Academic: Review and Approval of Academic Programs



Similar documents
Donna Woolcott, PhD Executive Director, Quality Assurance

Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance

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

Quality Assurance Framework

University of Toronto Quality Assurance Process (UTQAP)

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

University of Guelph

Institutional Quality Assurance Process. University of Ottawa

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

Institutional Quality Assurance Process

YORK UNIVERSITY QUALITY ASSURANCE PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES (YUQAP)

Institutional Quality Assurance Process (IQAP)

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

Policies, Procedures and Guidelines

INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE POLICY

UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE FRAMEWORK

Cyclical Program Review Handbook

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

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

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

FINAL ASSESSMENT REPORT Institutional Quality Assurance Program (IQAP) Review. Classics

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

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

The University of North Texas at Dallas Policy Manual

GRADUATE PROGRAMS: APPROVAL OF NEW PROGRAMS AND PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS

FINAL REPORT ON THE QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDIT OF BROCK UNIVERSITY

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Office of Academic Personnel Academic Personnel Manual (APM) Policy Development Process Guide

Queen s University Quality Assurance Processes

SENATE COMMITTEES AND SUBCOMMITTEES TERMS OF REFERENCE AND COMPOSITION

How to Change Approved Fields Within a MBA Program

DESIGNING OUR FUTURE

S TANDARDS R EQUIREMENTS. for Accreditation. of Affiliation. and. Middle States Commission on Higher Education THIRTEENTH EDITION

Fall Summer W e s t e r n C o n n e c t i c u t S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y

North Orange County Community College District ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES Chapter 4 Academic Affairs AP 4020 Program and Curriculum Development

University of Richmond

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

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

Pratt Institute Academic Initiative Proposal Guidelines

HIM Master s Degree. Standards and Interpretations for Accreditation of Master s Degree Programs in Health Information Management

Social Work (BSW, MSW and Ph.D.)

University of California Regents Policy 7702 Senior Management Group Performance Management Review Process

3. PROTOCOLS FOR EXPEDITED APPROVALS

Date Submitted: October 1, Unit: The Office of Institutional Research, Planning, and Effectiveness I. MISSION STATEMENT

Graduate Program Resource Manual

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

COIMBATORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, COIMBATORE

Quality Assurance in Higher Education: A Review of the Literature

Responsibilities for quality assurance in teaching and learning

Participant Responsibilities and Data Flow in the Assurance of Learning Process

Plan of Organization for the School of Public Health

Consolidation Committee Final Report

Assessment Landscape at Duke University July Executive Summary

Shared Governance Principles and Operational Plan Andrews University

ELI Progress Report: Mid-Cycle Review presented to Senate Undergraduate Council by Renison University College

GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING EVALUATIONS OF ACADEMIC PROGRAMS

Armstrong Atlantic State University: Course & Program Definitions. Four Types of Courses

SCHOOL OF OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY Dalhousie University

Troy University Case Study

Health Informatics Master s Degree. Standards and Interpretations for Accreditation of Master s Degree Programs in Health Informatics

MOTION 3: That Senate approves the program changes for the BA Combined Honours and the BA General in Canadian Studies.

National Commission for Academic Accreditation & Assessment. Standards for Quality Assurance and Accreditation of Higher Education Programs

Texas Woman s University Guidelines for Implementing Distance Education Degrees 1

Evaluation of Undergraduate Academic Programs. Self-Study Guidelines

How to Choose a McMaster Certificate of Academic and Diploma

Academic Unit Action Plan: SOCIAL WORK

Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools

Participant Responsibilities and Data Flow in the Assurance of Learning Process. The Belk College of Business

and revokes Academic Program Reviews

Policy for On-line Teaching and Learning

Agreement on Affiliation of McMaster University and McMaster Divinity College 2003

CARLETON UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON QUALITY ASSURANCE. Cyclical Review of the Graduate Programs in Public Policy and Administration.

Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness Plan

GRADUATE PROGRAM REVIEW POLICY. Texas Southern University

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

Demonstrating Institutional Quality through Academic Accreditation

Protocol for the Review of Distance and Correspondence Education Programs Effective July 5, 2006

TROY UNIVERSITY Sorrell College of Business Response to ACBSP Evaluation Feedback Report November 11, 2008

Iona College. Comprehensive Academic Program Review

CURRICULUM CHANGE PROCEDURES FOR THE CSUF CATALOG

The Commission on Colleges, Southern Association of Colleges and Schools and The IDEA Student Ratings of Instruction System

MD Curriculum Committee Terms of Reference Policy

GUIDELINES FOR ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW For self-studies due to the Office of the Provost on October 1, 2016 RESEARCH AND SERVICE CENTERS

New Program Creation & Approval Practices. PCCAT conference 2015 Joanne Duklas (primary Investigator) Duklas Cornerstone Consulting

Report of the CMEC Quality Assurance Subcommittee

CURRICULUM MODIFICATIONS: GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS

Bylaws of the College of Business University of Michigan-Dearborn

QUALITY ASSURANCE POLICY

TRANSFER CREDIT DEFINITIONS POLICY REGULATIONS NUMBER 107 APPROVAL DATE LAST AMENDMENT LAST REVIEWED NEXT REVIEW DATE

MCMASTER UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF HEALTH SCIENCES BY-LAWS

Review of the B.A., B.S. in Psychology

MEDGAR EVERS COLLEGE of The City University of New York GUIDELINES FOR THE FACULTY REGARDING REAPPOINTMENT, PROMOTION, AND TENURE

Nomination and Selection of External Consultants for Graduate Program Reviews

ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON QUALITY ASSURANCE. Annual Report. July 2011 June 2012

Quality assurance in Al-Hussein Bin Talal University

University Policy No.: AC1135 Classification: Academic and Students

Higher Education Review of the University of Portsmouth

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

Graduate Policies and Procedures for New Programs. Table of Contents

La Trobe Melbourne. Course Development Policy

University of Windsor Senate : University of Windsor Degree Completion Programs for Study Group Foundation Diploma Graduates

Transcription:

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 Programs (herein referred to as the Policy) governs the review and approval of proposed new programs, major modifications, and the cyclical review of existing programs at Lakehead University. The Policy outlines university-wide principles for the review and approval of academic programs. The Policy aligns the University s quality assurance processes detailed in The Institutional Quality Assurance Process ( IQAP) and the provincially mandated Quality Assurance Framework (April 2010). The process replaces the Undergraduate Program Review Audit Committee (UPRAC) process for undergraduate program reviews outlined in Undergraduate Program Review Policy and Procedures (2005) and the Ontario Council for Graduate Studies (OCGS) quality reviews of graduate programs. The design of the Lakehead University Quality Assurance process is intended to be as streamlined a possible while still ensuring accessibility and transparency to the Lakehead University Community. II DEFINITIONS Programs: For the purpose of this Policy, a program is defined as an identified set and sequence of courses and other learning opportunities within an area of study, which is completed in full or partial fulfillment of the requirements for the granting of an undergraduate, second-entry, or graduate degree. New Program: A new program is defined as any degree, degree program, or program of specialization, currently approved by Senate or equivalent governing body, which has not been previously approved for Lakehead University by the Quality Council, its predecessors, or any intra-institutional approval processes that previously applied. The definition for new programs is congruent with the Quality Assurance Framework requirements and is expanded on in the Lakehead University Institutional Quality Assurance Process (IQAP). Major Modifications: Major modifications include the following program changes:

a) Requirements that differ significantly from those existing at the time of the previous cyclical program review; b) Significant changes to the learning outcomes; c) Significant changes to the faculty engaged in delivering the program and/or to the essential physical resources as may occur, for example, where there have been changes to the existing mode(s) of delivery (e.g., different campus, online delivery, inter-institutional collaboration); d) The addition of a new field to an existing graduate program. This definition for major modifications is congruent with the Quality Assurance Framework requirements and is expanded on in the Lakehead University Institutional Quality Assurance Process (IQAP). III SCOPE The Policy applies to submissions for approval of new academic undergraduate and graduate programs, major modifications to existing undergraduate and graduate programs, and the cyclical review of existing undergraduate and graduate programs. Cyclical reviews of undergraduate and graduate programs are commissioned through the Office of the Vice-President Academic and Provost in accordance with the Cyclical Program Review Schedule. IV OBJECTIVES OF THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF ACADEMIC PROGRAMS The primary objective of Lakehead University s program review and approval process is to support programs in achieving and maintaining the highest possible standards of academic excellence through objective and constructive assessment and follow up. The program reviews are intended both to improve academic programs and to demonstrate accountability to the University community and other public stakeholders. Program reviews at Lakehead University will: Ensure rigorous standards for the development of new programs that align with the mission and academic directions of the University; Secure the academic standards of existing undergraduate and graduate programs, including for-credit graduate diplomas; Ensure that programs are current with respect to developments in the discipline; Ensure ongoing follow-up and development of programs; Assist the faculties and academic units in future planning by clarifying academic objectives and identifying areas of existing and emerging strengths, and areas of weakness or concern;

Evaluate the curricular and pedagogical policies and practices of the academic unit offering the program(s). V PROGRAM REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRINCIPLES a) Administrative procedures for the review and approval of academic programs will be coordinated and monitored by the Office of the Vice-President and Provost, and are detailed within the Lakehead University Quality Assurance Process (IQAP) as approved by the Senate Academic Committee: Quality Assurance Committee (Date), and ratified (Date) by the Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance (the Quality Council). b) The Lakehead University Quality Assurance Process (IQAP) will address the protocols by which reviews and approvals will be conducted, the content of the required documents, as well as the circulation of proposals and reports to meet Lakehead University governance requirements. c) Authority for periodically revising and ensuring implementation of the Lakehead University Quality Assurance Process (IQAP) and associated manuals/guides rests with the Office of the Vice-President (Academic) and Provost. Minor changes to the procedures will be presented to the Senate Academic Committee: Quality Assurance Committee for information. Any substantive changes to the Lakehead University IQAP will be subject to approval by the Senate Academic Committee: Quality Assurance Committee, and ratification by the Quality Council. d) Reviews of academic programs by external bodies, such as professional accrediting bodies, may serve different purposes than those commissioned as part of the undergraduate and graduate program cyclical review process. In cases where professional program accreditation standards are consistent with the standards set out in the Lakehead University IQAP, components of the accreditation may be applied to the University's undergraduate program review process. The process for incorporating work completed to meet professional accreditation standards is detailed in the Lakehead University IQAP. e) Where possible, the University process will aim to streamline the review process by aligning the scheduling of undergraduate program reviews and graduate program reviews. VI ACCOUNTABILITY A. Review and Approval of New Programs, and Major Modifications to Existing Programs Institutional review and approval of proposals addressing new programs and major modifications to existing programs are the responsibility of the Senate.

Faculties are responsible for considering program proposals in detail and for making recommendations to Senate for referral. Senate has delegated responsibility to the Senate Academic Quality Assurance Subcommittee (SAC- QA) to verify that Faculties have taken the appropriate steps to ensure that programs are robust, viable and deliverable, are in the interest of the University, and meet the provincial requirements outlined in the Quality Assurance Framework. The Senate Undergraduate Studies Committee (SUSC), Senate Budget Committee (SBC) and the Faculty of Graduate Studies: Program/Regulations Committee are also involved in reviewing program proposals, in accordance with their terms of reference, prior to Senate approval. Other types of new programs, including a concentration, minor, and not-for-credit certificates, do not require Quality Council appraisal and approval but still require internal review and approval by Faculty Council(s), Senate Standing Committees (SAC-QA, SUSC or Faculty of Graduate Studies: Program/Regulations Committee Subcommittee, and SBC as appropriate) and final Senate approval. Minor changes to curricula will continue to be submitted to Senate for referral to the appropriate Standing Committee using existing Lakehead University review and approval processes. B. Cyclical Review of Existing Programs A cyclical program review will be initiated via communication from the Office of the Vice-President Academic and Provost, and in accordance with the Cyclical Program Review schedule. The Office will receive the self-study documentation and make arrangements for the site visit. The SAC-QA subcommittee will be responsible for selecting the reviewers, for reviewing the response to the reviewers report, and for reviewing and approving the Final Assessment Report. Once approved, a recommendation to accept the report will be forwarded to the Senate Academic Committee (SAC) for approval. The Chair of SAC will submit an Executive Report as an item of information for Senate, and for posting on the University website. The Executive Report and Implementation Plan will be forwarded to the Quality Council. The Vice-President Academic and Provost will report to the Board of Governors once a year on the programs which were reviewed during the previous academic year. VII REVIEW OF POLICY The Vice-President (Academic) and Provost will ensure that the Policy for Review and Approval of Academic Programs is forwarded to the Senate Academic Committee and the Senate for review and approval within five years.