PROCEDURE FOR THE PERIODIC REVIEW OF UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS

Transcription

1 Vice-President (Academic) & Provost PROCEDURE FOR THE PERIODIC REVIEW OF UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS Revised April 2013 umanitoba.ca

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Introduction B. Overview of Review Process C. Stage 1: Self-Evaluation 1. Self-Evaluation Report Guidelines 2. Nomination of Reviewers D. Stage 2: External Review 1. Appointment of Review Committee 2. Site Visit 3. Expectations of the Review Committee 4. External Review Report E. Stage 3: Responses to Review 1. Response from Unit Head 2. Response from Dean s Office 3. Submission of Report F. Stage 4: Assessment by Office of the Vice-President (Academic) & Provost 1. Assessment 2. Senate Committee on Academic Review (SCAR) 3. Follow-up Appendices A. Checklist for Administrators B. Self-Evaluation Template a. Table 1: Sample Program Listing b. Table 2: Faculty Data c. Table 3: Coursework by Instructor d. Table 4: Enrolment Trends over the Past Five Years e. Table 5: Grade Distributions f. Appendix B: Faculty Data Form C. Reviewer Nomination Form D. Site Visit Sample Itinerary E. External Review Summary Form F. Unit Response Summary Form

3 A. Introduction In response to a University of Manitoba Task Force on Strategic Planning (February 1998) a set of evaluative criteria for assessing existing academic programs, and a process to review all academic programs was devised with the goal to maintain the academic integrity of academic programs at the University of Manitoba. Senate initially approved the document outlining the criteria and the process in May 2000, encapsulated in the policy and procedures governing Academic Program Reviews. In 2005, Senate approved a revised Academic Program Reviews Policy and related procedures. The 2005 documents remain current. Tertiary education is replete with evaluations. Academic staff are evaluated for promotion and tenure and, in many institutions; students are evaluated for admission, performance on comprehensive examinations, and degree completion; courses are evaluated as they are added to the curriculum; and facilities and financial resources are scrutinized annually in the budgeting process. However, program review provides the only comprehensive evaluation of an entire academic program, integrating all of the elements that contribute to its success. While it is true that the reviews conducted by professional licensing or accrediting associations are also comprehensive in scope, they have specific goals, which may or may not coincide with those of the institution. Accreditation reviews generally focus on the standards required for entry to practice. They do not necessarily embrace the broader academic perspective and/or consider recommendations for change in program s direction that might come out of a program review. Notwithstanding, in those cases where academic programs are subject to reviews by external accreditation bodies, such accreditation reviews shall be considered as equivalent to reviews undertaken under the aegis of the University of Manitoba policy on Academic Program Reviews, unless the Provost determines otherwise. Our programs at the University of Manitoba are dynamic; they change constantly as faculty come and go, the student applicant pool increases or declines, degree requirements change, and academic disciplines evolve. Although degree programs are reviewed carefully when they are first proposed, once approved they may never be evaluated again. While over scrutiny is unhealthy for any program, thorough periodic reviews ensure that academic programs maintain academic excellence and live up to their original goals as well as identifying key areas that should be strengthened. Such reviews will also identify programs that should be reinforced, downsized, or if necessary eliminated.

4 B. Overview of Review Process Each undergraduate program shall be reviewed at least once every ten (10) years on a schedule set by the Office of the Vice-President (Academic) and Provost, in consultation with the President. In establishing these schedules, every effort will be made to co-ordinate program reviews with accreditation reviews. The academic unit (the unit) delivering the program to be reviewed, in collaboration with the Undergraduate Program Analyst in the Office of the Vice-President (Academic) & Provost, shall collect the pertinent data as described in the following sections of this document. The process for each academic program review shall consist of the following elements: a) the preparation of a Self-Evaluation Report by the unit delivering the program being reviewed; b) an external peer assessment of the report and the academic program being reviewed; c) an opportunity for the unit delivering the program, and the Dean/Director of the unit in question to respond to the external assessment; d) an assessment by the Vice-President (Academic) and Provost respecting the academic review results. Submission of reports: As the respective reports become available, the relevant Dean/Director shall forward electronic copies to the Office of the Vice-President (Academic) and Provost, via the Vice- Provost (Academic Planning and Programs). Programs: Programs may be defined as any set of articulated and integrated courses and/or other learning activities prescribed as requirements for attaining a particular degree. For the sake of the undergraduate program review process, programs will be clustered together and reviewed at the Departmental/unit level. In the case of joint-programs, double honours/majors or majors taught by one faculty and offered within another, the respective teaching units will be responsible for reviewing their portion of the program during the review process. The review process should take approximately twelve to eighteen months depending on the circumstances of each review. Each of the main elements described above can be tied to a corresponding stage within the process. Each stage is summarized in Figure 1 below, with details noted in the corresponding sections of this document. Note: to facilitate the review process, please refer to the Checklist for Administrators (Appendix A).

5 Figure 1. Stages of Undergraduate Program Review Stages of Undergraduate Program Review Initiate Review Process Submission of Self-Evaluation Report External Review Report Received Responses Submitted to Vice-Provost Site Visit Unit Head Response Stage 1: Self- Evaluation Stage 2: External Review Stage 3: Responses Stage 4: VPA Approximately 9 months Prepare Self-Evaluation Report Gather statistical data with help from OIA, RO and VP (Academic) & Provost Nominate potential reviewers Approximately 4 months Identify review committee Arrange Site Visit Meet with Review Committee Prepare Review Report. Approximately 4 months Prepare responses from unit head Prepare responses from Dean/Director. Assessment by VP (Academic) & Provost Summary report to Senate Committee on Academic Review Follow-up

6 C. Self-Evaluation & Reviewer Nomination, Stage 1 Initiate Review Process Submission of Self-Evaluation Report Stage 1: Self- Evaluation Approximately 9 months Prepare and submit the Self-Evaluation Report to Dean/Director, with a copy to be forwarded to the Office of the Vice President (Academic) & Provost Gather statistical data with help from OIA, RO and VP (Academic) & Provost Nominate potential reviewers In consultation with the departmental council, or an equivalent body in cases where the program is not offered by a department, the unit head shall prepare a Self-Evaluation Report. This report shall be submitted by the unit within nine months of a request from the relevant Dean/Director to whom the unit reports and within twelve months of the Office of the Vice-President (Academic) & Provost initiating the review. During this period the unit head, in consultation with members of the unit, will also nominate potential reviewers for the external review see Section C2. 1. Self-Evaluation Report (SER) Guidelines In consultation with his/her colleagues, the unit head shall prepare a Self-Evaluation Report addressing the following issues, as appropriate. An Executive Summary is also required. It is strongly encouraged that the unit preview the document with the respective Dean/Director s office prior to releasing it for external review. A template of the report format can be found under Appendix B. 1.1 Program Description Clearly state the objective of the program List the areas of specialties offered within the program Highlight novel or innovative features within the program Indicate the extent to which the program responds to current or future needs of Manitoba and/or Canada Indicate the extent to which the program operates in collaboration with other academic programs at the University of Manitoba Indicate the extent to which the program enhances co-operation among Manitoba s post-secondary institutions Indicate the extent to which the program enhances the national and/or international reputation of the University of Manitoba.

7 1.1.8 Identify the particular strengths of the program. For example, this program is known for its strength in areas A, B, and C within the discipline. Provide evidence Indicate the extent to which the program compliments and strengthens other programs at the University of Manitoba Describe the program under the following headings. (a) Admission requirements (b) Course requirements (c) Evaluation procedures (d) Thesis, practicum or comprehensive procedures and regulations (where applicable) (e) Transferability of course credits from other post-secondary institutions Provide a sample program listing for a typical student in the program, and a timeline for completion of his/her studies leading to completion of the program. Please refer to Table 1 in the Self-Evaluation Template. 1.2 Human Resources Academic appointments: using Table 2 in the Self-Evaluation Template (Appendix B), please list all academic staff members (including adjuncts) associated with the program, indicating specialization, academic rank and tenure status. This information may be supplemented by providing the Review Committee with access to faculty CV s, or alternatively, the sample Faculty Data Form (Appendix B in the Self-Evaluation Template) and should be attached as an appendix to the report. Where supplemental data are provided: (a) Members of the Review Committee should be advised in writing of the provisions of Article 37 of the UM-UMFA Collective Agreement , specifically Article 37.1; (b) Faculty would be requested to provide a copy of their current CV (or completion of a Faculty Data Form) for the purposes of addressing the requirements in C.1.1 (Program Description see above), and informed that the Review Committee has been advised about the appropriate use of such information, pursuant to Article Courses taught: for each of the past five (5) years. Using Table 3 in the Self- Evaluation Template (Appendix B), list the courses taught 1 within this program (by year and term), the number of students registered in each course, together with the name and status of the instructor of each course (e.g. tenured or probationary, graduate student, non-student stipendiary appointee, etc.) See also below Staff retirements: indicate probable academic staff retirements over the next five (5) years. Discuss how these may affect the program, and what plans are in in place to maintain the quality of the program following the retirements Support staff: indicate the role or participation in the program, if any, of clerical or technical support staff in the delivery or administration of the program. It would be useful to indicate position description, gender and fte status where possible. 1 Source Registrar`s Office

8 1.2.5 External support: indicate the participation in the program, if any, of individuals or groups external to the University of Manitoba, and indicate the rationale for their participation. List the credentials for each individual/group supporting their involvement. 1.3 Physical Resources Space: Describe the physical space in which students pursue this program of study/research. Include description of student offices, study carrels, study/reading rooms, rooms with computer facilities, laboratory space, and other teaching, research or study space as appropriate for this program Equipment: Describe available and anticipated equipment in the following categories: a) Teaching: Instructional equipment used in delivery of courses/seminars in the program (e.g., video projectors, data projectors, other computer assisted instructional equipment). b) Research: Major research equipment accessible to undergraduate students in the program, and plans to upgrade this equipment during the next five years Computer Resources: Describe facilities available to students in this program (desktop machines, laptops, scanners, printers, etc.), access to open computer areas, and the like Library Resources: a) Evaluate existing resources available for use in this program. b) Evaluate pertinent resources added within the last five years. c) Evaluate pertinent new resources anticipated in the next five years. d) Evaluate services available to the program. 1.4 Students Using Table 4 in the Self-Evaluation Template (Appendix B), provide data on enrolment and degrees granted by this program 2 over each of the past five years, under the following headings: a) Full time b) Part time c) Male d) Female Courses Taught: Program may benefit by collating the following for each of the past five years. Using Table 5 in the Self-Evaluation Template (Appendix B) list the courses taught (by year and semester) 3 within this program; provide the credit hours, the number of students registered in, and grade distributions (including VWs) for each course. Please indicate whether the course is new within the last five years. See also (above). 2 Source OIA, see 3 Source Registrar s Office

9 1.4.3 Describe national and/or international awards won by students in this program over the past five years Provide projections of enrolment in this program over the next five years, and discuss the factors which are thought to be most important in this regard. 1.5 Additional Materials While not required, it would be useful to provide some additional information to help the reviewers in their assessment. Some examples may include: Faculty or School strategic frameworks that address the role of the program(s) within the short-and long term plans of the Faculty Indigenous programming in respect to the University s strategic planning framework Additional metrics on teaching and enrollment (e.g. teaching loads by academic staff, undergraduate credit hours taught in the program,etc.) Data on student outcomes (changes to grade profiles, voluntary withdrawal numbers) Additional information on faculty and academic staff (e.g. information on teaching and supervision at the graduate level, research/administrative duties that may impact teaching loads of faculty and a demographic overview of academic appointments within the unit). If there are any questions regarding the above or any other material you would like to incorporate into the Self-Evaluation Report, please contact the Undergraduate Program Analyst for further information. NOTE: Units undergoing a program review are reminded that historical course data is required for a maximum of five years. Data on course enrolments and grade distributions (including VW s) for that period can be requested from the Registrar s Office. As well, student statistics targeted for use in the program review process are available (in PDF and Excel spreadsheet format) within the Office of Institutional Analysis website: see 2. Nomination of External Reviewers A review committee is required for every academic program review. The review committee shall consist of: (i) (ii) Two external examiners, and An internal review from a cognate discipline within the University of Manitoba. The review committee shall be chosen by the relevant Dean/Director from a list of nominations submitted by the unit head. The unit head, after consultation with members of the unit, will provide the Dean/Director with a list of five (5) potential external reviewers and three (3) potential internal (to the University of Manitoba)

10 reviewers from an area not connected to the unit. Please be advised that the unit head is not to approach potential reviewers. The relevant Dean/Director will select and contact the reviewers from the list provided by the unit. The following information should be supplied to the Dean/Director for each nominee, taken from personal knowledge or biographical sources see also Reviewer Nomination Form (Appendix C): 2.1 Name of Proposed Advisor 2.2 Academic Rank 2.3 University Affiliation (include contact numbers) 2.4 Year of Conferral University Discipline Degree 2.5 Area (s) of specialization within discipline 2.6 Experience/expertise relevant to service as a program reviewer (e.g. external reviewer of other academic programs, academic administrative experience, etc.) 2.7 Recent scholarly activity (e.g. recent publications, research grants, etc.) 2.8 Previous affiliation with the University of Manitoba, if any (e.g. as a student, employee, extensive collaboration with current academic staff, visiting professor, etc.)

11 D. External Review, Stage 2 Self-Evaluation Report Submitted Site Visit External Review Received Stage 2: External Review 12 weeks Approximately 4 months. Identify review committee Arrange Site Visit Meet with Review Committee Prepare Review Report 1. Appointment of External Reviewers From the list of nominees provided by the unit head (see C.2), the Dean/Director shall identify the external review committee and invite them to participate in the review and corresponding site visit. The committee shall consist of two (2) external reviewers and one (1) internal reviewer (University of Manitoba) from a cognate discipline, not connected to the unit under review. Once the external review team has been identified, the unit head, in collaboration with the relevant Dean/Director, will be responsible for organizing a two (2) day site visit 4 of the unit under review see section D.2 for more information on the visit. At the same time, the relevant Dean/Director shall provide the members of the Review Committee and the Vice-Provost (Academic Programs and Planning) electronic copies of the Self-Evaluation Report. 2. Site Visit The unit head, in collaboration with the relevant Dean/Director, will be responsible for organizing a twoday site visit of the program. This includes aiding in the following: 2.1 Booking airfare and accommodations. 2.2 Providing additional information as requested by the reviewers prior to, during, or following the site visit. 4 Normally, an adequate amount of time for the site visit is one and a half days; therefore, a return flight may be scheduled during the evening of the second day.

12 2.3 Co-ordinating an appropriate itinerary for the site visit, including an exit interview with the Vice-President (Academic) and Provost or delegate, at the end of the site visit (please refer to Appendix D for a sample itinerary). 2.4 Arrange discussions with faculty members and students in the program. 2.5 Arrange for an opportunity to consider the matter of program resources, particularly those associated with the library and study space for students. The budget for each site visit will be approximately $6, The Dean of the Faculty will be responsible for arranging reviews and ensuring costs are reasonable. Each external reviewer will receive an honorarium of $1,000.00, which will be paid for by the faculty and reimbursed by the Vice-Provost (Academic Planning & Programs). The Faculty will be reimbursed by the Vice-Provost (Academic Planning & Programs) reasonable costs associated with the review; for airfare, accommodations and meals. Once the review has been completed the faculty will submit copies of invoices to the Budget Officer in the Provost s Office for reimbursement. Budget adjustment will be done to reimburse faculty for related expenditures once they appear on the revenue and expenditures statement. Should expenditures be deemed to be unreasonable by the Vice-Provost (Academic Planning & Programs) they will not be reimbursed and will become the responsibility of the faculty. 3. Expectations of the Review Committee 3.1 Site visits shall take place within twelve (12) weeks of the unit head s submission of the Self- Evaluation report to the relevant Dean/Director. 3.2 The Review Committee shall meet as a committee to conduct the site visit. 3.3 The site visit shall be conducted over no less than one full day and no more than two full days. 3.4 The Review Committee shall assess the program in accordance with section D.4 (External Review Report) below. 3.5 The Review Committee shall meet with the relevant Dean/Director, the unit head, academic and support staff associated with the program, and students of the program. The Review committee will also meet with the Vice-President (Academic) and Provost, or delegate. 3.6 The Review Committee shall submit the External Review Report to the relevant Dean/Director within four (4) weeks of the site visit. 3.7 Site visit expenses (travel, meals, lodging) paid by the Review Committee shall be reimbursed as soon as possible following completion of the site visit, and an agreed upon honorarium will be paid upon receipt of the External Report by the relevant Dean/Director.

13 4. External Review Report Upon consideration of the Self-Evaluation Report and following the site visit, the Review Committee shall submit a report to the relevant Dean/Director that contains an overall assessment of the program(s) under review, and provides recommendations for program improvement. The Review Committee is to assess the quality of the academic program and to comment on the program in relation to the stated strategic direction of the unit and the relevant Faculty/School. In writing the External Review Report, the Review Committee may be guided by the following headings although not be restricted to them. It is requested that the committee conclude its report by classifying the program into one of the categories stated below, and to provide justification for the category allocated. The Review Committee must articulate clear recommendations and/or priorities of choice where appropriate to do so. In addition to consideration of the below, please complete and attach the External Review Summary Form (Appendix E) along with report. 4.1 Recommended Headings for External Review Report Strategic importance of the program(s) in relation to the strategic directions of the relevant Faculty/School and the University as a whole Comparisons with related programs with which the review committee is familiar Quality of undergraduate student advising Quality of students Critical mass and appropriate mix of students, where possible Times(s) to completion of degree program by students, where possible Excellence of academic staff and breadth of experience. Is the workload appropriate? Adequacy of facilities, space and other resources Strengths and weaknesses of the program(s). Are there areas of weakness which if corrected could improve the contribution of the department to the University and the discipline? What strategies might be adopted to improve the Department s effectiveness in its various roles? Extent to which program(s) objectives are met. Is the curriculum appropriate at the various levels? Are the courses appropriate and is the delivery satisfactory? Are there changes to programs or courses that should be entertained? Suggestions and recommendations for improvements in the program(s). In the external report, the Review Committee shall classify the program in one of the following categories: 1. Adequate, continue as is. 2. Adequate, with minor revisions. 3. Inadequate, requiring major revisions or restructuring. Note: Upon receipt of the External Review Report to the relevant Dean/Director, electronic copies should be forwarded to the unit head and the Vice-Provost (Academic Programs and Planning).

14 E. Responses to Review, Stage 3 External Review Received Stage 3: Responses Unit Head Response 12 weeks Responses Submitted to Vice-Provost Approximately 4 months Prepare responses from unit head Prepare responses from Dean/Director 1. Response from Unit Head Upon receipt of the External Review Report, the relevant Dean/Director shall request the unit head, in consultation with the unit, to prepare a response addressing any/all recommendations arising from the review. The report should include a plan for revising/restructuring the program, as needed, along with a timeline for implementation and completion, and any budgetary implications. Please refer to the Unit Response Summary Form (Appendix F) for an example on how to address the recommendations of the external review report. The unit s response should be submitted to the Dean within three (3) months of receipt of the External Review Report, with a view to implementation of any recommendations within six (6) months. 2. Response from Dean/Director s Office Within one (1) month of receipt of the unit s response, the Dean/Director shall submit to the Vice- President (Academic) and Provost, via the Vice-Provost (Academic Planning and Programs), copies of the unit s response, along with a review of the unit s plan.

15 G. Assessment by Office of the Vice-President (Academic) and Provost, Stage 4 Responses Submitted to Vice-Provost Stage 4: Assessment by Vice-President (Academic) and Provost Assessment by VP (Academic) & Provost Summary report to SCAR Follow-up 1. Assessment of Review Following receipt of the reports, the Vice-Provost (Academic Programs and Planning) may invite the relevant Dean/Director, and the unit head, to discuss the review prior to preparing a report to the Provost, and the Senate Committee on Academic Review (SCAR). The Vice-President (Academic) and Provost shall provide a written assessment of each academic review to SCAR. 2. Senate Committee on Academic Review (SCAR) 5 Following completion of an academic review, SCAR may comment or recommend to the Vice-President (Academic) and Provost, on: (a) how well the academic unit s mission statement and its teaching, research and community service relate to the University s mission, emerging knowledge areas in related disciplines and societal needs; (b) the progress that the academic unit has made since the previous review of the academic unit or relevant academic program; and (c) the overall quality and plans on the academic unit for academic programs. SCAR shall report annually to Senate on the status of academic program reviews. 5 For governing documents for SCAR, please visit

16 3. Follow-up Within one year of receipt of the responses from the relevant Dean/Director, the Vice-President (Academic) and Provost may contact the unit and request a report outlining the unit s progress on implementing its plan. If the plan has not been fully implemented, further reports of the unit may be required.

17 Appendix A: Administrative Checklist Undergraduate Academic Program Review Stage 1: Self-Evaluation Report Task Office Responsible Due Preparation of Self-Evaluation Report (approximately 9 months following review initiation; refer to Section C for details) Review of Self-Evaluation Report (prior to selection of external reviewers) Forward Self-Evaluation Report to Vice-Provost Nomination of external reviewers (refer to Section C for details) Selection of and contact of external reviewers (refer to Section C for details) Department/Unit Dean/Director Dean/Director Department/Unit Dean/Director Stage 2: External Review Task Office Responsible Due Selection of Reviewers and scheduling of Site Visit (Site Visit should occur 12 weeks after submission of Self-Evaluation Report to Dean/Director) Provide Self-Evaluation Report to external review team Co-ordinating site visit and appropriate itinerary (including help with booking airfare and accommodations; please refer to sample itinerary found in Appendix E) Arranging discussions with faculty members and students Reimbursement of costs for site visit (following site visit) Reminder regarding external report submission (**if required**; report should be submitted approximately 4 weeks following the site visit) Payment of Honorarium (following receipt of external report) Submission of External Report to Department/Unit and Vice- Provost Budget adjustments for reimbursements and honorariums. Institutional thank-you to examiners for participation in review. Dean/Director Dean/Director Dean/Director and Department/Unit Department/Unit Dean/Director Dean/Director Dean/Director Dean/Director Vice-Provost (APP) Vice-Provost (APP)

18 Stage 3: Responses to Review Task Office Responsible Due Response to recommendations of external review report (refer to Section E for details) Submission of Unit Response to Dean/Director Vice-Provost (to be submitted within 3 months of receipt of the external review report) Dean/Director s review of Unit Response as well as comments from a Faculty/School perspective (refer to Section E for details) Submission of Dean/Director s Response to Vice-Provost (to be submitted within 1 month of receipt of the external review report) Department/Unit Department/Unit Dean/Director Dean/Director Stage 4: Assessment by Office of the Vice-President (Academic) & Provost Task Office Responsible Due Meeting to discuss results of the review (the Vice-Provost s office may request a meeting to discuss the results with the unit head and Dean/Director) Written assessment of each Academic Review for submission to Senate Committee on Academic Review (SCAR) Follow-up on recommendations arising from review (the Vice- Provost may request a follow-up report on the status of any recommendations resulting from the review; this will usually be within one year of receipt of the responses to the review) Vice-Provost (APP) Vice-Provost (APP) Dean/Director and Department/Unit

19 Appendix B: Self-Evaluation Template ***Please modify the below to fit the individual needs of the programs as seen fit. *** Please refer to the below for a standard outline that may be used in compiling the Self-Evaluation Report for an undergraduate academic program review. The outline consists of the following: a) Title Page b) Table of Contents (see further instructions below) c) Headings and Sub-Headings d) Table 1: Sample Program Listing e) Table 2: Faculty Data f) Table 3: Coursework by Instructor g) Table 4: Enrolment Trends Over the Past Five Years h) Table 5: Grade Distributions i) List of appendices. j) Faculty Data Form Table of Contents: An automated Table of Contents has been set up based on the proposed headings. To auto update the content of the Table of Contents (e.g. for changes in headings or page numbers), double click anywhere on the Table of Contents. This will open the Table of Contents box. Select Update Table on the upper left hand of the box and follow the prompts. If adding headings or sub-headings to your template, highlight the text and assign it a Style as Heading 1, Heading 2 or Heading 3 (as appropriate). Follow the instructions to update the Table of Contents and your new (sub) headings should be reflected in the table accordingly. Should you have any questions regarding the Self-Evaluation Report or template, please contact Cassandra Davidson, Undergraduate Program Analyst, at [email protected] or at

20 {Faculty/School} {Department/Unit(s)} Undergraduate Academic Program Review Date (Month Day, Year) Prepared by: {List of Authors / contributors} umanitoba.ca

21 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary Overview Program Description Program Strengths Academic Collaboration Reputation Program Structure Table 1: Sample Program Listing Human Resources Academic Staff Table 2: Faculty Data Courses Taught Table 3: Coursework by Instructor Support Staff External Support Physical Resources Space Equipment Computer Resources Library Resources Students Student Body Enrolment Trends Table 4: Enrolment Trends over the Past Five Years Table 5: Grade Distributions Conclusion

22 Appendices A. Academic Calendar B. Faculty Data C. Library Report D. Student Data E. Procedure for the Periodic Review of Undergraduate Programs

23 Executive Summary Please provide a summary of your program and the main points of the report on this page. Please highlight any perceived strengths or weaknesses of the program.

24 Overview Program Description In this section: -describe the program(s) overall -state the objective of the program(s) -highlight any novel or innovative features of the program(s) -discuss how the program(s) responds to current and future needs of Manitoba and/or Canada. Program Strengths Identify the particular strengths of the program. For example, this program is known for its strength in areas A, B and C within the discipline. Provide evidence. Academic Collaboration Discuss how the program(s) collaborates and compliments or strengthens other programs internal to the University of Manitoba; Manitoba s other post-secondary institutions as well as any other national or international institutions. Reputation Indicate the extent to which the program(s) enhance the national and/or international reputation of the University of Manitoba. Program Structure Describe the program under the following headings. Append a copy of the relevant section of the latest Academic Calendar as Appendix A (found at Admission Requirements Course Requirements

25 Evaluation Procedures Thesis, Practicum or Comprehensive Procedures and Regulations (IF APPLICABLE) Transferability of Course Credits from other Post-Secondary Institutions Sample Program Listing Provide a sample program listing for a typical student as well as a timeline for completion of studies. Table 1: Sample Program Listing Year Coursework Required/Elective Other 1 CRSE IXXX Required CRSE 1XXX Elective 18 credit hours of electives outside program 2 CRSE 2XXX Required CRSE 2XXX Elective 3 CRSE 3XXX CRSE 3XXX CRSE 3XXX CRSE 3XXX Fieldwork 4 CRSE 4XXX Required Honours Thesis CRSE 4XXX Required

26 Human Resources Academic Staff Provide a general overview of the Faculty appointments within the program(s). Please complete Table 2 below for each academic appointment, including adjuncts. This information may be supplemented by providing the Review Committee with access to faculty CV s or alternatively the Faculty Data Forms (see Appendix B below). If additional information is provided, please attach as an appendix to the report. Table 2: Faculty Data Faculty Member Rank 1 (y/n) Tenure Specialization Smith, Jane Professor Y Medical Anthropology Li, Xiang Assoc. Professor N Ethnobotany Doe, Jonathan Adjunct N Pre-historic Archaeology 1 Please sort faculty list by rank Emeritus, Professor, Assoc. Professor, Asst. Professor, Adjunct, Other (identify status) Courses Taught Outline the number of undergraduate courses taught on a yearly basis and explain how course load is distributed among the academic staff. Complete Table 3 below for the last five (5) years, listing courses taught within the program (by year and term), and the number of students registered in each course along with the name and status of the instructor for each course (e.g. tenured or probationary, graduate student, on-student stipendiary appointment, etc.). Contact the Registrar s Office for this data.

27 Table 3: Coursework by Instructor Course (Number/Listing) Year/Term Registered Students Instructor Instructor Status ANTH 1XXX 2012/Fall 47 Doe, Jonathan Adjunct Professor ANTH 2XXX 2012/Fall 23 Li, Xiang Assoc. Professor ANTH 4XXX 2013/Winter 12 Smith, Jane Professor Please indicate whether there are any expected academic staff retirements over the next five (5) years, how these retirements may affect the program, and what plans are in place to maintain the quality of the program following the retirement(s). Support Staff Indicate the role or participation in the program(s), if any, of clerical or technical support staff in the delivery or administration of the program. It would be useful to indicate the position description, gender and FTE status where possible. External Support Indicate the participation in the program, if any, of individuals or groups external to the University of Manitoba, and indicate the rational for their participation. List the credentials for each individual/group supporting their involvement.

28 Physical Resources Space Describe the physical space in which students pursue this program of study/research. Where applicable, include descriptions of student offices, study carrels, study/reading rooms, rooms with computer facilities, laboratory space and other teach, research, or study space. Equipment Describe available and anticipated equipment in the following two categories: Teaching Equipment Describe any instructional equipment used in the delivery of courses/seminars in the program (e.g. video projectors, data projectors, other computer assisted instructional equipment). Research Equipment Major research equipment accessible to undergraduate students in the program and any plans to update the equipment over the next five years. Computer Resources Outline facilities available to students in this program (desktop machines, laptops, scanners, printers, etc.), access to open computer areas and the like. Library Resources Please contact the Library Bibliographer in your area to coordinate this part of the self-study report. In order to guarantee an accurate assessment of your program s library resources, it is important that the library is made aware of the areas/fields in which your program currently specializes and/or plans to specialize in the future. a) Evaluate existing resources available for use in the program b) Evaluate pertinent resources added within the last 5 years c) Evaluate pertinent new resources anticipated in the next 5 years d) Evaluate services available to the program Once you have received the library assessment (attach as Appendix C), please address any concerns or issues raised in the assessment (e.g., lack of resources or types of holdings, etc.).

29 Students In this section, please summarize data on student body and enrolment trends. Please remember that historical course data is required for a maximum of five years. Data and course enrolments and grade distribution (including VW s) for that period can be requested from the Registrar s Office. As well, student statistics targeted for use in the program review process are available (in PDF and Excel Spreadsheet format) from the Office of Institutional Analysis: Please attach the raw data provided by the RO and OIA as appendices to this report. Student Body Make-Up For the past five years, please summarize the make-up of your student body in terms of full-time vs. part time and male vs. female. This information can be found on the OIA website above. Where possible, comment on the student-body make-up in terms of origin (e.g. province of origin, Canadian vs. international, etc.). Please contact OIA for further information on student demographics and origins. Any data collected should be appended to this report. Awards/Honours Describe national/and or international awards, or any other distinctions, won by students in this program over the last five years. Enrolment Trends Comment on any trends in enrolment over the last five years. Please contact the Registrar s Office for grade distribution and enrolment reports for the requested period. Any data collected should be appended to this report. Information on enrolment, FT/PT status, gender and number of degrees conferred can be found on the OIA website. You may wish to complete Table 4 below to provide an overall picture of enrolment over the last five years. Table 4: Enrolment Trends over the Past Five Years Year Term Degree/Program Registered Students Full- Time Part- Time Male Female No. of Degrees Conferred

30 The program may benefit by collating the following for each of the past five years. Using Table 5, list the courses taught, provide the number of credit hours, number of students and grade distributions (including VW s) for each course. Comment on any trends or concerns raised within the data. Table 5: Grade Distributions Course (Number/Listing) Year/Term Hours No of Students Grade Distribution +A A +B B +C C D F VW New Y/N 1 ANTH 1XXX 2012/Fall N ANTH 2XXX 2012/Fall N ANTH 4XXX 2013/Winter Y 1 Please indicate whether the course is new within the last five years. Provide projections of enrolment in this program over the next five years and discuss the factors which are thought to be most important in this regard.

31 Conclusion Provide a brief summary of the results of the review. It may be helpful to outline any plans the program may have in place going forward.

32 Appendices A. Academic Calendar Append a copy of the relevant section of the latest Academic Calendar (found at

33 B. Faculty Data Append copies of faculty CV s or the alternate Faculty Data Form below. Faculty Data Form Name Academic rank Appointment Type Teaching areas The following information may be reported on for the past 5 years only Academic Experience (e.g. Headships, Graduate Chair experience, etc.) Teaching (e.g. credit hours, level of coursework) Graduate Supervision (if applicable) Professional Experience Research Experience Academic / University Service (e.g. Senator) Publications Presentations Visiting Critic and Lectures Recognition / Awards

34 C. Library Report Please append the assessment report provided by the libraries.

35 D. Student Data Append any student data collected from OIA and the RO.

36 E. Procedure for the Periodic Review of Undergraduate Programs Insert Procedures for the Periodic Review of Undergraduate Programs

37 Appendix C: Reviewer Nomination Form The unit head, after consultation with members of the unit will provide the Dean/Director with a list of five (5) potential external reviewers and three (3) internal reviewers. Please complete the form below for each proposed external examiner. Undergraduate Academic Program Review: Reviewer Nomination Name of Proposed Advisor Academic Rank University Affiliation (include contact information) Degree (s) Institution Discipline Year Conferred Area(s) of specialization within the discipline Relevant experience/expertise to service as a program reviewer (e.g. external reviewer of other academic programs, academic administrative experience, etc.) Recent scholarly activity (e.g. recent publications, research grants, etc.) Previous affiliation with the University of Manitoba, if any (e.g. as a student, employee, extensive collaboration with current academic staff, visiting professor, etc.)

38 Appendix D: Sample Itinerary Please find below a sample itinerary for an external review site visit. Please contact Travel Services if you have any questions regarding accommodations, air travel, per diem or any other travel concerns. Required Meetings: Program Head, Dean / Associate Dean, Faculty members, Support Staff, Undergraduate Students, Vice-Provost (Academic Planning and Programs) Other suggested meetings (time permitted): Libraries, Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (or equivalent), Area Heads, dinner meeting, etc. Note: it is recommended that time is set aside for the review team to work on the report while on site. Undergraduate Academic Program Review Site Visit {UNIT NAME} {Date of Visit} {Name of External Reviewer} {Name of External Reviewer} Arrival at James Richardson International Airport p.m., Flight#, {Airline} Arrival at James Richardson International Airport p.m., Flight#, {Airline} External members of the Review Committee will be staying at the {Hotel Name, address and contact information} 1. NOTE: External members of the Review Committee are expected to take a cab to and from the airport and hotel, unless notified of alternate arrangements. Day 1 {Date Here} 10:00-10:30 Meet with Dr., Head, LOCATION HERE 10:30-10:45 Coffee break, LOCATION HERE 10:45-11:15 Meet with support staff, LOCATION HERE 11:15-12:00 Time reserved for Committee for report preparation, LOCATION HERE Lunch, LOCATION HERE 12:00-1:30 Attendees: Members (3) of the Review Committee, (3) department members 1:30-2:00 Report preparation, LOCATION HERE; time permitting, brief unit / campus tour. 2:00-3:30 Meet with students, LOCATION HERE

39 Day 2 {Date Here} 8:30 Arrive at the University. (NOTE: External members will not be returning to the hotel on this day. Luggage is to be brought to the university and will be held in the department until the site visit is concluded.) 9:00-10:00 Meet with department members, LOCATION HERE 10:00 11:00 Meet with {insert name}associate Dean, LOCATION HERE 11:00 12:00 Report preparation time, LOCATION HERE 12:00-1:30 Lunch at LOCATION HERE for (3) Review Committee Members 1:45-2:15 Meet with Support Staff, LOCATION HERE 2:15-3:30 Report preparation time, LOCATION HERE 3:30-4:30 Meet with Dr. David Collins, Vice-Provost (Academic Planning and Programs), 208 Administration Bldg.; note to unit to confirm time with Paula Chorney. External committee members return to the department to collect luggage before proceeding to James Richardson International Airport. 4:30- Dr. - Flight Airline Here departing for at p.m. Dr. Flight Airline Here departing for at p.m. 1. Please refer to Travel Services for more information on accommodations (

40 Appendix E: External Review Summary Form Please complete and attach the summary form below in the external review report. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding the report or the content there within, please contact Cassandra Davidson, Undergraduate Program Analyst, at Undergraduate Academic Program Review: External Review Summary {Department Name} {Degree Programs Reviewed} Review Team Date Date of Site Visit Overall Rating of Review 1. Adequate, Continue As Is 2. Adequate, with minor revisions 3. Inadequate, requiring major revisions or restructuring. Identified Key Strengths Identified Key Weaknesses

41 Appendix F: Unit Response Summary Table Please complete the summary table below in the unit s response to the external review report. Review Recommendation Unit Response (e.g. Agree, Agree with reservations, Disagree) Unit Comments Timeline to implementation (if applicable)