University of Guelph

University of Guelph Institutional Quality Assurance Process (IQAP) Submitted for review and approval: June 17, 2010 - Joint meeting of the Boards of Undergraduate Studies and Graduate Studies July 1, 2010 - 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

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

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

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

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

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, 2010. 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

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: http://www.uoguelph.ca/registrar/calendars/index.cfm?index 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

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 2.1.1 2.1.10) 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 2.1.1 2.1.10 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 2.1.10) 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

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

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

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

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 2.1.1 2.1.10 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

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

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 3.3.3.4). 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

faculty members, and collaborative efforts with Teaching Support Services, Open Learning, the Library, Student Affairs), with other universities and colleges, and with other relevant external agencies (4.2.3) must be provided. (k) (l) The unit s impression of how it compares with similar programs in other postsecondary institutions (this would include articulation agreements with colleges, etc.) in Ontario and nationally, with information concerning the basis for the comparisons made (4.3.6). In addition, the Self-study will present an analysis of the perceived strengths and weaknesses of each of the undergraduate and graduate programs, together with the rationale and plans for future developments, and an analysis of the effectiveness of the various modes of program delivery (4.3.3) To support the preparation of the Self-study, the Office of Resource Planning and Analysis, the Library, and the Office of Open Learning will provide statistical reports, as listed in Appendix IX: Part II: The Faculty This section allows the department/ unit to describe the faculty complement supporting the programs offered by the unit. It includes the following tables: (a) (b) (c) A summary table listing the names, rank, qualifications, and year of appointment (or relevant period) of all faculty members associated with the unit, using as headings: tenured (ordered by rank), tenure-track, contractually-limited, sessional lecturers, adjunct faculty, associated graduate faculty, and special graduate faculty. A table listing each faculty member and, separately, the undergraduate and graduate courses they taught; the semesters in which the courses were offered over the previous two years; and an indication of any assistance provided by Teaching Assistants and/or Laboratory Technicians for the courses. A table listing faculty by fields of graduate programs (4.3.8) that denotes: the number of graduate student supervisions during the review period; sources and level of research funding publications and other scholarly activity during the review period identifying student involvement as applicable (d) The current curriculum vitae for each faculty member contributing to the respective academic programs, as per the format required for Tenure and Promotion appraisals (4.3.5). Course outlines will be available to the Committee upon request. 17

Part III: Resources This section allows the department/ unit to present a summary of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the academic unit's existing human, physical and financial resources in delivering its programs. In doing so, the summary will include not only faculty, but also a summary of the administrative and staff support and the reporting structure (4.3.5) Schools/Departments are encouraged to submit the Self-Study report to their Dean for review before it is transmitted to the Chair of IRC. In addition to the Self-Study report, the Chair of IRC will be provided with each of the other materials listed above. IV.4.A.(iv) Use of Accreditation and Other External Reviews in the Institutional Quality Assurance Process (4.2.7) Before an accreditation review takes place, the Chair of IRC will be provided with a copy of the accreditation review template to compare with the University s internal review template. The outcome of that comparison may be that: (a) The accreditation review will be accepted as meeting all the criteria for an internal review. The final report of the accrediting body will be submitted directly to the IRC; or (b) The accreditation review will be accepted as meeting most of the criteria for an internal review. Some supplementary information will need to be submitted to the IRC along with the final report of the accrediting body; or (c) The accreditation review will not sufficiently meet the requirements of an internal review and a regular IRS will be established by the IRC. The Chair of IRC will be included in meetings between accreditation reviewers and the Provost at the conclusion of the reviewers site visits. When the final report of the accrediting body is submitted, a determination will be made by the IRC as to whether or not it has met the internal review criteria as expected. If expectations have not been met, the IRC will either (a) Require the submission of additional information, or (b) Conduct a supplementary internal review. IV. 4.A.(v) Conduct of the Review The Chair of the IRC will receive from the academic unit their Self-study Brief who will review and approve it to ensure that it provides the information as required above. Once the Brief has been approved, the date for the two-day site visit will be established. Prior to the site visit, the IRS will be provided with the template that describes the parameters for the review and outlines the expectations for the Assessment Report. The IRS will also receive copies of the Self-study Brief (Parts I and II), the supporting statistical package supplied by the University, and a Library Report. 18

Upon arriving at the University for the site visit, the members of the IRS will meet first with the Chair of IRC to ensure that they understand their role in the review process, their obligation to respect the confidentiality required for all aspects of the review process, and to understand any priorities for funding, space, and faculty allocation. The IRS will then meet with (in order): the dean and/or relevant associate dean(s), the department chair or school director, and as many faculty, staff and students as possible. Following the site-visit, the IRS will draft a comprehensive and detailed single Assessment Report, based on the site visit and accompanying documentation, using each of the undergraduate and graduate programs as section headings. This report will be provided to the Chair of the IRC within 14 days of the site visit and will: (a) (b) (c) (d) Identify strengths and weaknesses of the unit s undergraduate and graduate programs, including all of the specializations offered and courses offered by the unit in support of other programs either as a core course, a restricted elective or as a service course; Provide recommendations to be considered for immediate improvement; Provide recommendations for future opportunities for quality enhancement, and May include a confidential section (where personnel issues require to be addressed). The Chair of IRC will provide the Assessment Report to the department chair or school director for review and correction of any factual errors. If there are substantive concerns about the content of the Report and its recommendations, the Chair of IRC will meet with the Chair/Director to determine whether or not amendments to the Report are warranted. The final Assessment Report will include any appropriate amendments and/or corrections. The Chair/Director will provide a written response to the final Assessment Report and each of its recommendations. The Chair of IRC will then obtain from the dean of the college a written response to the following: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) The plans and recommendations proposed in the Self-study report; The recommendations proposed in the Assessment Report The unit s response to the Assessment Report Any changes in organization, policy or governance that would be necessary to meet the recommendations; The resources, financial and otherwise, that would be provided in supporting the implementation of selected recommendations; and A proposed timeline for the implementation of the recommendations 19

IV.4.A.(vi) Institutional Perspective and Report (4.2.5) As per the information under Conduct of the Review, the Internal Review Committee (IRC) will receive the Assessment Report completed by the IRS, along with responses of the chair/director and college dean for their review and preparation of a Final Assessment Report. This report will provide the institutional synthesis of the external and internal responses and assessments and it will be drafted to: (a) (b) (c) Identify significant strengths of the unit and its respective programs; Identify opportunities for program improvement and enhancement; Prioritize the recommendations that are selected for implementation; The report will include an Executive Summary suitable for publication on the web, which will include an outline of the review process, the findings and recommendations of the Internal Review Subcommittee, and the responses of the Chair/Director and Dean to the findings. This Final Assessment Report will be presented to the Provost for review and comment before being forwarded to Senate Committee Quality Assurance (SCQA). The response by the Provost will include an indication of when and by whom the recommendations will be implemented. The Provost s response will be appended to the Final Assessment Report. Deans, chairs and directors will be asked to include their responses to the review recommendations in their College wide Integrated Plan submissions and report progress on action items. This will close the accountability loop and ensure that these reviews continue to be treated with appropriate importance and significance. IV.4.A.(vii) Reporting Requirements (4.2.6) SCQA will receive the Final Assessment Report upon the completion of each review. If SCQA believes that further discussion or review is warranted, it shall instruct its Chair to carry out those discussions on its behalf. The Chair of SCQA will present the Executive Summary of each unit review to Senate for information and comment, and the summaries will be posted on the SCQA website. The Executive Summary will also be submitted to the Quality Council for their information and record. The person or group designated by the Provost as being responsible for addressing each of the recommendations included in the Final Assessment Report will provide a report to SCQA on their implementation, no later than one year following Senate s receipt of the Executive Summary, and SCQA will make a report to Senate for information on actions taken. IV.4.B. Cyclical Review of Joint Programs The review of Joint Graduate Programs involving other Ontario universities will be conducted separately from the internal review of the home unit. The procedure for these separate reviews will be as specified by the IQAP of the home university of the Director (or equivalent) of the joint program. The Director will thus manage the preparation of a Self Study following the template of his/her university, in consultation with faculty, staff and students of each partner institution. Upon completion of the review, the Final Appraisal Report (or equivalent) will be provided to each of the partner universities for their appropriate action. 20

When reviewed through the University of Guelph, a Joint Program Review Committee (JPRC) will be formed involving an appointed member of the IRC who will act as the facilitator for the review, and two consultants external to the partner universities. Partner universities will be invited to provide a representative for the JPRC, if they so wish. 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 Director of the joint program will be asked to submit to the Chair of IRC the names and a brief curriculum vitae of six possible external consultants. The external consultant nominees must not have participated in collaborative projects with any faculty members of the joint program, nor have been a student, or member of the faculty at the Universities in the last 5 years. The program Director will include a brief rationale for the nominations and s/he 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 select the two external consultants from this list in consultation with the chair/director of the quality assurance committee of the partner university(s). IV.4.B.(i) Schedule of Reviews The schedule of these independent reviews will be established and agreed to by each of the partner universities. IV.4.B.(ii) Objectives of the Review of Joint Programs When conducted at the University of Guelph, the objectives of the review of joint programs will include, but are not restricted to, an assessment of the following as they pertain to the joint graduate program (see Appendix VII for detailed criteria):: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) Consonance of the graduate offering(s) within the general framework of OCAV s Degree Level Expectations; The appropriateness of the academic objectives and the structure for meeting its academic objectives; The appropriateness of the pedagogical and evaluation strategies and methods applied to each of the programs; The adequacy of the available human, physical, and financial resources to support the unit's program; The definition and application, where possible, of indicators to determine the outcomes of the programs, including applicable provincial, national, and professional standards, where available; Areas identified through the conduct of the self-study as requiring improvement and those that hold promise for enhancement; Concerns and recommendations raised in previous reviews. 21

IV.4.B.(iii) Preparation of the Self Study Brief: Joint Program The Self-study Brief prepared by Director of the joint program will be comprised of three parts, Part I: The Self-study, Part II: The Faculty, Part III: Resources. Part I: The Self Study, which includes: (a) (b) (c) A very brief description of the joint program (one page maximum) including its history, structure, a list of its 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 Centre (with participation by faculty, staff, and students) on its activities and accomplishments, reaffirms or redefines its objectives, and describes how they relate to the mission of the Universities. The discussion should include separate sections presenting: an analysis of the perceived strengths and weaknesses of each of the graduate programs, together with the rationale and planning for future developments; review of how concerns and recommendations raised in previous reviews have been addressed; an analysis on the effectiveness of the various modes of delivery that are used. (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Accreditation briefs and reports of reviewers, as required. The appropriateness and effectiveness of the admission standards of the graduate programs and enrolment projections accompanied by rationale if changes are predicted. A summary of the program 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. Other outcome assessment indicators will be used, where available or appropriate (e.g., the success of students in competitions, the percentage of students involved in collaborative ventures such as internships, employment from graduate programs, etc.). The objective of each degree level and an indication of how the objective is achieved. A summary of the level and source(s) of stipends, if any, provided to graduate students. 22

(i) (j) (k) (l) A summary of the relationships (relevant to the academic activities) with other University units (e.g., interdisciplinary courses, cross appointments of faculty members), with other universities, and with other relevant external agencies. A summary Table on the time-to-completion for every student in respective graduate program(s). The joint program s impression of how it compares with similar programs in other post-secondary institutions in Canada, with information concerning the basis for the comparisons made. A summary of the administrative and staff support in the program and the reporting structure. Part II: The Faculty, which includes the following tables: (a) (b) (c) A summary table listing the names, rank, qualifications, and year of appointment (or relevant period) of all faculty members associated with the joint program, using as headings: tenured (ordered by rank), tenure-track, contractually-limited, sessional lecturers, adjunct faculty, associated graduate faculty, and special graduate faculty. A table listing each faculty member and, separately, the graduate courses they taught; the sessions in which they were offered over the previous two years; and an indication of any assistance provided by Teaching Assistants and/or Laboratory Technicians for the courses. A table listing faculty by fields of graduate programs graduate student supervisions during the review period; sources and level of research funding publications and other scholarly activity during the review period identifying student involvement where applicable Course outlines will be available to the Committee upon request, as will be the current curriculum vitae of the faculty members. Part III: Resources The Director will present a summary of the appropriateness and effectiveness of its existing human, physical and financial resources in delivering its programs. In doing so, the summary will include not only faculty, but also a summary of the administrative and staff support and the reporting structure. 23

IV.4.B.(iv) Conduct of the Review The Chair of the IRC will receive from the Director of the joint program their Self-study Brief who will review and approve it to ensure that it provides the information as required above. Once the Brief has been approved, the date for the two-day site visit will be established. Prior to the site visit, the JPRC will be provided with the template that describes the parameters for the review and outlines the expectations for the Assessment Report. The JPRC will also receive copies of the Self-study Brief (Parts I and II), the supporting statistical package supplied by the University, and a Library Report. Upon arriving at the University for the site visit, the members of the JPRC will meet first with the Chair of IRC to ensure that they understand their role in the review process, their obligation to respect the confidentiality required for all aspects of the review process, and to understand any priorities for funding, space, and faculty allocations. Over the two-day visit, the JPRC will meet with the program director, deans and/or relevant associate deans, the department chairs or school directors, and as many faculty, staff and students as possible at each of the partner universities. Following the site-visit, the JPRC will draft a comprehensive and detailed single Assessment Report, based on the site visit and accompanying documentation. This report will be provided to the Chair of the IRC within 14 days of the site visit and will: (a) (b) (c) Identify strengths and weaknesses of the program, including all of the specializations offered and courses offered; Provide recommendations to be considered for immediate improvement; Provide recommendations for future opportunities for quality enhancement, and (d) May include a confidential section (where personnel issues require to be addressed). The JPRC will provide the draft Appraisal Report to the joint program Director for review and correction of any factual errors. If there are substantive concerns about the content of the draft Report and its recommendations, the Chair of the IRC and the chair/director(s) of the quality assurance committee(s) of the partner university(s) will determine whether or not amendments to the Report are warranted. The final Appraisal Report will include any appropriate amendments or corrections. The Chair of the IRC will then obtain from the appropriate department chairs and college/faculty deans of each partner university a written response to the following: (a) (b) (c) (d) the plans and recommendations proposed in the self-study report; the recommendations advanced by the JPRC in the Appraisal Report; the director s response to the Appraisal Report; any changes in organization, policy, or governance that would be necessary to meet the recommendations; 24

(e) (f) the resources, financial and otherwise, that would be provided in supporting the implementation of selected recommendations; and a proposed time line for the implementation of the recommendations. The IRC will receive the Appraisal Report and the responses of the chairs and deans and prepare a Final Assessment Report. This report will provide the institutional synthesis of the external and internal responses and assessments and it will be drafted to: (a) (b) (c) (d) Identify any significant strengths of the unit and its respective programs; Identify opportunities for program improvement and enhancement; Set out and prioritizes the recommendations that are selected for implementation; Include, if appropriate, a confidential section (where personnel issues require to be addressed). The Report will include an Executive Summary, suitable for publication on the Web, which will include an outline of the review process, the findings and recommendations of the JPRC, and the chairs and Deans responses to the findings, but exclusive of any confidential information. This Final Assessment Report will be presented to the quality assurance committees of the partner universities for their follow up and action. At the University of Guelph, the Final Assessment Report will be provided to the Provost for review and comment before being forwarded to the Quality Assurance Committee. The provostial response will include an indication of when and by whom the recommendations will be implemented. The Provost s response will be appended to the Final Assessment Report. V. PROTOCOL FOR CYCLICAL UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE PROGRAM REVIEWS As we have in the past, Guelph will continue with the cyclical review of undergraduate degree programs. These undergraduate program reviews provide program committees with an opportunity to review whether the contributions of each department coalesce into a high quality degree program that meets the University s mission and strategic goals. Given the number of interdisciplinary programs offered by the University, a review of each undergraduate degree program will also help to ensure that interdisciplinary specializations are not neglected in the unit review process, that each degree program has an opportunity to review and enhance its learning objectives, and, most importantly, a review by degree program allows for the intentional embedding of learning outcomes into assessment processes. The following steps outline the University's internal process for the review of undergraduate degree programs; the corresponding section of the QAF is noted in parentheses. 25

V.1. Authorities Responsible for the IQAP (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). V.2. Authoritative Contact with the Quality Council (2.2.2) The Authoritative Contact between the University and the Quality Council is the Provost and Vice- President Academic. V.3. Undergraduate Programs to be Reviewed (4.2.2) Reviews will involve individual undergraduate degree programs: for example, the Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) program, the Bachelor of Commerce (B.Comm.) program, the Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) program, etc. V.4. Protocols for Cyclical Reviews: the Internal Review Process and External Evaluation: External Perspective (4.2.4) As per the process established for the review of departments/ schools, the Internal Review Committee (IRC), established by the Provost s office, 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 of 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 IRC will be at arm s length from the program under review. The Associate Dean responsible for the program will be asked to submit to the Chair of IRC the names and brief curriculum vitae of six possible external consultants. The external consultants must not have participated in joint projects with any faculty members of the program, nor have been a student or member of the faculty in the University in the last 5 years. The Associate Dean 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. V.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 Quality Council for information. Each unit will be reviewed once every eight years. The proposed Schedule of Reviews is listed under Appendix V. 26

V.4.A.(ii) Objectives of the Internal Review (4.3.1) It is the responsibility of the IRC member of the IRS, in consultation with the Chair of the IRC, to ensure that all relevant units have an opportunity to comment on the program 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 degree program (see Appendix VIII for detailed criteria): (a) Consonance of the undergraduate program 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 program s academic objectives and ability to meet its academic objectives; (c) The appropriateness of the pedagogical and evaluation strategies and methods applied to the program; (d) The adequacy of the available human, physical, and financial resources to support the program; (e) The definition and application, where possible, of indicators to determine the learning outcomes of the program, including applicable provincial, national, and professional standards. V.4.A.(iii) Preparation of the Self-study: Internal Program Perspective (4.2.3) The preparation of the Self-study will be the responsibility of the designated Dean or designate who will work with the appropriate Program Committee to prepare the document which shall include: (a) (b) (c) A brief description of the program, one page maximum, including its history, structure, and relationship with other academic programs. An analytical and reflective discussion (with participation by faculty, staff, and students) on the program's activities and accomplishments, reaffirming or redefining its objectives, and describing how these relate to the mission of the University. Progress along any of the University s strategic directions (research-intensiveness, learner centredness, collaboration, internationalism, and open learning) and towards the program s own agreed-upon strategic directions for enhancement of program quality will be important components of the Self-study (4.3.7). Include a statement of the program's goals; an analysis of the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the program and its specializations; an analysis on the effectiveness of the various modes of delivery that are used; the Committee s impression of how the program compares with similar programs in Canada; together with the rationale and planning for future developments (4.3.3. 4.3.6). 27

(d) (e) 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) The Program Committee s assessment of the appropriateness of the program s admission requirements including any requirements beyond the University s general admission requirements; how the admission requirements relate to the University s mission and goals, and their impact, if any, on issues such as accessibility (4.3.2). (f) Results of accreditation reviews, as appropriate (4.3.6). (g) (h) (i) (j) A summary table listing the specializations within the degree program. This information may be provided in the form of copy from the current Calendar. The Program Committee should provide a statement on its judgment of the adequacy and frequency of course offerings, and whether there are any issues of special concern. Course outlines and information on the qualifications of the instructors teaching these courses may be requested by the Internal Review Subcommittee but are not required for inclusion in the Self-study. A summary of the support (teaching assistance, laboratory/studio/practicum facilities, equipment) available to the program. The intent here is not for a detailed quantitative inventory but rather for a general assessment of the quality and adequacy of these program elements (4.3.5) Relationship with other University units (e.g., interdisciplinary courses and programs, cross appointments of faculty members, collaboration with Teaching Support Services, Open Learning, Student Affairs, the Library) and with other post-secondary institutions (this would include articulation agreements with other colleges, and exchange agreements with other universities). The complete curriculum vitae for each faculty member contributing to the respective academic programs. To support the preparation of the Self-study, the Office of Resource Planning and Analysis, the Library, and the Office of Open Learning will provide statistical reports as listed in Appendix IX. V.4.A.(iv) Use of Accreditation and Other External Reviews in the Institutional Quality Assurance Process (4.2.7) A similar protocol as that used for the Review of Departments/ Schools for the use of accreditation and other external reviews in the Institutional Quality Assurance Process will be used. 28

V.4.A.(v) Conduct of the Review The Chair of the IRC will receive from the Associate Dean the Self-study Brief for the program who will review and approve it to ensure that provides the information as required above. On the Brief has been approved, the date for the two-day site visit will be established. Prior to the site visit, the IRS will be provided with the template that describes the parameters for the review and outlines the expectations for the Assessment Report. The IRS will also receive copies of the Self-study, and the supporting statistical package supplied by the University, and a Library Report. Upon arriving at the University for the site visit, the members of the IRS will meet first with the Chair of the IRC to ensure that they understand their role in the review process, their obligation to respect the confidentiality required for all aspects of the review process, and to understand any priorities for funding, space, and faculty allocation The IRS will then meet with (in order): the dean and/or relevant associate dean(s), department chairs or school directors, and as many faculty, staff and students as possible. Following the site-visit, the IRS will draft a comprehensive and detailed single Assessment Report, based on the site visit and the documentation provided. This report will be provided to the Chair of the IRC within 14 days of the site visit and will: (a) (b) (c) (d) Identify strengths and weaknesses of the undergraduate program, including all of the specializations offered and courses used in the Schedule of Studies Provide recommendations to be considered for immediate improvement; and Provide recommendations for future opportunities for quality enhancement. May include a confidential section (where personnel issues are required to be addressed) Particular attention will be given to specializations offered within the degree program that are interdepartmental and therefore may not have been sufficiently reviewed in conjunction with department/school reviews. The Chair of IRC will provide the Assessment Report to the appropriate Dean and the Chair of the Program Committee for review and correction of any factual errors. If there are substantive concerns about the content of the Report and its recommendations, the Chair of IRC will meet with the Dean to determine whether or not amendments to the Report are warranted. The final Assessment Report will include any appropriate amendments and/or corrections. The Program Committee Chair will provide a written response to the final Assessment Report and each of its recommendations. The Dean will provide a written response to the following: (a) (b) The plans and recommendations proposed in the Self-study report; The recommendations proposed in the Assessment Report 29

(c) (d) (e) (f) The Program Committee Chair s response to the Assessment Report Any changes in organization, policy or governance that would be necessary to meet the recommendations; The resources, financial and otherwise, that would be provided in supporting the implementation of selected recommendations; and A proposed timeline for the implementation of the recommendations V.4.A.(vi) Institutional Perspective and Report (4.2.5) The Internal Review Committee (IRC) will receive the Assessment Report and the responses of the Chair of the Program Committee and Dean for their review and preparation of the Final Assessment Report. This report will provide the institutional synthesis of the external and internal responses and assessments and it will be drafted to: (a) (b) (c) Identify significant strengths of the undergraduate program; Identify opportunities for program improvement and enhancement; Prioritize the recommendations that are selected for implementation; The report will include an Executive Summary suitable for publication on the web, which will include an outline of the review process, the findings and recommendations of the Internal Review Subcommittee, and the responses of the Program Committee Chair and Dean to the findings. This Final Assessment Report will be presented to the Provost for review and comment before being forwarded to Senate Committee Quality Assurance (SCQA). The response by the Provost will include an indication of when and by whom the recommendations will be implemented. The Provost s response will be appended to the Final Assessment Report. Deans, chairs and directors will be asked to include their responses to the review recommendations in their College wide Integrated Plan submissions and report progress on action items. This will close the accountability loop and ensure that these reviews continue to be treated with appropriate importance and significance. V. 4.A(vii) Reporting Requirements (4.2.6) SCQA will receive the Final Assessment Report upon the completion of each review. If SCQA believes that further discussion or review is warranted, it shall instruct its Chair to carry out those discussions on its behalf. The Chair of SCQA will present the Executive Summary of each program review to Senate for information and comment, and the summaries will be available on the SCQA website. The Executive Summary will also be submitted to the Quality Council for their information and record. The person or group designated by the Provost as being responsible for addressing each of the recommendations included in the Final Assessment Report will report to SCQA on their implementation, no later than one year following Senate s receipt of the Executive Summary, and SCQA will make a report to Senate for information on actions taken. 30

VI. INSTITUTIONAL REPORTING (4.2.6) As per the requirements of the Quality Assurance Framework, the Final Assessment Report 5 for each review completed, including the Executive Summary and the associated Implementation Plan, will be presented to Senate (by the SCQA), to the relevant degree program committee, and to the Quality Council. The Report and the Implementation Plan, along with any response from the Quality Council, will be posted on the Senate website (on the SCQA page), along with: the One Year Follow-up Reports; the schedule for upcoming reviews and one year reports; a description of the Audit Process for the institution s compliance with its Institutional Quality Assurance Process for the Cyclical Review of Existing Programs; the University s Annual Report to the Quality Council on New Program Submissions and Major Modifications; the Quality Assurance Framework document; the University of Guelph IQAP and a link to the Quality Council website. As well, the SCQA will provide an annual report to Senate which will be posted on the website and includes: A presentation of the general principles, guidelines, and methodology used by the committee in the review of the university s programs, departments and schools. A status report on the reviews performed during the year in question. A summary of the key outcomes of the reviews, highlighting trends, issues, or recommendations. A list of academic programs, departments and schools scheduled for review in the upcoming year This annual report to Senate will also be provided for information to the Board of Governors (the other governing body of the University s bi-cameral governance structure). A Quality Assurance website, part of the Provost s Office website, will be established and the following documents will be posted for information and reference: Information about the Internal Review Committee and any Internal Review Subcommittees including the mandate, composition and membership and meeting schedule of the committees The protocol and template for New Program Approvals, including instructions on completing the development of a New Proposal Brief and notice that no offers of admission will be made to a new program until and unless it receives approval from the Quality Council. Information on the institution s definitions of what constitutes a major modification to an existing program, and instructions on the submission of such changes The University s annual report to the Quality Council which provides a summary of major program modifications that were approved through the university s internal approval process in the past year. 5 *Information made available for the Self study, the self study report, the report of the Review Committee and the specified responses to the report of the Review Committee will be available as background documents linked to each Final Assessment Report, and posted on the Quality Assurance web page. 31

The protocol and schedule for the Cyclical Review of Existing Programs, including an Institutional Manual that describes the cyclical program review and provides information, instructions, and templates for such a review A link to the Senate page for the SCQA VII. COMPLIANCE WITH THE AUDIT PROCESS (5.1 5.2.10) As stated in the Mission Statement, the University of Guelph invites public scrutiny of the fulfillment of its mission, especially by the people of Ontario, to whom it is accountable. As such, the University of Guelph is committed to full participation in the Audit Process (QAF, 5.1 5.2.10) established by OCAV and the Quality Council to ensure compliance with the provisions of the IQAP presented here. The University will ensure with each occurrence of the eight-year cycle for the provision of all requested documentation by the auditors; compliance with the desk audit and on-site interaction during the audit visit; review of the auditors draft report for comment; receipt and publication of the final audit report; and one-year follow-up addressing recommendations made in the audit. 32

Appendix I Bylaws and Composition of the Senate Committee on Quality Review (SCQA) The Committee on Quality Assurance (CQA) is responsible for recommending to Senate for approval institutional policies and procedures related to quality assurance, and for receiving, reviewing, and presenting annually to Senate a summary report of all internal review reports produced through the institution s quality assurance processes. 1. The Senate Committee on Quality Assurance shall consist of: Assistant Vice-President (Graduate Studies & Program Quality Assurance) Associate Vice-President (Academic) One Dean 4 faculty members 2 students (one graduate; one undergraduate) 1 librarian (designate of the Chief Librarian) 1 staff member 2. In the fulfillment of its role, the Committee shall: a) Review regularly the institution s quality assurance policies and related processes as approved by Senate, and make recommendations for changes as appropriate. b) Update Senate, as appropriate, on provincially mandated quality assurance policies or initiatives, and make recommendations for revisions to the institution s quality assurance policies and related processes, as appropriate. c) Receive, review and respond to the final reports of the internal reviews for undergraduate and graduate programs, and departments and schools. d) Provide an annual report to Senate that includes: i. A presentation of the general principles, guidelines, and methodology used by the committee in the review of the university s programs, departments and schools. ii. A status report on the reviews performed during the year in question. iii. A summary of the key outcomes of the reviews, highlighting trends, issues, or recommendations. iv. A list of academic programs, departments and schools scheduled for review in the upcoming year. Subsequently, this report will be provided to the Board of Governors for information. 33

Appendix II Evaluation Criteria for New Program Approvals 1. Objectives a) Consistency of the program with the University s mission and academic plans. b) Clarity and appropriateness of the program s requirements and associated learning outcomes in addressing the University s undergraduate or graduate Degree Level Expectations. c) Appropriateness of degree nomenclature. 2. Admission requirements a) Appropriateness of the program s admission requirements for the learning outcomes established for completion of the program. b) Sufficient explanation of alternative requirements, if any, for admission into a graduate, secondentry or undergraduate program, such as minimum grade point average, additional languages or portfolios, along with how the program recognizes prior work or learning experience. 3. Structure a) Appropriateness of the program's structure and regulations to meet specified program learning outcomes and degree level expectations. b) For graduate programs, a clear rationale for program length that ensures that the program requirements can be reasonably completed within the proposed time period. 4. Program content a) Ways in which the curriculum addresses the current state of the discipline or area of study. b) Identification of any unique curriculum or program innovations or creative components. c) For research-focused graduate programs, clear indication of the nature and suitability of the major research requirements for degree completion. d) Evidence that each graduate student in the program is required to take a minimum of two-thirds of the course requirements from among graduate level courses. 5. Mode of delivery Appropriateness of the proposed mode(s) of delivery to meet the intended program learning outcomes and Degree Level Expectations. 34

6. Assessment of teaching and learning a) Appropriateness of the proposed methods for the assessment of student achievement of the intended program learning outcomes and Degree Level Expectations. b) Completeness of plans for documenting and demonstrating the level of performance of students, consistent with the University s statement of its Degree Level Expectations. 7. Resources for all programs a) Adequacy of the administrative unit s planned utilization of existing human, physical and financial resources, and any institutional commitment to supplement those resources, to support the program. b) Participation of a sufficient number and quality of faculty who are competent to teach and/or supervise in the program. c) Evidence that there are adequate resources to sustain the quality of scholarship produced by undergraduate students as well as graduate students scholarship and research activities, including library support, information technology support, and laboratory access. 8. Resources for graduate programs only a) Evidence that faculty have the recent research or professional/clinical expertise needed to sustain the program, promote innovation and foster an appropriate intellectual climate. b) Where appropriate to the program, evidence that financial assistance for students will be sufficient to ensure adequate quality and numbers of students. c) Evidence of how supervisory loads will be distributed, and the qualifications and appointment status of faculty who will provide instruction and supervision. 9. Resources for undergraduate programs only Evidence of and planning for adequate numbers and quality of: (a) faculty and staff to achieve the goals of the program; or (b) of plans and the commitment to provide the necessary resources in step with the implementation of the program; (c) planned/anticipated class sizes; (d) provision of supervision of experiential learning opportunities (if required); and (e) the role of adjunct and parttime faculty. 10. Quality and other indicators a) Definition and use of indicators that provide evidence of quality of the faculty (e.g., qualifications, research, innovation and scholarly record; appropriateness of collective faculty expertise to contribute substantively to the proposed program). b) Evidence of a program structure and faculty research that will ensure the intellectual quality of the student experience. 35

APPENDIX III PROPOSAL BRIEF NEW UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS 36

University of Guelph Senate - Board of Undergraduate Studies PROPOSAL BRIEF NEW UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS 2012-2013 Undergraduate and Diploma Calendars EFFECTIVE DATE: Approved new programs take effect May 1, 2013* Guidelines for the Preparation of the Proposal Brief for Proposed New Programs including: Undergraduate Degrees, Majors, Minors, Areas of Concentration, Areas of Emphasis, Degree-credit Certificates and Degree-credit Diplomas, and Associate Diploma Programs Undergraduate Submission Deadlines: January 1, 2012 initial brief submitted to the Office of the Associate Vice-President (Academic) March 1, 2012 final brief submitted to the Coordinator, Undergraduate Curriculum Effective Date: Approved New Programs take effect May 1, 2013 All proposed new programs (undergraduate degrees, specializations, and associate diploma programs) must receive a recommendation to move through the governance process from the Office of the Provost. For undergraduate and diploma programs, submit the Proposal Brief, based on the requirements outlined below, to the Associate Vice- President (Academic). The AVPA, on behalf of the Provost, ensures new programs are consistent with the strategic plans and directions for growth of the university. Proposals for new degree programs and majors are submitted for approval to the Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance (OUCQA) upon final approval of the University of Guelph Senate. All other specializations (minors, certificates, associate diplomas, etc.) receive final approval by Senate and those at the undergraduate level are submitted to OUCQA for information. All non-core undergraduate programs and majors are submitted for funding approval to the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (MTCU). NB: New program submissions will not be forwarded to BUGS or Senate for approval until the Office of the Provost has reviewed and approved the proposal. Program/Specialization Name and Administration Indicate the Sponsoring Department/School and College(s). Indicate the office(s) responsible for academic counselling. Provide evidence of consultation with other units/programs participating in the proposed new program/specialization. (i.e. if the program of study includes courses from unit(s) other than the sponsoring unit, a clear commitment of support for the proposed program/specialization must be included. NB: Proposals for new co-op programs must also include a letter of support from the Director, Co-operative Education and Career Services. Program Objectives and University of Guelph Learning Objectives Identify the overall objectives of this program, how the curriculum addresses the current state of the discipline and how the objectives enhance, overall, the undergraduate curriculum. Identify any distinctive curriculum aspects, program innovations or creative components. Identify which of the University's Learning Objectives are particularly addressed and how the proposed program supports student achievement of the Learning Objectives. See Chapter II, Learning Objectives, in the Undergraduate Calendar (http://www.uoguelph.ca/registrar/calendars/undergraduate/current/c02/c02-learningobjectives.shtml). 37

If the program includes a Co-op option, the proposal must also identify how the program supports Learning Objectives for work term reports. For professional program areas, identify congruence with current regulatory requirements of the profession. Rationale and Consistency with the University s Mission and Integrated Plan Explain the rationale for developing the program and identify the relationship of the program to the Integrated Plans of the Department/School and College, and overall University Integrated Plan. Anticipated Enrolment and Impact on Existing Programs Identify projected enrolment levels for the first five years of operation, including: a) initial enrolment; b) enrolment after two years; c) steady-state annual enrolment and steady state total enrolment and years these will be achieved. Identify whether the new program will impact existing programs and whether students move to this program from others or whether the proposed program is expected to attract new students. Identify any programs proposed for closure as a result of this proposed new program. Admission Requirements List the admission requirements and indicate their appropriateness for ensuring adequate achievement and preparation for entry into the program. List any proposed alternative requirements and rationale. For new majors within an already approved undergraduate degree program, indicate whether the admission requirements differ from existing requirements within the degree program. If different, provide the rationale. Program Requirements Outline the proposed program (course and additional academic) requirements, including: a) courses currently offered, with frequency of offering; b) list of any new courses proposed as part of the submission; c) required courses mounted by other units and confirm commitment by said unit; d) research and/or experiential learning activities, indicating whether required or elective; e) thesis, major paper or other capstone requirement, indicating whether required or elective. Identify the mode of delivery (in-class, lecture, problem- or case-based learning, online/distance, hybrid) and explain why the methods are appropriate for meeting the program s learning objectives. Indentify the appropriateness of the program s structure and curriculum in meeting expressed learning objectives. Identify the appropriateness of the proposed method of assessment in evaluating student progress and achievement of the learning objectives. Include the proposed calendar copy for this program (Preamble, Schedule of Studies) and templates for any new courses proposed to support the program. 38

Human and Physical Resource Requirements Provide evidence of and planning for adequate numbers and quality of (a) faculty and staff to achieve the goals of the program; or (b) of plans and the commitment to provide the necessary resources in step with the implementation of the program; (c) planned/anticipated class sizes; (d) provision of supervision of experiential learning opportunities (if required); and (e) the role of adjunct and part-time faculty. Funding and Resource Availability Provide evidence that there are adequate resources to sustain the quality of scholarship produced by undergraduate students and possible associated research activities, including library support, information technology support, and laboratory access. Indicate whether there are any notable resources available to the program demonstrating institutional appropriateness e.g. Chairs, institutes, centres; unique library collections or resources; facilities such as computer, laboratory, other acquisitions, etc. Indicate any external financial support demonstrating strength such as facility/equipment donations, other external donations, grants, etc. Duplication, Student Demand and Societal Need Identify similar programs offered by other institutions in the Ontario university system and provide evidence of justifiable duplication based on demand and/or societal need. Provide convincing evidence of student demand for the program. Per the MTCU checklist, consider the following in making these determinations: a) evidence of student demand through application statistics, for example: number of enquiries, applications received, number of qualified applicants; b) origin of student demand (% domestic and visa students); c) duration of the projected demand (e.g. short, medium or long-term demand from specified sources); d) evidence of review and comment by appropriate student organization(s), if applicable. Identify the societal need for the proposed program including: a) dimensions of the societal need for graduates (e.g. socio-cultural, economic, scientific, technological); b) geographic scope of the societal need for graduates (e.g. local, regional, provincial, national); c) trends in societal need for graduates; d) duration of the societal need (e.g. short, medium, or long-term). Examples of evidence for the above would be: letters from a variety of potential employers of graduates who have seen the curriculum and commented upon the need for graduates within their organization and, more broadly, in their field of endeavour; professional society and/or association comments about the need for graduates based on a review of the curriculum; employment surveys, survey of the number of positions advertised in, for example, the CAUT Bulletin, AUCC University Affairs, etc.; statistics related to the number of Ontario students leaving the province to study in the same field elsewhere in Canada or abroad Attachments Provide the following supporting documentation with a new program proposal: Letter of support from the relevant Dean(s), including confirmation of the adequacy of required resources Letter of support from the Head of Information Resources indicating a completed Library Assessment and adequate library resources Confirmation of support from other units a) implicated in the proposal or b) affected by the proposal Estimate of student demand from the Registrar (or Associate Registrar, Admission Services) Letter of support from the Director, CECS, and copy of the Co-op Feasibility Study, if applicable. 39

APPENDIX IV PROPOSAL BRIEF NEW GRADUATE PROGRAMS 40

University of Guelph Senate: Board of Graduate Studies PROPOSAL BRIEF - NEW GRADUATE PROGRAM Guidelines for the Preparation of the Proposal Brief for New Program Proposals including: Graduate Degrees, Collaborative Programs, Fields, Graduate Diplomas (Type 1, Type 2, Type 3) All proposed new programs (graduate degrees (PhD, Master's, GDip) and graduate fields) must receive a recommendation from the Office of the Provost to move through the governance process. Submit a Preliminary-Brief composed of Sections A, B, C, D, and F of Volume I: Proposal Brief to the Assistant Vice-President (Graduate Studies & Program Quality Assurance) who, on behalf of the Provost, ensures new programs are consistent with the strategic plans and directions for growth of the university. Once Provostial approval has been granted, proposals for new graduate degree and diploma programs must be prepared for a complete review while the addition of new fields to an existing program, changes to degree designations, and proposals for collaborative programs and for-credit graduate diplomas are submitted for expedited review. Once final approval has been received from Senate, all program proposals and changes are submitted for approval to the Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance (OUCQA), and then to the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (MTCU) for funding approval. The degree designations of MA, MSc and PhD should be reserved for academic/research programs. Explicit professional programs or terminal magesteriate programs should adopt a different degree designation appropriate to the program and discipline, so that the nature of the program and the qualifications of its graduates should be clearly understood. NB: New program submissions will not be forwarded to Programs Committee, BGS or Senate for approval until the Office of the Provost has reviewed and approved the proposal. VOLUME I: PROPOSAL BRIEF A. Program/Specialization Name and Administration Indicate the Sponsoring Department/School and College(s) Indicate the Program Coordinator responsible for program management and academic counselling. Provide evidence of any consultation with other units/programs participating in the proposed new program/specialization. (i.e., if the program of study includes courses from unit(s) other than the sponsoring unit, a clear commitment of support for the proposed program/specialization must be included). 41

B. Program Objectives and University of Guelph Learning Objectives (GUDLES) The objectives of the program should be clearly stated and should be appropriate to the nature of the program and to the level of the degree offered. Identify Fields in the program(s) (note: master s programs are not required to declare specific fields). Identify any distinctive curriculum aspects, program innovations or creative components. Identify which of the University's Learning Objectives are particularly addressed and how the proposed program supports student achievement of the Learning Objectives. See Chapter III, Learning Objectives, in the Graduate Calendar (http://www.uoguelph.ca/registrar/calendars/graduate/current/geninfo-lo-dbu.shtml) Identify intended career and/or higher education, any specific objective in the discipline, e.g., professional skills, etc. Program objectives should also relate to the careers to which graduates in the discipline can aspire. For professional program areas, identify congruence with current regulatory requirements of the profession. C. Rationale and Consistency with the University s Mission and Integrated Plan Explain the rationale for developing the program and identify the relationship of the program to the Integrated Plans of the Department/School and College, and overall University Integrated Plan. D. Anticipated Enrolment and Impact on Existing Programs Identify projected enrolment levels for the first five years of operation, including: a) initial enrolment; b) enrolment after two years; c) steady-state annual enrolment and steady state total enrolment and years these will be achieved. Identify whether the new program will impact existing programs and whether students move to this program from others or whether the proposed program is expected to attract new students. Identify any programs proposed for closure as a result of this proposed new program. E. Admission Requirements List the admission requirements and indicate their appropriateness for ensuring adequate achievement and preparation for entry into the program. List any proposed alternative requirements and rationale. For new majors within an already approved undergraduate degree program, indicate whether the admission requirements differ from existing requirements within the degree program. If different, provide the rationale. F. Program Requirements Outline the program (course) requirements, including: a) courses currently offered, with frequency of offering; b) list of any new courses proposed as part of the submission; c) required courses mounted by other units and confirm commitment by said unit; d) for doctoral programs, the structure of the qualifying examination; e) required research and/or experiential learning activities; f) required thesis, major paper or other capstone requirement. Identify the mode of delivery (in-class, lecture, problem- or case-based learning, online/distance, hybrid) and explain why the methods are appropriate for meeting the program s learning objectives. 42

Identify the appropriateness of the program s structure and curriculum in meeting expressed learning objectives. Identify the appropriateness of the proposed method of assessment in evaluating student progress and achievement of the learning objectives. Note: the proposed calendar copy for this program (Preamble, Schedule of Studies) and templates (course forms and course outlines) for any new courses proposed to support the program will be required with the submission (see Volume II: Supporting Documentation). G. Human and Physical Resource Requirements Complete Table 1 using the template provided below. Discuss the areas of strength and expertise of the faculty up to, and including, its current status, and also any plan for future development. The commitment of the core faculty to the graduate program through sustained participation in activities involving graduate students (seminars, colloquia, conferences, journal clubs, etc.) should be demonstrated. For doctoral and research-oriented master s programs, evidence is required of the scholarly activity and intellectual atmosphere of the academic unit based on the number and quality of significant publications of the members and by the unit s continuing insistence on originality and excellence. In the case of programs in professional areas, there must be a solid basis of appropriate scholarly or creative activities. H. Funding and Resource Availability Provide evidence that there are adequate resources to sustain the research activities and quality of scholarship produced by students, including library support, information technology support, and laboratory access. Indicate whether there are any notable resources available to the program demonstrating institutional appropriateness e.g., research institutes, centres and chairs; unique library collections or resources; facilities such as computer, laboratory, other acquisitions, etc. Complete Table 2 using the template provided below. Indicate the expected level and source(s) of student stipend, if any, to be provided. Provide source of research operating funds to core faculty members (granting councils, industry, government, foundations, other) in table form, for the past six years. An estimated to which research funds are used for students stipends and to provide support for their research should be provided, when applicable. Other types of research funding (e.g., equipment, travel, publication) should be listed in a separate table. I. Duplication, Student Demand and Societal Need Identify similar programs offered by other institutions in the Ontario university system and provide evidence of justifiable duplication based on demand and/or societal need. Provide convincing evidence of student demand for the program. Per the MTCU checklist, consider the following in making these determinations: a) evidence of student demand through application statistics, for example: number of enquiries, applications received, number of qualified applicants; b) origin of student demand (% domestic and visa students); c) duration of the projected demand (e.g. short, medium or long-term demand from specified sources; d) evidence of review and comment by appropriate student organization(s), if applicable. Identify the societal need for the proposed program including: 43

a) dimensions of the societal need for graduates (e.g. socio-cultural, economic, scientific, technological); b) geographic scope of the societal need for graduates (e.g. local, regional, provincial, national); c) trends in societal need for graduates; d) duration of the societal need (e.g. short, medium, or long-term). Examples of evidence for the above would be: letters from a variety of potential employers of graduates who have seen the curriculum and commented upon the need for graduates within their organization and, more broadly, in their field of endeavour; professional society and/or association comments about the need for graduates based on a review of the curriculum; employment surveys, survey of the number of positions advertised in, for example, the CAUT Bulletin, AUCC University Affairs, etc.; statistics related to the number of Ontario students leaving the province to study in the same field elsewhere in Canada or abroad. VOLUME II: SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION Provide the following supporting documentation with a new program proposal: A. Letter of support from the relevant Dean(s), including confirmation of the adequacy of required resources B. Letter of support from the Head of Information Resources indicating a completed Library Assessment and adequate library resources C. Confirmation of support from other units a) implicated in the proposal or b) affected by the proposal. D. Calendar copy: Include the proposed calendar copy for this program (Preamble, Schedule of Studies) and templates for any new courses proposed to support the program. E. Current curriculum vitaes of faculty members named in proposal (Tenure & Promotion format) 44

GUIDELINES FOR AN EXPEDITED APPROVAL The following Expedited Approval process may be used for proposals for: a) a new Field in a graduate program, or b) a new Collaborative Program; or c) new for-credit graduate diplomas. Volume I: Proposal Brief The Expedited Approvals process requires the submission of Volume I: Proposal Brief of the proposed program change/new program and the rationale for it, and Volume II: Supporting Documentation. The process is expedited by not requiring the use of external reviewers. The Proposal Brief should be prepared as described above that presents the new program or the significant changes being proposed (including, as appropriate, reference to learning outcomes, faculty and resources), provides a brief account of the rationale for the changes, and addresses the Evaluation Criteria listed above where they apply. GUIDELINES FOR A CHANGE IN DEGREE DESIGNATION A unit 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. 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) a 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. 45

GUIDELINES FOR A NEW STREAM OR OPTION FOR AN EXISITING PROGRAM A unit wishing to add a new stream or option to an existing 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. Provide: a) a statement of the unit s perception of the substantive difference between the streams/options; b) a demonstration that there are a sufficient number of faculty members with the appropriate (scholarly) credentials for the proposed option or stream; c) a demonstration that the program requirements for students are appropriate for the proposed option or; and d) a demonstration that the admissions requirements are appropriate for the proposed option or stream. 46

TABLE 1. Faculty members by field. N.B.: The intent of this Table is to establish the strength and the degree of involvement of the faculty complement participating in each field of the graduate program and whose CVs are provided in Volume II of the Brief. This is an important element in the assessment of program quality. Faculty Members by Field Faculty Name & Rank Home Unit 1 Supervisory Fields Privileges 2 1 3 2 3 4 Category 4 Aaaa- Assistant Master s X x Bbbb- Professor Full X x Cccc-Associate Full x Dddd- Professor Master s x x Category 2 Eeee- Associate Master s Category 3 Ffff-Assistant Master s Category 4 Gggg- Professor (X) Full Etc. 1. 2. 3. 4. This is the budget unit paying the salary: department, school, research centre or institute, or other. Indicate the level of supervisory privileges held by each faculty member: e.g., full, master s only, co-supervision only, etc.. Either give the field name or a footnote reference to it. List faculty members under the categories suggested, as applicable (it is expected that some categories may not apply to your institution). Category 1: Tenured or tenure-track core faculty members whose graduate involvement is exclusively in the graduate program under review. For this purpose the master s and doctoral streams of a program are considered as a single program. Membership in the graduate program, not the home unit, is the defining issue. Category 2: Non-tenure-track core faculty members whose graduate involvement is exclusively in the graduate program under review. Category 3: Tenured or tenure-track core faculty members who are involved in teaching and/or supervision in other graduate program(s) in addition to being a core member of the graduate program under review. Category 4: Non-tenure track core faculty members who are involved in teaching and/or supervision in other graduate program(s) in addition to being a core member of the graduate program under review. Category 5: Other core faculty: this category may include emeritus professors with supervisory privileges and other Associated Graduate Faculty members. Category 6: Special Graduate Faculty members who participate in the teaching of graduate courses. 47

TABLE 2 Total Operating Research Funding by Source and Year for the Past 4 Years Source Year 1 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Totals Granting Councils 2 Other Peer Adjudicated 3 Contracts Others 4 1. 2. 3. 4. Academic year. Do not include equipment grants, conference grants, or grants allocated by the university such as SSHRC minor grants in this column. Explain source and type in footnote. University allocated grants (such as SSHRC minor grants). 48

Appendix V Schedule of Reviews 49

INTERNAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Schedule of Reviews (* denotes interdepartmental majors) 2011-2012 Unit Reviews Department of Clinical Studies DVM Clinical Studies, GDip, MSc Veterinary Science, DVSc Department of Pathobiology DVM Pathobiology, GDip, MSc, PhD Veterinary Science, DVSc Department of History History, BA History, MSc, PhD (Joint Graduate Program - will be reviewed separately in 2013-14) School of Engineering Biological Engineering, BEng Biomedical Engineering, BEng Computer Engineering, BEng Engineering Systems and Computing, BEng Environmental Engineering, BEng Mechanical Engineering, BEng Water Resources Engineering, BEng Engineering, MEng, MASc, PhD Engineering Design of Sustainable Water Resource Management, GDip Modelling Applications in Water Resources Engineering, GDip 2011-2012 Program Reviews Bachelor of Science in Agriculture, Degree Agricultural Science*, BSc(AGR) (moved to 2015-2016 due to major program changes made in 2010) 50

2012-2013 Unit Reviews Department of Human Health and Nutritional Sciences Bio-Medical Science*, BSc Human Kinetics, BSc Nutritional and Neutraceutical Sciences, BSc Human Health & Nutritional Sciences, MSc, PhD Department of Philosophy Philosophy, BA Philosophy, MA, PhD Department of Physics Biophysics, BSc Nanoscience*, BSc Physics, BSc Theoretical Physics, BSc Physics, MSc, PhD (Joint Graduate Program - will be reviewed separately) Department of Political Science Criminal Justice and Public Policy*, BA Political Science, BA Public Management, BComm Criminology & Criminal Justice Policy, MA Political Science, MA, PhD Department of Sociology & Anthropology Anthropology, BA Criminal Justice and Public Policy*, BA Sociology, BA Public Issues Anthropology, MA (Joint Graduate Program - will be reviewed separately) Sociology, MA, PhD 2012-2013 Program Reviews Bachelor of Arts & Sciences Bachelor of Bio-Resource Management Environmental Management*, BBRM Equine Management*, BBRM (moved to 2013-2014 due to major program changes made in 2010) 51

2013-2014 Unit Reviews Department of Business Accounting, BComm Human Resources Management, BComm Leadership, MA Department of Economics Economics, BA Management Economics, BA Management Economics and Finance, BComm Mathematical Economics, BA Economics, MA, PhD School of Computer Science Computer Science, BComp Computing, General, BComp Information Systems and Human Behaviour*, BA Software Engineering, BComp Bioinformatics, GDip, MBionf, MSc Computer Science, MSc, PhD School of Fine Art and Music Art History, BA Music, BA Studio Art, BA Art & Visual Culture, MA Studio Art, MFA Department of Geography Environmental Geography, BSc(Env) Environmental Geoscience & Geomatics, BSc Geography, BA Geography, MA, MSc, PhD Department of History History, MSc, PhD (Joint Graduate Program - with Laurier and Waterloo) 2013-2014 Program Reviews Bachelor of Science in Environmental Sciences (moved to 2016-2017 due to major program changes made in 2010) Bachelor of Bio-Resource Management Environmental Management*, BBRM Equine Management*, BBRM 52

2014-2015 Unit Reviews Department of Biomedical Sciences Bio-Medical Science*, BSc Biomedical Sciences, MSc, PhD DVM Veterinary Science, DVSC Neuroscience*, MA, MSc, PhD Department of Family Relations & Applied Nutrition Adult Development, Families and Well-Being, BASc Applied Human Nutrition, BASc Child, Youth, and Family, BASc Applied Nutrition, MAN Family Relations & Applied Nutrition, MSc, PhD Department of Mathematics and Statistics Applied Mathematics and Statistics, BA, BSc Mathematics BA, BSc Statistics BA, BSc Applied Statistics, GDip Biophysics*, MSc, PhD Mathematics & Statistics, MSc, PhD School of Languages and Literatures Classical Studies, BA European Studies*, BA French Studies, BA Hispanic Studies, BA European Studies, MA French Studies, MA Latin American & Caribbean Studies, MA School of Hospitality and Tourism Management Hotel and Food Administration, BComm Tourism Management, BComm MBA 2014-2015 Program Reviews Bachelor of Science, Degree Biological Science*, BSc General Program*, BSc Physical Science*, BSc Bachelor of Applied Science 53

2015-2016 Unit Reviews Department of Animal and Poultry Science Animal Biology, BSc Animal Science BSc (Agr) Animal & Poultry Science, MSc, PhD School of Environmental Design and Rural Development Landscape Architecture, BLA Landscape Architecture, MLA Capacity Development & Extension*, MSc International Development Studies*, MA, MSc, PhD Rural Planning & Development, MPlan, MSc(Planning) Rural Studies, PhD Department of Plant Agriculture Crop, Horticulture and Turfgrass Sciences, BSc(Agr) Organic Agriculture*, BSc(Agr) Plant Science*, BSc Plant Agriculture, MSc, PhD Department of Psychology Psychology, BA Psychology: Brain & Cognition, BSc Psychology, MA, MSc, PhD 2015-2016 Program Reviews Bachelor of Arts Degree Environmental Governance*, BA General Program*, BA Individual Studies*, BA International Development*, BA Bachelor of Science in Agriculture, Degree Agricultural Science*, BSc(AGR) 54

2016-2017 Unit Reviews Department of Chemistry Biological and Pharmaceutical Chemistry, BSc Chemical Physics*, BSc Chemistry, BSc Toxicology*, BSc Chemistry, MSc, PhD (Joint Graduate Program - will be reviewed separately) School of Environmental Sciences Earth and Atmospheric Science, BSc(Env) Environmental Biology, BSc, BSc(Env) Natural Resources Management, BSc(Env) Environmental Biology, MSc, PhD Land Resource Science, MSc, PhD Toxicology*, MSc, PhD Department of Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics Food & Agricultural Business, BComm Food, Agriculture & Resource Economics, BA Food, Agriculture & Resource Economics, MSc, PhD Department of Food Science Food Science, BSc Food Safety and Quality Assurance, MSc Food Science, MSc, PhD School of English and Theatre Studies English, BA Theatre Studies, BA Creative Writing, MFA English, MA Literary Studies/Theatre Studies in English, PhD 2016-2017 Program Reviews Bachelor of Computing Degree Bachelor of Science in Environmental Sciences 55

2017-2018 Unit Reviews Department of Integrative Biology Ecology,* BSc, BSc(Env) Marine and Freshwater Biology, BSc Wild Life Biology, BSc Zoology, BSc Aquaculture*, MSc(Aquaculture) Integrative Biology, MSc, PhD Department of Molecular & Cellular Biology Biochemistry, BSc Microbiology, BSc Molecular Biology and Genetics, BSc Molecular & Cellular Biology, MSc, PhD Department of Marketing and Consumer Studies Marketing Management, BComm Real Estate and Housing, BComm Management, PhD Market Research, GDip Marketing & Consumer Studies, MSc Department of Population Medicine DVM Public Health*, MPH Population Medicine, MSc, PhD Veterinary Science, DVSc Guelph-Humber Applied Arts, General, BAA Applied Arts in Media Studies, BAMS Applied Science in Early Childhood, BASc Applied Science in Family and Community Social Services, BASc Applied Science in Justice Studies, BASc Applied Science in Kinesiology, BASc* Applied Science in Psychology, BASc Business Administration, BBA 2017-2018 Program Reviews Bachelor of Commerce Degree Doctor of Veterinary Medicine Program 56

Appendix VI Objectives of the Internal Review of Departments/Schools It is the responsibility of the facilitator of the IRS, in consultation with the Chair of the IRC, to ensure that all relevant units have an opportunity to comment on the unit 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: (a) Consonance of the unit's undergraduate and graduate offerings 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; Admission requirements are appropriately aligned with the learning outcomes established for completion of the program. The curriculum reflects the current state of the discipline or area of study. Evidence of any significant innovation or creativity in the content and/or delivery of the program relative to other such programs. Mode(s) of delivery to meet the program s identified learning outcomes are appropriate and effective. (c) The appropriateness of the pedagogical and evaluation strategies and methods applied to each of the programs; Methods for assessing student achievement of the defined learning outcomes and degree learning expectations are appropriate and effective. Appropriateness and effectiveness of the means of assessment, especially in the students' final year of the program, in clearly demonstrating achievement of the program learning objectives and the institution's (or the Program s own) statement of Degree Level Expectations. (d) The adequacy of the available human, physical, and financial resources to support the unit's programs; Appropriateness and effectiveness of the unit's use of existing human, physical and financial resources in delivering its programs. In making this assessment, reviewers must recognize the institution's autonomy to determine priorities for funding, space, and faculty allocation. 57

(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; Outcome measures of student performance and achievement are of particular interest, but there are also important input and process measures which are known to have a strong association with quality outcomes. It is expected that many of the following listed examples will be widely used. i) Faculty: qualifications, research and scholarly record; class sizes; percentage of classes taught by permanent or non-permanent (contractual) faculty; numbers, assignments and qualifications of part-time or temporary faculty; ii) Students: applications and registrations; attrition rates; time-to-completion; final-year academic achievement; graduation rates; academic awards; student incourse reports on teaching; and iii) Graduates: rates of graduation, employment six months and two years after graduation, post-graduate study, "skills match" and alumni reports on program quality when available and when permitted by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). Auditors will be instructed that these items may not be available and applicable to all programs. (f) The management of graduate programs, the quality of supervision, and the quality and level of scholarly output of graduate students; Evidence that students' time-to-completion is both monitored and managed in relation to the program's defined length and program requirements. Quality and availability of graduate supervision. Definition and application of indicators that provide evidence of faculty, student and program quality, for example: i) Faculty: funding, honours and awards, and commitment to student mentoring; ii) Students: grade-level for admission, scholarly output, success rates in provincial and national scholarships, competitions, awards and commitment to professional and transferable skills; iii) Program: evidence of a program structure and faculty research that will ensure the intellectual quality of the student experience; iv) Sufficient graduate level courses that students will be able to meet the requirement that two-thirds of their course requirements be met through courses at this level. 58

Appendix VII Objectives of the Internal Review of Joint Graduate Programs It is the responsibility of the facilitator of the IRS, in consultation with the Chair of the IRC, to ensure that all relevant units have an opportunity to comment on the program 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 joint graduate program: (a) Consonance of the graduate offerings 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 program s academic objectives and degree level outcomes expectations, and its ability to meet them; Admission requirements are appropriately aligned with the learning outcomes established for completion of the program. The curriculum reflects the current state of the discipline or area of study. Evidence of any significant innovation or creativity in the content and/or delivery of the program relative to other such programs. Mode(s) of delivery to meet the program s identified learning outcomes are appropriate and effective. (c) The appropriateness of the pedagogical and evaluation strategies and methods applied to the program; Methods for assessing student achievement of the defined learning outcomes and degree learning expectations are appropriate and effective. Appropriateness and effectiveness of the means of assessment, especially in the students' final year of the program, in clearly demonstrating achievement of the program learning objectives and the institution's (or the Program s own) statement of Degree Level Expectations. (d) The adequacy of the available human, physical, and financial resources to support the program; Appropriateness and effectiveness of the use of existing human, physical and financial resources in delivering the program. In making this assessment, reviewers must recognize the institutions autonomy to determine priorities for funding, space, and faculty allocation. 59

(e) The definition and application, where possible, of indicators to determine the learning outcomes of the program, including applicable provincial, national, and professional standards; Outcome measures of student performance and achievement are of particular interest, but there are also important input and process measures which are known to have a strong association with quality outcomes. It is expected that many of the following listed examples will be widely used. i) Faculty: qualifications, research and scholarly record; class sizes; percentage of classes taught by permanent or non-permanent (contractual) faculty; numbers, assignments and qualifications of part-time or temporary faculty; ii) Students: applications and registrations; attrition rates; time-to-completion; final-year academic achievement; graduation rates; academic awards; student incourse reports on teaching; and iii) Graduates: rates of graduation, employment six months and two years after graduation, post-graduate study, "skills match" and alumni reports on program quality when available and when permitted by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). Auditors will be instructed that these items may not be available and applicable to all programs. (f) The management of the joint graduate program, the quality of supervision, and the quality and level of scholarly output of graduate students; Evidence that students' time-to-completion is both monitored and managed in relation to the program's defined length and program requirements. Quality and availability of graduate supervision. Definition and application of indicators that provide evidence of faculty, student and program quality, for example: i) Faculty: funding, honours and awards, and commitment to student mentoring; ii) Students: grade-level for admission, scholarly output, success rates in provincial and national scholarships, competitions, awards and commitment to professional and transferable skills; iii) Program: evidence of a program structure and faculty research that will ensure the intellectual quality of the student experience; iv) Sufficient graduate level courses that students will be able to meet the requirement that two-thirds of their course requirements be met through courses at this level. 60

Appendix VIII Objectives of the Internal Review of Undergraduate Degree Programs It is the responsibility of the facilitator of the IRS, in consultation with the Chair of the IRC, to ensure that all relevant units have an opportunity to comment on the degree program 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 the undergraduate degree program: (a) Consonance of the undergraduate program 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 program's academic objectives and its ability to meet them; Admission requirements are appropriately aligned with the learning outcomes established for completion of the program. The curricula reflect the current state of the disciplines and areas of study. Evidence of any significant innovation or creativity in the content and/or delivery of the program relative to other such programs. Mode(s) of delivery to meet the program s identified learning outcomes are appropriate and effective. (c) The appropriateness of the pedagogical and evaluation strategies and methods applied to the program; Methods for assessing student achievement of the defined learning outcomes and degree learning expectations are appropriate and effective. Appropriateness and effectiveness of the means of assessment, especially in the students' final year of the program, in clearly demonstrating achievement of the program learning objectives and the institution's (or the Program s own) statement of Degree Level Expectations. (d) The adequacy of the available human, physical, and financial resources to support the program; Appropriateness and effectiveness of the program s use of existing human, physical and financial resources in delivering it. In making this assessment, reviewers must recognize the institution's autonomy to determine priorities for funding, space, and faculty allocation. 61

(e) The definition and application, where possible, of indicators to determine the learning outcomes of the program, including applicable provincial, national, and professional standards; Outcome measures of student performance and achievement are of particular interest, but there are also important input and process measures which are known to have a strong association with quality outcomes. It is expected that many of the following listed examples will be widely used. i) Faculty: qualifications, research and scholarly record; class sizes; percentage of classes taught by permanent or non-permanent (contractual) faculty; numbers, assignments and qualifications of part-time or temporary faculty; ii) Students: applications and registrations; attrition rates; time-to-completion; final-year academic achievement; graduation rates; academic awards; student incourse reports on teaching; and iii) Graduates: rates of graduation, employment six months and two years after graduation, post-graduate study, "skills match" and alumni reports on program quality when available and when permitted by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). Auditors will be instructed that these items may not be available and applicable to all programs. 62

Appendix IX Statistical Reports in Aid of Self-Studies, New Program Submissions, and/ or Cyclical Reviews From the Office of Resource Planning and Analysis, a package of reports that present: (a) Information provided by the Budget Office Report #1 MTCU Actual Results compared to Annual Budget Report #2 MTCU Base Budget Summary Report #3 MTCU Established Position FTEs (b) Information provided by Resource Planning and Analysis: Summary Table and Graph - Course Enrolments by Program of Students Enrolled Summary Report - Department Course Enrolment by Program Summary Detail Report Department Course Enrolment by Program and Course Summary Table and Graph - Course Enrolments by Year Level of Course Summary Report - Department Course Enrolment by Year Level Summary Table and Graph Course Sections Taught (primary meeting type such as lecture, if available or other mode if lecture not used) Department Report Section Count and Average Section Size by Year Level University Summary Report (by College) Section Count and Average Section Size by Course Year Level Summary Table and Graph Student Faculty Ratios Summary Table and Graph Student FTEs Summary Table and Graph Faculty FTEs Department Report Student Faculty Ratio University Summary Report Student Faculty Ratios by College 63

(c) Information provided by Enrolment Statistics and Systems: Tables and Graphs - Department Specializations: Enrolment and Graduation Counts by Regular and Coop options, where applicable Table and Graph - Admission Cutoffs, Counts and Averages Post Graduation Survey Findings: graphs showing results for selected questions, from the most recent survey with comparative information for the overall program and college associated with the particular department as well as university overall. From the Office of Graduate Studies: (a) Summary Table on the time-to-completion for every student in respective graduate programs. From the Library: (a) A completed library assessment and letter of support indicating adequate library resources with comments on any special features of the collection from the Chief Librarian or designate. From the Office of Open Learning: (a) Summary of Open Learning courses offered with comments on any special features 64