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 ( ): 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 ( ). 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