in the Cyclical Program Review Schedule, pending approval by the Quality Council 9

14 III. PROTOCOL FOR MAJOR MODIFICATION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS In addition to submitting new programs for approval, all publicly funded universities are required to indicate on an annual basis for the Quality Council those programs that have undergone major modifications (QAF ). In accordance with the Quality Assurance Framework, a "Major Modification" to a program falls under three distinct categories: a) modification of the requirements of a program (curriculum, specializations, academic regulations, including admission, graduation, options, etc.); b) modification of the intended learning outcomes of a program; and c) modification of the human or other resources associated with a degree program or specialization Oversight and approval to major modifications of a given program remains with the institution, with the exception of the addition of a new field to an existing graduate program, which requires an expedited review (see II. Protocol for Expedited Approval), or where the University itself requests an expedited review of a program based on major modification. The University s annual report to the Quality Council will identify those programs that have made major modifications and in what category as outlined in the Quality Assurance Framework (3.3, 3.4). As indicated in section 3.3 of the QAF, institutions are required to identify their internal definition of what constitutes a significant change in the following categories: a) requirements, b) intended learning outcomes, or c) human and other resources associated with a degree program or program of specialization for ratification by the Quality Council. a) The University of Guelph defines significant change to requirements as: i) the diminution of admission requirements; ii) changes to graduation requirements or academic regulations (i.e., cumulative average, number of required credits, continuation of study, double-counting rules); iii) the merger of two or more programs/specializations; iv) the addition or deletion of a co-operative education option; v) the closure of a specialization within an undergraduate degree program (major, minor, areas of concentration); vi) the addition or deletion of a common core across specializations in a degree program; or vii) the closure of a field within a graduate program. b) The University of Guelph defines significant change to learning outcomes 2 where: i) The integrity of a program is considerably altered such that the structure, requirements and/or delivery is modified; ii) the existing UUDLES or GDLES fail to be incorporated in revisions to the design of the program iii) changes to the learning outcomes of a program are initiated based on recommendations from a cyclical program review; or 2 Currently, we are engaged in a University wide initiative to embed learning outcomes in each undergraduate degree program. We anticipate adding to this section once this process is complete. 10

15 iv) the learning outcomes of a professional program are modified as a direct result of changes to the profession or as a result of an accreditation review. c) The University of Guelph defines a significant change to faculty where: i) the core faculty (tenure-track or tenured) engaged in the delivery of a program changes by 30% or greater 3. d) The University of Guelph defines a significant change to the physical resources/mode(s) of delivery where: i) The delivery of a program moves, wholly, from one campus to another; ii) For joint or collaborative undergraduate programs offered with institutions external to the University, there is an addition or deletion of two semesters or more at the joint location; iii) The number of courses moved from in-class to online or from online to in-class changes by 50% or greater 4 ; iv) A compressed part-time option is added to a program. Finally, the Chair of the Senate Committee on Quality Assurance (SCQA) has the reserved authority to determine whether or not changes to admission requirements, learning outcomes, faculty, or physical resources/mode of delivery meets the defined criteria for significant change. Annually, programs will be required to report Major Modifications to BUGS and/or BGS. In some cases, such major modifications (typically those listed under a. changes to requirements ) may also require approval by Senate, based on existing by-laws. The following steps outline the process by which major modifications are identified and reviewed through the University s quality assurance (governance) process. 1. Major Modifications to existing programs are identified by the Department/School/College Dean(s) or Degree Program Committee based on criteria outlined above. 2. The Major Modification Brief is prepared by the Department/School/Degree Program Committee addressing: a) summary of major changes; b) impact on currently registered and prospective students; c) consultation with Deans, Chairs/Directors whose units are involved in the proposed modifications; and, d) confirmation of available resources including a financial plan approved by the sponsoring Dean(s). 3 Due to the collaborative structure of the University of Guelph Humber which involves the assignment of faculty members from both the University of Guelph and Humber College, their programs experience regular changes in core faculty. To both ensure continuity and assure quality, the list of assigned faculty for all Guelph Humber courses will be submitted to the Vice Provost (Guelph Humber) for approval. 4 All online courses offered by the University of Guelph are reviewed regularly by both academic units and the Office of Open Learning to ensure that they are of the same pedagogical and content quality as those offered residentially. In addition, as with residential courses, all courses delivered online are subjected to student evaluation. Whereas, in some instances, online and face to face delivery provide different challenges, a course provided online is considered to be equivalent to the residential offering and thus a change in method of delivery is not considered to fundamentally alter quality. 11

16 3. If a proposed modification includes changes that require Senate or BUGS/ BGS approval, the brief is first submitted to the Degree Program Committee for review/approval. 4. The brief and any corresponding curriculum/calendar change forms are submitted to either to the Calendar Review Committee (CRC) for recommendation to BUGS; or, for graduate programs, to the Programs Committee for recommendation to BGS. 5. The brief is reviewed by BUGS or BGS and, as appropriate, it will either a) receive final approval and be reported to Senate for information; b) be recommended for approval to Senate; c) be returned to the Department/School/Program Committee for further modification; or d) be rejected. 6. Upon approval from Senate, a summary is submitted to the Senate Committee on Quality Assurance (SCQA) for information, and the Major Modifications are reported in the University s Annual Report to the Quality Council (QAF 3.4). 12

17 Flow Chart 3: University of Guelph Protocol for Major Modification to Existing Programs Major Modification Identified (3.3) by by Department(s)/School(s)/College Dean/Program Committee Major Modification Brief prepared by Department/School/Degree Program For Major Modifications requiring Senate approval Brief submitted to relevant Degree Program Committee for approval Brief and corresponding curriculum/calendar material submitted to: Calendar Review Committee for recommendation to BUGS Programs Committee for recommendation to BGS Review by BUGS or BGS Modification moves through the University s governance process as follows: (a) receives final approval and reported to Senate for information OR (b) is recommended for approval to Senate OR (c) is returned for further changes OR (d) Modification is rejected Approved Modifications submitted to SCQA for information Approved Modifications included in Annual Report to the Quality Council (QAF 3.4) 13

18 IV. PROTOCOL FOR CYCLICAL DEPARTMENT/SCHOOL REVIEWS The Protocol for Cyclical Department/School Reviews outlines the University's internal quality assurance process for the review of departments/schools. Along with the cyclical review of departments and schools, the University of Guelph has chosen to undertake cyclical reviews of its undergraduate and graduate programs as well (see section V). Institutional responsibility for quality assurance extends to new and continuing undergraduate and graduate degree, certificate, and diploma programs whether offered in full, in part, or conjointly by any institutions federated and affiliated with the University. Internal reviews are conducted on an eight-year cycle and assist academic units as they develop and improve the quality of their undergraduate and graduate programs. The Ontario Universities Council for Quality Assurance (Quality Council) audits the process of these reviews. (The corresponding section of the QAF is noted in parentheses). IV.1. Authorities Responsible for the IQAP and its Application (4.2.1). Primary responsibility for the University's Institutional Quality Assurance Process rests with Senate of the University of Guelph through the Senate Committee on Quality Assurance (SCQA). IV.2. Identify the Authoritative Contact between the Institution and the Quality Council (4.2.1) The Authoritative Contact between the University and the Quality Council is the Provost and Vice- President Academic. IV.3. The Unit or Program(s) to be Reviewed (4.2.2) Individual reviews will involve an academic unit and each of the undergraduate and graduate programs for which they hold primary responsibility. Joint graduate programs will be reviewed separately on a schedule agreed to by the partner university(s) (see Section IV.B. ). IV.4. Protocols for Cyclical Reviews IV.4. A. The Internal Review Process, and External Evaluation: External Perspective (4.2.4) In order to supervise the work required to complete the department/ school review according to the requirements of the IQAP, the Provost s office has established an Internal Review Committee (IRC) for both unit and program reviews, which will oversee the creation of the Final Assessment Report. For each separate review, the IRC will create an Internal Review Subcommittee (IRS) which is charged with coordinating and completing the activities associated with the review. Each IRS will include one member of the IRC who will act as the facilitator for the review, and two consultants external to the university selected by the Chair of IRC. The external and university reviewers will be active and respected in their field and, normally, will be associate or full professors with curriculum or program management experience. All members of the IRS will be at arm s length from the unit under review. The Department/School will be asked to submit to the Chair of IRC the names and a brief curriculum vitae of six possible external consultants; three with appropriate expertise for assuming the major responsibility of reviewing the undergraduate program(s) and three with 14

19 appropriate expertise for reviewing the graduate program(s). The external consultants must not have participated in joint projects with any faculty members of the unit, nor have been a student or member of the faculty in the University in the last 5 years. The Department/School will include a brief rationale for their nominations and will make initial contact with the nominees to determine both their willingness to be nominated and to confirm that their schedule will accommodate a site visit. The Chair of IRC will normally select the two external consultants from this list, but may consult further with others as appropriate. IV.4.A.(i)Schedule of Reviews (4.1) The schedule of internal reviews is designed to ensure transparency, align the undergraduate and graduate review processes, and mesh with external accreditation reviews. The Chair of the IRC may make amendments to the schedule as appropriate, with changes being reported to the IRC, SCQA, and OUCQA for information. Each unit will be reviewed once every eight years. The proposed Schedule of Reviews is listed in Appendix V. IV.4.A.(ii) Objectives of the Internal Review (4.3.1) It is the responsibility of the facilitator of the review, in consultation with the Chair of the IRC, to ensure that all relevant units have an opportunity to comment on the units and programs under review, including relevant program committees, and to ensure that there is sufficient opportunity for student input. The objectives of the review include, but are not restricted to, an assessment of the following as they pertain to each of the undergraduate and graduate programs managed by the unit (see Appendix VI for detailed criteria): (a) Consonance of the unit s undergraduate and graduate offering(s) within the general framework of the University's mission and strategic directions and with the University s Learning Objectives, which are consistent with OCAV s Degree Level Expectations; (b) The appropriateness of the unit s academic objectives and degree level outcomes expectations, and its ability to meet them; (c) The appropriateness of the pedagogical and evaluation strategies and methods applied to each of the programs; (d) The adequacy of the available human, physical, and financial resources to support the unit's programs; (e) The unit s definition and application, where possible, of indicators to determine the learning outcomes of the programs, including applicable provincial, national, and professional standards. (f) The management of graduate programs, the quality of supervision, and the quality and level of scholarly output of graduate students. IV.4.A.(iii) Preparation of the Self Study Brief: Internal Program Perspective (4.2.3) The Self-study Brief prepared by individual units will be comprised of three parts, Part I: The Selfstudy, Part II: The Faculty, Part III: Resources. Quality enhancement of programs is a Universitywide priority. 15

20 Part I: The Self-Study provides the department/school an opportunity to submit a document that is broad-based, reflective, and forward looking and which includes a critical self-analysis. The self-study will include the following information: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) A brief description of the department (one page maximum) including its history, structure, a list of its undergraduate and graduate programs (including associated fields), and relationship with other academic units. Information on who prepared the document, how faculty members were consulted, and in what way students were given the opportunity to participate An analytical and reflective discussion prepared by the unit (with participation by faculty, staff, and students) on its activities and accomplishments, reaffirming or redefining its objectives, and describing how they relate to the mission of the University. In addition to presenting a review of how concerns and recommendations raised in previous reviews have been addressed, the Self-study will present a discussion of progress along with any of the University s strategic directions (research intensiveness, learner centredness, collaboration, internationalism and open learning) and towards the unit s own agreed upon strategic objectives to enhance program quality. (4.3.7) For professional programs, accreditation briefs and/or reports from employers and professional associations, as appropriate (4.2.4.d). The appropriateness and effectiveness of the admission standards of both its undergraduate and graduate programs, and enrolment projections accompanied by a rationale if changes are predicted (4.3.2). For undergraduate programs, a summary of the unit s teaching effectiveness based on student course evaluations (submitted in a form which does not identify individuals) and a consideration of the level of student achievement; for graduate programs, the objective of each degree level and an indication of how the objective is achieved (4.3.4) As an indicator of quality, the self-study will present outcome assessment indicators, where available or appropriate (e.g., the percentage of students going on to graduate or professional schools from its undergraduate program(s), the success of students in award competitions, the percentage of students involved in internships and/ or practica, and employment post-graduation, etc.) (4.3.6) For graduate programs, the objective of each degree level and an indication of how the objective is achieved, including a listing of graduate courses available to demonstrate program requirements are satisfied. A summary of the level and source(s) of stipends, if any to graduate students A summary of how the undergraduate program offerings are coordinated with graduate offerings, and research and service activities within the institution. In addition, a summary of the relationships (relevant to the academic activities) with other University units (e.g., interdisciplinary courses, cross appointments of 16

University of Guelph. Institutional Quality Assurance Process (IQAP) v.2

University of Guelph. Institutional Quality Assurance Process (IQAP) v.2 University of Guelph Institutional Quality Assurance Process (IQAP) v.2 2015 Version 2: Approved by the University of Guelph Senate April 6, 2015 [Version 1 (2011): Approved February 7, 2011 by the University

More information

OCAD UNIVERSITY INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCESS (IQAP) Re-ratified by the Quality Council July 27, 2012

OCAD UNIVERSITY INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCESS (IQAP) Re-ratified by the Quality Council July 27, 2012 OCAD UNIVERSITY INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCESS (IQAP) Re-ratified by the Quality Council July 27, 2012 CONTENTS 1. Institutional Quality Assurance Process Overview 1.1. Preamble 1.2. Principles

More information

INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE POLICY

INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE POLICY INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE POLICY Approval: Responsibility: Contact Office: University Senate; Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance (Quality Council) Provost and Vice President Academic

More information

Previous Approvals: April 5, 2005; May 6, 2008; November 2, 2010; May 3, 2011, May 3, 2011, May 7, 2013

Previous Approvals: April 5, 2005; May 6, 2008; November 2, 2010; May 3, 2011, May 3, 2011, May 7, 2013 RYERSON UNIVERSITY POLICY OF SENATE PERIODIC PROGRAM REVIEW OF GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS Policy Number 126 Previous Approvals: April 5, 2005; May 6, 2008; November 2, 2010; May 3, 2011, May 3,

More information

YORK UNIVERSITY QUALITY ASSURANCE PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES (YUQAP)

YORK UNIVERSITY QUALITY ASSURANCE PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES (YUQAP) YORK UNIVERSITY QUALITY ASSURANCE PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES (YUQAP) July 2012 York University Quality Assurance Procedures Table of Contents 1. Quality Assurance Context.... 3 2. University Authorities

More information

Policies, Procedures and Guidelines

Policies, Procedures and Guidelines Policies, Procedures and Guidelines Complete Policy Title: Academic Program Reviews Policy on Policy Number (if applicable): Approved by: Senate Date of Original Approval(s): May 11, 2011 (effective July

More information

QUALITY ASSURANCE HANDBOOK. Policies, procedures and resources to guide undergraduate and graduate program development and improvement at UOIT

QUALITY ASSURANCE HANDBOOK. Policies, procedures and resources to guide undergraduate and graduate program development and improvement at UOIT QUALITY ASSURANCE HANDBOOK Policies, procedures and resources to guide undergraduate and graduate program development and improvement at UOIT UOIT Academic Council June 15, 2010, revised June 9, 2011 QUALITY

More information

Institutional Quality Assurance Process

Institutional Quality Assurance Process Institutional Quality Assurance Process (Covering also the academic, non vocational degree programs of Dominican University College) February 17, 2012 Senate Approved May 30, 2012 Quality Council Ratification

More information

University of Toronto Quality Assurance Process (UTQAP)

University of Toronto Quality Assurance Process (UTQAP) University of Toronto Quality Assurance Process (UTQAP) Revised version approved by the Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance September 21, 2012 Table of Contents 1 Quality Assurance Context

More information

Institutional Quality Assurance Process. University of Ottawa

Institutional Quality Assurance Process. University of Ottawa Institutional Quality Assurance Process University of Ottawa June 28, 2011 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION... 1 1.1 Authorities... 1 1.2 Contact person... 1 1.3 Definitions... 1 1.4 Evaluation of programs...

More information

POLICY. Academic. Provost and Vice-President Academic. Senate May 10, 2011 Quality Council March 31, 2011 Date of last revision: N/A

POLICY. Academic. Provost and Vice-President Academic. Senate May 10, 2011 Quality Council March 31, 2011 Date of last revision: N/A POLICY INSTITUTIONAL PROGRAM QUALITY ASSURANCE POLICY Category: Approval: Responsibility: Date: Academic Senate (internal); Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance (Quality Council) (external)

More information

Institutional Quality Assurance Process. University of Ottawa

Institutional Quality Assurance Process. University of Ottawa Institutional Quality Assurance Process University of Ottawa June 27, 2011 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION...1 1.1 Authorities...1 1.2 Contact person...1 1.3 Definitions...1 1.4 Evaluation of programs...2

More information

Nipissing University Institutional Quality Assurance Process: Policy and Procedures (IQAP)

Nipissing University Institutional Quality Assurance Process: Policy and Procedures (IQAP) Nipissing University Institutional Quality Assurance Process: Policy and Procedures (IQAP) Governing Cyclical Program Reviews, New Programs and Program Revisions Recommended to Senate by the Planning and

More information

Academic: Review and Approval of Academic Programs

Academic: Review and Approval of Academic Programs Academic: Review and Approval of Academic Programs Effective Date: Approved by: Senate Policy for the Review and Approval of Academic Programs I OVERVIEW The Policy for the Review and Approval of Academic

More information

UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE FRAMEWORK

UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE FRAMEWORK UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE FRAMEWORK Effective July 1 2011 Office of the Associate Vice President, Academic Programs And Graduate Studies Office University of Waterloo Waterloo,

More information

Donna Woolcott, PhD Executive Director, Quality Assurance

Donna Woolcott, PhD Executive Director, Quality Assurance Donna Woolcott, PhD Executive Director, Quality on Quality MAY 7, 2012 UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR Overview of quality assurance R International context R Ontario context Quality Council mandate Key elements

More information

Institutional Quality Assurance Process (IQAP)

Institutional Quality Assurance Process (IQAP) Institutional Quality Assurance Process (IQAP) Office of the Associate Vice-President, Academic and Office of the Associate Provost, Graduate Studies University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1 Approved

More information

Institutional Quality Assurance Process Joint Graduate Programs Carleton University and University of Ottawa

Institutional Quality Assurance Process Joint Graduate Programs Carleton University and University of Ottawa Institutional Quality Assurance Process Joint Graduate Programs Carleton University and University of Ottawa April 19, 2012 Table of Contents Introduction. 2 1 Authorities. 4 2 Scope... 5 3 Definitions.

More information

Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance

Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance Council on Quality Donna Woolcott, PhD Executive Director, Quality Cindy Robinson Manager, Quality F EBRUARY 14, 2012 Q UEEN S U NIVERSITY 2 Outline of Presentation Overview of quality assurance International

More information

3.2.1 Evaluation and approval process for new fields and new programs created from existing and approved University of Ottawa programs

3.2.1 Evaluation and approval process for new fields and new programs created from existing and approved University of Ottawa programs 3.2 Protocol for the Expedited Approval of Graduate Programs The Expedited Approval Process requires the submission to the Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance of a Proposal Brief. No external

More information

January 28, 2014. May 2015 (or sooner at the request of the Provost and Vice President Academic or Senate)

January 28, 2014. May 2015 (or sooner at the request of the Provost and Vice President Academic or Senate) RYERSON UNIVERSITY POLICY OF SENATE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS Policy Number 1 : 112 Previous Approval Dates for Policy 112 February 7, 1995 (original policy), May 9, 2002,

More information

Quality Assurance Framework

Quality Assurance Framework Quality Assurance Framework Approved by OCAV on February 8, 2010 Approved by Executive Heads on April 22, 2010 For more information contact: Donna Woolcott Executive Director, Quality Assurance 416.979.2165

More information

CURRICULUM MODIFICATIONS: GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS

CURRICULUM MODIFICATIONS: GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS RYERSON UNIVERSITY POLICY OF SENATE CURRICULUM MODIFICATIONS: GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS Policy Number: 127 Approval Date: November 4, 2014 Previous Approval Dates: May 3, 2011 Policy Review Date

More information

Nomination and Selection of External Consultants for Graduate Program Reviews

Nomination and Selection of External Consultants for Graduate Program Reviews Nomination and Selection of External Consultants for Graduate Program Reviews Graduate Programs External Consultants are required for the review of all new programs (with the exception of new collaborative

More information

BYLAWS OF THE FACULTY College of Arts and Sciences Georgia State University

BYLAWS OF THE FACULTY College of Arts and Sciences Georgia State University BYLAWS OF THE FACULTY College of Arts and Sciences Georgia State University 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 ARTICLE I. PURPOSES Section 1.

More information

Queen s University Quality Assurance Processes

Queen s University Quality Assurance Processes Queen s University Quality Assurance Processes QUQAP Approved by Senate: November 25, 2010 Revisions approved by Senate: December 2 2014 Ratified by Council of Ontario Universities Quality Council: April

More information

Rules of Organization and Bylaws Gladys A. Kelce College of Business

Rules of Organization and Bylaws Gladys A. Kelce College of Business Rules of Organization and Bylaws Gladys A. Kelce College of Business Approved by the General Faculty December 11, 2012 PREAMBLE This document provides the framework within which the Faculty of the Gladys

More information

GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING EVALUATIONS OF ACADEMIC PROGRAMS

GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING EVALUATIONS OF ACADEMIC PROGRAMS GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING EVALUATIONS OF ACADEMIC PROGRAMS OFFICE OF THE PROVOST UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA 15260 JULY, 2002 Guidelines for Conducting Evaluations of Academic Programs

More information

Policy Abstract. for the. Handbook for Program Review: Cleveland State University s Self-Study Process for Growth and Change Spring 2005

Policy Abstract. for the. Handbook for Program Review: Cleveland State University s Self-Study Process for Growth and Change Spring 2005 Policy Abstract for the Handbook for Program Review: Cleveland State University s Self-Study Process for Growth and Change Spring 2005 Significant institutional resources are devoted to academic program

More information

3. PROTOCOLS FOR EXPEDITED APPROVALS

3. PROTOCOLS FOR EXPEDITED APPROVALS 3. PROTOCOLS FOR EXPEDITED APPROVALS 3.1 Protocol for the Expedited Approval of Undergraduate Programs This protocol applies to proposals for major modifications to existing and already approved undergraduate

More information

TARLETON STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES GRADUATE COUNCIL

TARLETON STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES GRADUATE COUNCIL TARLETON STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES GRADUATE COUNCIL Purpose: To consider all matters relating to graduate programs at Tarleton State University and to recommend practices and procedures

More information

GRADUATE PROGRAM REVIEW POLICY. Texas Southern University

GRADUATE PROGRAM REVIEW POLICY. Texas Southern University GRADUATE PROGRAM REVIEW POLICY Texas Southern University The Purposes of Graduate Program Review Graduate program review at Texas Southern University exists to ensure that programs are functioning at the

More information

Laney Graduate School Curricular Revision Guidelines. Updated September 2012

Laney Graduate School Curricular Revision Guidelines. Updated September 2012 Laney Graduate School Curricular Revision Guidelines Updated September 2012 Contents 1. Courses... 3 1.1. Credit Hour Determination... 3 1.2. Revisions to Existing Courses... 3 1.3. New Course Proposals...

More information

Certificates guidelines are found at: http://www.gradschool.unh.edu/pdf/pol_certificate.pdf

Certificates guidelines are found at: http://www.gradschool.unh.edu/pdf/pol_certificate.pdf GUIDELINES FOR THE APPROVAL OF NEW, MODIFIED, OR DELETED GRADUATE PROGRAMS (DEGREES, MAJORS AND OPTIONS) THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Approved by the Graduate Council, 3/8/00; rev 12/11*, rev. 8/12**

More information

Cyclical Program Review Handbook 2015-2016

Cyclical Program Review Handbook 2015-2016 WILFRID LAURIER UNIVERSITY Waterloo Brantford Kitchener Toronto Cyclical Program Review Handbook 2015-2016 Prepared by the QUALITY ASSURANCE OFFICE wlu.ca/qao TABLE OF CONTENTS Contact Information... 4

More information

BYLAWS OF THE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND APPLIED SCIENCES University at Buffalo, State University of New York (Revised April 2007)

BYLAWS OF THE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND APPLIED SCIENCES University at Buffalo, State University of New York (Revised April 2007) BYLAWS OF THE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND APPLIED SCIENCES University at Buffalo, State University of New York (Revised April 2007) ARTICLE I Name and Purpose The UB School of Engineering and Applied Sciences,

More information

GRADUATE PROGRAMS: APPROVAL OF NEW PROGRAMS AND PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS

GRADUATE PROGRAMS: APPROVAL OF NEW PROGRAMS AND PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS RYERSON UNIVERSITY POLICY OF SENATE GRADUATE PROGRAMS: APPROVAL OF NEW PROGRAMS AND PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS Policy Number: 127 Submitted by: School of Graduate Studies Approval Dates: October 1996 October,

More information

Bylaws of the College of Business University of Michigan-Dearborn

Bylaws of the College of Business University of Michigan-Dearborn Bylaws of the College of Business University of Michigan-Dearborn Approved: January 30, 2014 Contents PREAMBLE ARTICLES I. Name... 4 II. Membership 4 III. Departments 4 IV. Officers and Administrative

More information

DHS Policy & Procedure for Promotion of Clinical Faculty

DHS Policy & Procedure for Promotion of Clinical Faculty DHS Policy & Procedure for I. Introduction A. These standards and evaluation criteria are used to operationally define the qualifications expected for appointment or promotion of clinical faculty in the

More information

RACKHAM GRADUATE SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN. Guidelines for Developing and Revising Graduate Degree and Certificate Programs

RACKHAM GRADUATE SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN. Guidelines for Developing and Revising Graduate Degree and Certificate Programs RACKHAM GRADUATE SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN Guidelines for Developing and Revising Graduate Degree and Certificate Programs 2015 Contents Introduction 3 Stages of Proposal Development and Activation

More information

THE GRADUATE SCHOOL CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY. By-Laws. ARTICLE I Definitions

THE GRADUATE SCHOOL CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY. By-Laws. ARTICLE I Definitions THE GRADUATE SCHOOL CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY A. Organization and Responsibilities By-Laws ARTICLE I Definitions The Graduate School of the Creighton University is charged with promoting graduate studies and

More information

SCHOOL OF URBAN AFFAIRS & PUBLIC POLICY CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE

SCHOOL OF URBAN AFFAIRS & PUBLIC POLICY CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE SCHOOL OF URBAN AFFAIRS & PUBLIC POLICY CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE The School of Urban Affairs and Public Policy is an interdisciplinary graduate and professional school, designated

More information

Senate Policy on the Review of Undergraduate Programs at Saint Mary's University Policy Number: 8-1006 University Senate Approved: March 12, 2010

Senate Policy on the Review of Undergraduate Programs at Saint Mary's University Policy Number: 8-1006 University Senate Approved: March 12, 2010 Name: Senate Policy on the Review of Undergraduate Programs at Saint Mary's University Policy Number: 8-1006 Origin: University Senate Approved: March 12, 2010 Issuing Authority: Responsibility: University

More information

Staff Analysis Checklist Request to Offer a New Degree Program. Board of Governors, State University System of Florida

Staff Analysis Checklist Request to Offer a New Degree Program. Board of Governors, State University System of Florida Staff Analysis Checklist Request to Offer a New Degree Program Board of Governors, State University System of Florida University Submitting Proposal Initial Review Date Proposed Implementation Term Last

More information

PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES FOR FACULTY AND DEPARTMENTS The Graduate School of NMSU 575 646-5745 Revised on March 19, 2013

PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES FOR FACULTY AND DEPARTMENTS The Graduate School of NMSU 575 646-5745 Revised on March 19, 2013 PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES FOR FACULTY AND DEPARTMENTS The Graduate School of NMSU 575 646-5745 Revised on March 19, 2013 Guidelines are provided on developing proposals for the following: Guidelines on

More information

Recommendations of the Task Force on Graduate Education Administration and Delivery

Recommendations of the Task Force on Graduate Education Administration and Delivery Recommendations of the Task Force on Graduate Education Administration and Delivery I. Introduction The task force was established by the Provost and its membership and mandate are provided in Appendix

More information

Charter and Bylaws of the Graduate School

Charter and Bylaws of the Graduate School Charter and Bylaws of the Graduate School The Graduate School State University of New York at Buffalo 408 Capen Hall Buffalo, New York 14260-1608 Last Revised: March 11, 2014 Preamble Graduate education,

More information

University of Louisville. School of Nursing Bylaws

University of Louisville. School of Nursing Bylaws University of Louisville School of Nursing Bylaws Approved by Faculty Organization 3.21.2014 Reviewed by LS 8/9/15; MH, SR, 8/13/15 Approved by U of L Board of Trustees 9/3/15 School of Nursing Bylaws:

More information

BYLAWS OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY ARTICLE I. Name

BYLAWS OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY ARTICLE I. Name BYLAWS OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY ARTICLE I Name The name of this organization shall be the Graduate School, Emporia State University. ARTICLE II Purpose The purpose of these bylaws

More information

University Policy No.: AC1135 Classification: Academic and Students

University Policy No.: AC1135 Classification: Academic and Students POLICY FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CERTIFICATE AND DIPLOMA PROGRAMS University Policy No.: AC1135 Classification: Academic and Students Approving Authority: Senate Effective Date: December/07 Supersedes:

More information

MCMASTER UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF HEALTH SCIENCES BY-LAWS

MCMASTER UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF HEALTH SCIENCES BY-LAWS MCMASTER UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF HEALTH SCIENCES BY-LAWS I (i) THE FACULTY OF HEALTH SCIENCES Members of the Faculty: (a) Voting Members Ex Officio: Full-time Faculty Staff Student Dean and Vice-President

More information

PROCEDURES Doctoral Academic Program Review California State University, Stanislaus

PROCEDURES Doctoral Academic Program Review California State University, Stanislaus PROCEDURES Doctoral Academic Program Review California State University, Stanislaus Self Study Elements for Academic Program Review for Doctoral Programs Program Improvement from Last Academic Program

More information

Faculty of Social Sciences By-laws

Faculty of Social Sciences By-laws Faculty of Social Sciences By-laws I GENERAL In this document Faculty means the Faculty of Social Sciences; any reference to Departments shall also apply to the Schools and the Programs within the Faculty,

More information

The University of North Texas at Dallas Policy Manual

The University of North Texas at Dallas Policy Manual The University of North Texas at Dallas Policy Manual Chapter 6.000 6.020 Academic Program Review Faculty Affairs Policy Statement. UNT Dallas offers high-quality academic programs that are achieved through

More information

Graduate School Policies and Procedures

Graduate School Policies and Procedures Graduate School Policies and Procedures Mission Statement: The mission of the Graduate School is to promote excellence in graduate education and to facilitate educational opportunities for graduate students.

More information

A Guide to Learning Outcomes, Degree Level Expectations and the Quality Assurance Process in Ontario

A Guide to Learning Outcomes, Degree Level Expectations and the Quality Assurance Process in Ontario A Guide to Learning Outcomes, Degree Level Expectations and the Quality Assurance Process in Ontario A Guide to Learning Outcomes, Degree Level Expectations and the Quality Assurance Process in Ontario

More information

Graduate Group in Nursing Science & Health-Care Leadership Bylaws ARTICLE I. OBJECTIVE Discipline: Mission:

Graduate Group in Nursing Science & Health-Care Leadership Bylaws ARTICLE I. OBJECTIVE Discipline: Mission: Graduate Group in Nursing Science & Health-Care Leadership Bylaws Administrative Home: Betty Irene Moore School of Nursing Approved by Graduate Council: May 6, 2009 ARTICLE I. OBJECTIVE The Nursing Science

More information

Periodic Program Review Graduate Programs MANUAL. PART I: The Self-Study Report

Periodic Program Review Graduate Programs MANUAL. PART I: The Self-Study Report Periodic Program Review Graduate Programs MANUAL PART I: The Self-Study Report 1 Table of Contents GRADUATE KEY CONTACTS AND SOURCES OF INFORMATION 3 INTRODUCTION 5 HOW TO USE THIS MANUAL? 5 THE SELF STUDY:

More information

Board of Governors, State University System of Florida

Board of Governors, State University System of Florida Board of Governors, State University System of Florida Request to Offer a New Degree Program (Please do not revise this proposal format without prior approval from Board staff) University Submitting Proposal

More information

Procedures of Policy No. (4) - Professional Doctorate Programs

Procedures of Policy No. (4) - Professional Doctorate Programs Responsible Office: DVC Research & Grad. Studies Pages of these Procedures 1 of 8 Procedures of Policy No. (4) - 1. Program Administration Each Professional Doctorate Program (PDP) is administered through

More information

Plan of Organization for the School of Public Health

Plan of Organization for the School of Public Health Plan of Organization for the School of Public Health 2011 Table of Contents PREAMBLE... 3 ARTICLE I MISSION... 3 ARTICLE II SHARED GOVERNANCE... 4 ARTICLE III SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION... 4 A. Administration...

More information

SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPAL FINDINGS OF THE QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDIT OF THE ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE OF CANADA

SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPAL FINDINGS OF THE QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDIT OF THE ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE OF CANADA SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPAL FINDINGS OF THE QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDIT OF THE ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE OF CANADA JUNE 2015 Summary of the Principal Findings of the Quality Assurance Audit of Royal Military College

More information

BYLAWS of the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences

BYLAWS of the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences BYLAWS of the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences SECTION 1. Programs of the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences The Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences (GSBS) of the Texas Tech University Health

More information

Article I. Objectives

Article I. Objectives Doctorate in Educational Leadership: Capital Region Alliance (CANDEL) Bylaws Administrative Home: UC Davis School of Education Revised: 2004; 2008 Approved by Graduate Council: March 18, 2009 Article I.

More information

FORENSIC SCIENCE GRADUATE GROUP BYLAWS

FORENSIC SCIENCE GRADUATE GROUP BYLAWS FORENSIC SCIENCE GRADUATE GROUP BYLAWS Administrative Home: UC Davis Extension Revision: November 11, 2007 Revision: September 26, 2011 Graduate Council Approval Date: June 11, 2012 Article I Objective

More information

University of Richmond

University of Richmond University of Richmond http://facultyhandbook.richmond.edu/ch_iii/index.html#discontinuance E. Procedures for the Discontinuance of an Academic Department or Program of Instruction Involving Possible Dismissal

More information

Graduate Program Review Process Summary

Graduate Program Review Process Summary Graduate Program Review Process Summary Prepared By: Nathan Risling B.Comm, M.P.A. Coordinator, Graduate Program Review College of Graduate Studies & Research Ph: (306) 966-1606 nathan.risling@usask.ca

More information

College of Medicine Promotion and Tenure Procedure FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY

College of Medicine Promotion and Tenure Procedure FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY College of Medicine Promotion and Tenure Procedure FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY Approved by majority vote of College Faculty March 25, 2014 Table of Contents Introduction... 1 Governance... 1 a. Membership...

More information

School of Social Work By Laws

School of Social Work By Laws School of Social Work By Laws BYLAWS OF THE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY PREAMBLE The School of Social Work is a professional degree-granting school located within

More information

DEPARTMENT OF MARKETING COLLEGE OF BUSINESS ADMINSTRATION POLICY ON REAPPOINTMENT, TENURE, AND PROMOTION (RTP)

DEPARTMENT OF MARKETING COLLEGE OF BUSINESS ADMINSTRATION POLICY ON REAPPOINTMENT, TENURE, AND PROMOTION (RTP) Approved by Academic Affairs May 2010 DEPARTMENT OF MARKETING COLLEGE OF BUSINESS ADMINSTRATION POLICY ON REAPPOINTMENT, TENURE, AND PROMOTION (RTP) I. DEPARTMENT OF MARKETING RTP POLICY A. Preamble B.

More information

Common Rules Courses leading to the Awarding of a Professional Doctorate (Research) Doctor of

Common Rules Courses leading to the Awarding of a Professional Doctorate (Research) Doctor of Common Rules Courses leading to the Awarding of a Professional Doctorate (Research) Doctor of Version: 3.00 Approved: Council Date: 20 June 2008 Administered: Governance Next Review: June 2011 COMMON RULES

More information

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS PROCEDURES FOR UNIVERSITY APPROVAL OF NEW ACADEMIC DEGREE PROGRAMS, PROGRAM CHANGES, AND PROGRAM TERMINATION

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS PROCEDURES FOR UNIVERSITY APPROVAL OF NEW ACADEMIC DEGREE PROGRAMS, PROGRAM CHANGES, AND PROGRAM TERMINATION Doc. T92-012, as amended Passed by the BoT 4/8/92 Revised 8/6/97 UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS PROCEDURES FOR UNIVERSITY APPROVAL OF NEW ACADEMIC DEGREE PROGRAMS, PROGRAM CHANGES, AND PROGRAM TERMINATION

More information

Multiple Degree Programs

Multiple Degree Programs Multiple Degree Programs From the Graduate School s Policies and Procedures for Administering Graduate Student Programs manual (Section I, F,3) https://www.purdue.edu/gradschool/faculty/publications.cfm

More information

GRADUATE GROUP REVIEW PROTOCOL FOR SCHOOLS

GRADUATE GROUP REVIEW PROTOCOL FOR SCHOOLS GRADUATE GROUP REVIEW PROTOCOL FOR SCHOOLS (Adopted 1.10.10) Overview of the Graduate Council of the Faculties The Graduate Council of the Faculties is advisory to the Provost and Vice Provost for Education.

More information

UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE. Department of Linguistics & Cognitive Science. Promotion and Tenure Document

UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE. Department of Linguistics & Cognitive Science. Promotion and Tenure Document 11.20.07 UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE Department of Linguistics & Cognitive Science Promotion and Tenure Document 1. REQUIREMENTS FOR PROMOTION Faculty are expected to strive for excellence in three areas: scholarship,

More information

9. The ad hoc joint committee drafts a formal program implementation proposal. (See Attachment B for a description of the contents of this document.

9. The ad hoc joint committee drafts a formal program implementation proposal. (See Attachment B for a description of the contents of this document. GENERAL PROCEDURES FOR DEVELOPING JOINT DOCTORAL PROGRAMS WITH INDEPENDENT INSTITUTIONS These procedures are based on documents developed by the CSU and California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC)

More information

Humber College Institute of Technology & Advanced Learning. Program Advisory Committee. Procedure Manual

Humber College Institute of Technology & Advanced Learning. Program Advisory Committee. Procedure Manual Humber College Institute of Technology & Advanced Learning Program Advisory Committee Procedure Manual Message from the President On behalf of Humber College Institute of Technology & Advanced Learning,

More information

WHEELOCK COLLEGE FACULTY DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION PROGRAM

WHEELOCK COLLEGE FACULTY DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION PROGRAM WHEELOCK COLLEGE FACULTY DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION PROGRAM REVISED SPRING 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Development And Evaluation Process: Tenure Track Faculty... 4 Overview Of Mentoring And Evaluation Process

More information

A. Criteria for Faculty Membership in the Graduate Program

A. Criteria for Faculty Membership in the Graduate Program I. Objective Communication Graduate Program Bylaws Administrative Home: UCD Department of Communication Revision date: 8-21-2007 Graduate Council approval date: November 14, 2007 The Graduate Program in

More information

James Madison University. Best Practices for Online Programs

James Madison University. Best Practices for Online Programs James Madison University Best Practices for Online Programs Updated December 2013 JMU Best Practices for Online Programs I. Introduction... 2 II. Institutional Context and Commitment... 2 III. Curriculum

More information

GUIDELINES FOR ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW For self-studies due to the Office of the Provost on October 1, 2015 CENTERS

GUIDELINES FOR ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW For self-studies due to the Office of the Provost on October 1, 2015 CENTERS GUIDELINES FOR ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW For self-studies due to the Office of the Provost on October 1, 2015 CENTERS OVERVIEW OF PROGRAM REVIEW At Illinois State University, primary responsibility for maintaining

More information

B. Discipline: Educational Psychology is a general reference to the fields of Educational and Psychology.

B. Discipline: Educational Psychology is a general reference to the fields of Educational and Psychology. Educational Psychology Bylaws Pullman Campus Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling Psychology, College of Education Washington State University Last Revised by Faculty 2/5/10 Faculty Senate

More information

COLLEGE OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES School of Nursing. Guidelines for Promotion, Tenure and Reappointment (Effective May, 2007)

COLLEGE OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES School of Nursing. Guidelines for Promotion, Tenure and Reappointment (Effective May, 2007) COLLEGE OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES School of Nursing Guidelines for Promotion, Tenure and Reappointment (Effective May, 2007) Attached are the documents related to the role and responsibilities of the

More information

Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Geography Bylaws. Article I. The Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Geography

Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Geography Bylaws. Article I. The Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Geography Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Geography Bylaws Passed: 1 December 2006 Revised: February, 2007; February, 2008; April, 2008; August, 2008; October 8th, 2009; The Department of Environmental

More information

UNDERGRADUATE CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL OFFICE OF ACADEMIC AFFAIRS

UNDERGRADUATE CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL OFFICE OF ACADEMIC AFFAIRS UNDERGRADUATE CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL OFFICE OF ACADEMIC AFFAIRS 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction... 4 Program-Related Actions New and Spin-off Degree Program

More information

Bylaws of the Department of Agricultural Education and Communication University of Florida Approved October 7, 2009

Bylaws of the Department of Agricultural Education and Communication University of Florida Approved October 7, 2009 Bylaws of the Department of Agricultural Education and Communication University of Florida Approved October 7, 2009 Vision To lead in developing and strengthening educators, communicators, and leaders

More information

CONSTITUTION COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA PREAMBLE

CONSTITUTION COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA PREAMBLE CONSTITUTION COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA This Constitution is intended to be consistent with Florida law, the University Constitution and the regulations of the University of Florida Board

More information

RULES AND BYLAWS SCHOOL OF COMPUTER SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS

RULES AND BYLAWS SCHOOL OF COMPUTER SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS RULES AND BYLAWS SCHOOL OF COMPUTER SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS SECTION I - The School Faculty 1.1 Responsibilities - The School Faculty, under the direction of the Director, shall have authority

More information

UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER William E. Simon Graduate School of Business Administration. Proposal for a Clinical Faculty Track

UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER William E. Simon Graduate School of Business Administration. Proposal for a Clinical Faculty Track Contents: UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER William E. Simon Graduate School of Business Administration Proposal for a Clinical Faculty Track 1. Rationale and Objectives of the Proposal 2. The Simon School Mission

More information

Adams State College Graduate School and School of Business Proposed Masters of Business Administration

Adams State College Graduate School and School of Business Proposed Masters of Business Administration Adams State College Graduate School and School of Business Proposed Masters of Business Administration Overview of the Proposed Program: Name of Program: Business Administration Degree Type: Masters of

More information

GRADUATE PROGRAM COUNCIL BYLAWS. Biomedical Physics. Approved by YSGS Council 27/02/2014. Approved by Dean, YSGS 18/03/2014

GRADUATE PROGRAM COUNCIL BYLAWS. Biomedical Physics. Approved by YSGS Council 27/02/2014. Approved by Dean, YSGS 18/03/2014 GRADUATE PROGRAM COUNCIL BYLAWS Biomedical Physics Approved by YSGS Council 27/02/2014 Approved by Dean, YSGS 18/03/2014 Approved by the Academic Governance and Policy Committee of Senate dd/mm/yyyy Approved

More information

A. Criteria for Membership in the Graduate Group

A. Criteria for Membership in the Graduate Group Graduate Group in Geography Bylaws Administrative Home: Department of Environmental Design Revision Date: August 23, 2007 Graduate Council Approval Date: November 14, 2007 Article I: Objective The Graduate

More information

QUALITY ASSURANCE POLICY AND PROCEDURES

QUALITY ASSURANCE POLICY AND PROCEDURES NOVA SCOTIA COLLEGE OF ART AND DESIGN (NSCAD UNIVERSITY) QUALITY ASSURANCE POLICY AND PROCEDURES ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW PROCESS SELF-STUDY REPORT GUIDE EXTERNAL REVIEW GUIDE ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW TIMELINE

More information

KECK SCHOOL OF MEDICINE GOVERNANCE DOCUMENT June 20, 2011

KECK SCHOOL OF MEDICINE GOVERNANCE DOCUMENT June 20, 2011 I. EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY KECK SCHOOL OF MEDICINE GOVERNANCE DOCUMENT June 20, 2011 As a non-profit public benefit corporation, the University of Southern California (USC) is governed by the Board of Trustees.

More information

BYLAWS OF THE GRADUATE GROUP IN PLANT BIOLOGY. Administrative Home: Division of Biological Sciences

BYLAWS OF THE GRADUATE GROUP IN PLANT BIOLOGY. Administrative Home: Division of Biological Sciences Bylaws of Graduate Group in Plant Biology Page 1 BYLAWS OF THE GRADUATE GROUP IN PLANT BIOLOGY Administrative Home: Division of Biological Sciences Revision Date: July 2004 Previous Revision Date: August

More information

STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT BROOKLYN (Downstate Medical Center)

STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT BROOKLYN (Downstate Medical Center) STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT BROOKLYN (Downstate Medical Center) COLLEGE OF HEALTH RELATED PROFESSIONS FACULTY AND PROFESSIONAL STAFF ASSEMBLY BYLAWS PREAMBLE In keeping with the

More information

CANDIDACY FOR ACCREDITATION

CANDIDACY FOR ACCREDITATION CANDIDACY FOR ACCREDITATION The Meaning of Candidacy The Candidate for Accreditation program offers certain postsecondary institutions the opportunity to establish a formal, publicly recognized relationship

More information

SCHOOL OF NURSING BYLAWS

SCHOOL OF NURSING BYLAWS SCHOOL OF NURSING BYLAWS ARTICLE I ORGANIZATION OF THE SCHOOL OF NURSING Section 1 - Composition of the School The School of Nursing, hereafter referred to as "the School" is an integral part of the Faculty

More information

CENTRE FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION

CENTRE FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION CENTRE FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION English as a Second Language Program (ESL) Criteria Document for Tenured, Tenure-Track and Term Instructors Appointments, Evaluations, Performance Reviews, Criteria for

More information