Senate Standing Committee on Program Review Wednesday, September 30, 2015 3-5 pm Surrey Campus, Cedar 2110 A G E N D A 1. Call to order / Stan Kazymerchyk 3 pm 2. Confirmation of Agenda / Stan Kazymerchyk M 3. Approval of Minutes - June 10, 2015 Attached M 4. Pending Business 5. CADD Self-Study Report / Daryl Massey, Chair CADD Appendices 6. Formation of Task Force for CADD External Review / Stan Kazymerchyk 7. Program Review Documents: * Introduction to Program Review * Program Review Steps Attached Attached Attached Attached M 3:30 M 4:15 I 4:25 8. Quality Assessment Framework / Lori McElroy Attached I 4:30 9. Chair s Report / Stan Kazymerchyk I 4:40 10. Manager s Report for IAP / Sunita Wiebe * Program Review Schedule * Program Review Progress Report 11. Items for Discussion: Attached Attached I 4:45 12. Adjournment 5 pm Standing Item: Attached: Role of committee in Reviewing Reports Action Key: M - Motion required I - Information only D - Discussion only Next Meeting Wednesday, October 21, 2015 3-5 pm Surrey Campus, Cedar 2110 Senate Standing Committee on Program Review Wednesday, June 10, 2015
MINUTES Senate Standing Committee on Program Review (SSCPR) Wednesday, June 10, 2015, 3 pm Surrey Campus, Arbutus Building, Room 2410 Present Jessica Bayntun Celia Brinkerhoff Michael Coombes Patrick Donahoe Jane Fee Stan Kazymerchyk / Chair Lori McElroy Chris Traynor Theresa Voorsluys Recorder Lori Scanlan / University Secretariat Ex-Officio / Non-voting Jennifer Au / Senate Vice Chair Josh Mitchell / Associate Registrar, Student Financial Services Regrets: Donna Cato Romy Kozak Alexandra Richmond Tom Westgate Guests: Andhra Goundrey / Coordinator, Fashion Program Carolyn Robertson / Dean, Chip and Shannon Wilson School of Design 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 3:05 pm. 2. Confirmation of Agenda Moved by Patrick Donahoe; seconded by Chris Traynor: THAT the Agenda be confirmed. 3. Approval of Minutes of May 11, 2015 Moved by Michael Coombes; seconded by Jessica Bayntun: THAT the Minutes of May 11, 2015 be approved. Motion Carried Motion Carried 4. Pending Business No business pending. 5. Fashion Design Action Plan: Andhra Goundrey, Coordinator, Fashion Andhra Goundrey, Coordinator, Fashion Program, presented a PowerPoint presentation of the Fashion Design Action Plan. She informed the committee that the department plans on meeting every three weeks to ensure they can maintain their relationship to their action plan and achieve their goals. Moved by Michael Coombes; seconded by Lori McElroy: THAT SSCPR approve the Fashion Design Action Plan. Motion Carried SSCPR June 10 2015 Page 1
6. Institutional Response to Action Plan for Fashion Design Carolyn Robertson, Dean, Chip and Shannon Wilson School of Design, presented the Institutional Response to the Fashion Design Action Plan and shared her thoughts on how the Deans need to be involved at the beginning and show support throughout the entire Program Review Process. 7. Institutional Analysis and Planning (IAP) Executive Director s Report Lori McElroy, Executive Director, IAP, presented her program review progress updates report. She reminded the committee that a workgroup for the external review of the Computer Aided Design and Drafting program needed to be formed. She announced that a verbal offer has been made for an IAP Manager Strategic Planning and Quality and that as of June 1 st the new Research Assistant joined IAP and will provide assistance with the volume of work and quality assurance. 8. Chair s Report The Chair, on behalf of the committee, thanked Michael Coombes for his hard work in support of program review and for his many years serving on the SSCPR. 9. Items for Discussion The committee briefly discussed orientation for new SSCPR members particularly those who join from service areas and how their input on committee discussions and decisions should be informed by their role in KPU. Michael Coombes thanked the committee for many years of fun and stated that he enjoyed his time as a member of the SSCPR. 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:10 pm. SSCPR June 10 2015 Page 2
Introduction to Program Review What It Is Program Review is a faculty-led, collaborative, systematic, evidence-based examination of a program s quality. In accordance with KPU s Vision 2018 and Academic Plan, it focuses on a pivotal question: are programs providing students the skills they require to become successful global citizens and career professionals? Why We Do It Program Review is one of KPU s quality assurance functions and is required by the Ministry s Degree Quality Assessment Board (DQAB). It is also a condition of KPU s membership in the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC). All KPU degree programs will undergo review at least once every five years. Non-degree programs will undergo review at least once every seven years. Related programs will be reviewed together. The schedule for program reviews will be updated on a yearly basis. What It Involves Program Review facilitates a detailed analysis of a program s strengths and areas for improvement through an assessment of its: competitiveness, relevance and viability within the sector/discipline curriculum and instructional design educational experience services, resources and facilities relationships and connections Who Is Involved While faculty will lead the review, other members of KPU have a role. These include Institutional Analysis and Planning (IAP), the Dean, Provost and the Senate Standing Committee on Program Review (SSCPR). A summary of each member s role follows: Member Summary of Primary Role Faculty Leads review; writes specific program review reports IAP Provides planning and advice; provides survey and administrative data; provides liaison with SSCPR Dean Provides input, advice and institutional perspective; reviews reports Provost Has overall institutional responsibility for academic quality SSCPR Ensures program review policy is addressed appropriately Institutional Analysis and Planning, KPU September 1, 2015 Program Review: Introduction to Program Review P a g e 1
Components There are five components to the program review process; each is described below. Component Purpose Written by Self-Study Assess program quality Identify strengths and areas of improvement Faculty (IAP provides data, survey and planning support) External Validate the Self-Study External Review Team Review Action Plan Institutional Response One-Year Follow Up Provide fresh, external perspective Shows actions that will be taken to address Self-Study and External Review recommendations Indicate support for the Action Plan Identifies recommendations/actions requiring support from the Dean s Office or Institution Provide first-year update on Action Plan progress Faculty (in consultation with the Dean) Dean (in consultation with the Provost) Faculty Steps and Timeline A program review should ideally take 18 months elapsed time from planning to the submission of an Action Plan and Institutional Response. This timeline includes activities to be undertaken by the various participants (e.g. gathering data, submitting documents to the SSCPR, organizing the External Review), as well as two months of annual vacation. What to Do Next If your program is scheduled to undergo a review, IAP s Manager, Strategic Planning and Quality will contact you to set up a meeting to explain the process and how IAP can help. The Manager will provide information on the process, help you develop a plan to conduct the review and timeline, and provide resources on program review and guidance throughout. The Program Review SharePoint site is also a resource. It hosts guides, forms and templates as well as completed and approved reports associated with each step for past reviews. The SharePoint site is: https://our.kpu.ca/sites/progrev/sitepages/home.aspx Please note that IAP is here to support you throughout the review! Contact Information: Sunita Wiebe, Manager, Strategic Planning and Quality Tel: 604.599.3125 or Sunita.Wiebe@kpu.ca Institutional Analysis and Planning, KPU September 1, 2015 Program Review: Introduction to Program Review P a g e 2
Program Review Overview: Steps and Roles Program Review is a faculty-led, collaborative, systematic, evidence-based examination of a program s quality. In accordance with KPU s Vision 2018 and Academic Plan, it focuses on a pivotal question: are programs providing students the skills they require to become successful global citizens and career professionals? Consequently, the review aims to: Conduct a detailed analysis of the program s strengths and areas for improvement. Determine the efficacy of the program s curriculum and instructional design. Evaluate the program s competitiveness, relevance and viability within the sector/discipline. Program Review is: One of KPU s quality assurance functions. Required by the Ministry s Degree Quality Assessment Board (DQAB). A condition of KPU s membership in the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC). Program Review Timing: Degree programs will undergo review at least once every five (5) years. Non-degree programs will undergo review at least once every seven (7) years. Related programs will be reviewed together. The schedule for program reviews is updated on a yearly basis and provided to Senate. Revised August 21, 2015
Program Review Process Overview of Steps and Roles Program Review is supported by the office of Institutional Analysis and Planning (IAP). The IAP staff who are on-hand to provide support are: The Manager, Strategic Planning and Quality (SP&Q) provides planning support, advice and guidance, and ensures the faculty conducting the review have the support they need to complete the review in a timely fashion. The Research Analyst, Quality Assurance (QA) oversees all aspects of survey research (question design, survey administration and data analysis). Other IAP staff as required. The components of the program review process are specified in KPU s Policy B.12 and include the following: 1. Self-Study 2. External Review 3. Action Plan 4. Institutional Response 5. One-Year Follow-up To ensure quality standards are met, each component (beginning with the Self-Study) must be submitted to the Senate Standing Committee on Program Review (SSCPR) for approval before proceeding to the next phase of the process. The Action Plan should be submitted together with the Institutional Response. The One-Year Follow-Up is to be submitted one year after the Action Plan has received SSCPR approval. Note: To be considered by the SSCPR, each report must be received by IAP at least 2 weeks prior to the SSCPR meeting. A program review should ideally take a total of 18 months elapsed time from its commencement to the submission of an Action Plan/Institutional Response. This 18-month timelines includes a range of activities to be undertaken by numerous stakeholders (e.g. IAP, the Dean, External Reviewers, and the SSCPR). Consequently, the 18-month timeline accounts for data-gathering processes, the submission of documents to the SSCPR, site visits arranged for external reviewers, as well as two months of annual vacation. The chart on the next page depicts the ideal timeline for all steps of the review (prior to the One-Year Follow-Up). Updated August 21, 2015 Page 2
Program Review Process Overview of Steps and Roles Months (Number of Months Suggested for Each Phase in Parentheses) Step 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Planning (2) Self-Study: Data Gathering (3) Self-Study: Analysis (3) Self-Study: Writing (5) Dean s Response (2) (2) Self-Study: Approval (1) External Review (3) External Review: Approval (1) Action Plan: Writing (3) Institutional Response (2) Action Plan: Approval (1) Note: This timeline is plotted out over 16 months so as to provide flexibility as to when faculty take their annual vacation. The steps entailed in each component of the review process are described on the following pages. For each step, the roles of faculty conducting the review, IAP staff supporting Program Review, the Dean s office, and the Senate Standing Committee on Program Review (SSCPR), are described. Please note that steps may overlap. Requests for IAP support should be made to the Manager, Strategic Planning and Quality. The Program Review SharePoint site contains resources to support the program review process, including all guides, forms and templates referred to below. It also provides the completed and approved reports associated with each step for past reviews. Forms and templates have changed over time, so previous work may not exactly match current requirements. The SharePoint site is: https://our.kpu.ca/sites/progrev/sitepages/home.aspx Updated August 21, 2015 Page 3
Program Review Process Overview of Steps and Roles Step Faculty IAP Dean s Office SSCPR 1. Planning Develop scope and timeline for Review Review Self-Study Guide (see SharePoint site) Provide information about program history, design, opportunities and challenges Manager, SP&Q, will: o Facilitate discussion o Clarify review process o Help clarify scope of review o Help establish timeline Provide input into development of review scope Help clarify scope of review Help establish review timeline Research Analyst, QA will participate in planning meetings where appropriate Review Administrative data Review administrative data to understand any issues that should be addressed in the review Provide additional information about program history, design, opportunities and challenges Manager, SP&Q, will: o Provide relevant administrative data on the program, including enrolment, retention and graduation trends. o Provide advice on data interpretation Identify Self-Study tasks, roles and timelines Ensure tasks and roles are understood Identify roles of faculty review team Help refine timeline Manager, SP&Q, will: o Clarify tasks and roles o Help refine timeline o Follow-up through-out the review to ensure timelines are maintained and ensure the faculty review team has the support they require Updated August 21, 2015 Page 4
Program Review Process Overview of Steps and Roles Step Faculty IAP Dean s Office SSCPR 2. Self-Study: Data Gathering Identify information, and its sources, required to address each issue in scope Prepare and conduct surveys Gather documents Conduct other research as required Consult with Research Analyst, QA on data requirements Provide feedback on draft surveys Gather documents needed for the review Conduct interviews, if appropriate Research Analyst, QA will: o Provide advice and guidance in identifying appropriate data, sources and data collection method/approach. o If interviews are to be conducted, determine whether they should be conducted by IAP, or by faculty review team. Research Analyst, QA will: o Prepare surveys, ensuring they address issues in scope, in consultation with program review team o Administer online surveys Research Analyst, QA will: o Provide support for data collection as required o Conduct interviews, if appropriate Updated August 21, 2015 Page 5
Program Review Process Overview of Steps and Roles Step Faculty IAP Dean s Office SSCPR 3. Self-Study: Analysis & Writing Conduct analysis of survey data Interpret IAP data Review and interpret documents and other information Adjust Self-Study Report outline to fit review scope Seek clarification from Research Analyst, QA if necessary Seek clarification from IAP if necessary Review and interpret documents and other information in terms of how they address the issues under review Review Self-Study report template (see SharePoint site) and modify as required to fit scope of review Seek clarification and advice from IAP as required Research Analyst, QA will conduct analysis, provide tables/charts, as appropriate, and advice on interpretation Research Analyst, QA and/or Manager, SP&Q, will provide advice on interpretation of IAP data, and support on data presentation Research Analyst, QA and/or Manager, SP&Q will: o Provide Self-Study outline o Provide guidance and advice, as required Updated August 21, 2015 Page 6
Program Review Process Overview of Steps and Roles Step Faculty IAP Dean s Office SSCPR Draft Self-Study report Note: this is a report of the findings of the Self-Study with recommendations of what issues need addressing; solutions are not expected in the Self-Study report Write up findings and recommendations using revised Self-Study report template Seek clarification and advice from IAP as required Research Analyst, QA and/or Manager, SP&Q, will provide guidance and advice, as required, including review draft self-study if requested, in advance of submission to SSCPR Research Analyst, QA will prepare data-related appendices and, if requested, assist with assembly of appendices 4. Dean s Response Obtain Dean s response to Self- Study Report Provide draft Self-Study Report to Dean Read Self-Study report Provide Dean s response to Questions for Dean/Associate Dean (see Appendix C of Self-Study Guide ) Updated August 21, 2015 Page 7
Program Review Process Overview of Steps and Roles Step Faculty IAP Dean s Office SSCPR 5. Self-Study Approval Present-Self-Study to SSCPR Send Self-Study report to Research Analyst, QA at least 2 weeks before the SSCPR meeting Prepare presentation Attend meeting and present highlights of report Answer questions of SSCPR Revise Self-Study, if required, to obtain approval Research Analyst, QA will: o Post Self-Study report on SharePoint site o Review Self-Study Report Manager, SP &Q will: o Read Self-Study Report o Coordinate timing of presentation to SSCRP o Provide guidelines for presenting Self-Study Attend meeting of SSCPR when Self- Study is presented (optional, but encouraged) Prior to meeting, read Self- Study report During presentation, ask questions if required After presentation, discuss and decide whether to approve or ask for specific revisions to deal with inadequacies 6. External Review Plan External Review Review Guidelines for External Review Team (see SharePoint site) Determine timing of External Review in consultation with PRC Complete form with names of possible candidates for external committee (see SharePoint site) Manager, SP&Q, will: o Contact possible candidates and determine availability and interest and obtain CVs o Set date for external review site visit in consultation with faculty and external reviewers o Finalize logistics for site-visit in consultation with faculty and external reviewers o Provide External Review team with standards and guidelines for External Review, self-study report, and agenda for sitevisit Review CVs of candidates for external review team Approve membership of External Review Team Updated August 21, 2015 Page 8
Program Review Process Overview of Steps and Roles Step Faculty IAP Dean s Office SSCPR Participate in site visit Participate as required in site visit of External Review team Participate as required in site visit of External Review team 7. External Review Report Approval External Reviewers report Review External Reviewers report Research Analyst, QA will post External Reviewers report on SharePoint site Research Analyst, QA and Manager, SP&Q, will review External Reviewers report Review External Reviewers report Review External Reviewers report Ask questions Decide whether to approve or ask for specific revisions to deal with inadequacies 8. Action Plan Develop Action Plan Review Action Plan Guidelines and template (see SharePoint site) Research Analyst, QA will provide guidelines and template for Action Plan Collaborate in development of Action Plan Collaborate with faculty and Dean on how to address recommendations in Self- Study and External Review Research Analyst, QA and Manager, SP&Q, will provide advice and guidance as required Review Action Plan and ask for revisions if required Develop Action Plan according to guidelines using template provided: o this plan doesn t provide solutions, it provides the approach that will be used to develop solutions o Include timelines, and assigned roles Updated August 21, 2015 Page 9
Program Review Process Overview of Steps and Roles Step Faculty IAP Dean s Office SSCPR 9. Institutional Response Review Action Plan Provide draft Action Plan to Dean Revise Action Plan, if required, based on feedback from Dean and Provost Once satisfied with Action Plan, review with Provost Write Institutional Response Develop Institutional Response in consultation with Provost 10. Action Plan Approval Present Action Plan Deliver Action Plan and institutional Response to Research Analyst, QA at least 2 weeks prior to the SSCPR meeting Present Action Plan to SSCPR Revise Action Plan if required Research Analyst, QA will: o Post Action Plan and Institutional Response on SharePoint site o Review Action Plan and Institutional Response Manager, SP&Q, will: o Coordinate timing of presentation to SSCPR o Provide guidelines for presenting Action Plan o Read Action Plan and Institutional Response Attend SSCPR meeting to present Institutional Response Review revised Action Plan and revise Institutional Response if required Read Action Plan and Institutional Response Decide whether to approve Action Plan or to ask for specific revisions to deal with inadequacies Note, Institutional Response is not subject to approval by SSCPR. It is provided for information only. If the Action Plan is required to be revised, the Dean may wish to revise the Institutional Response Updated August 21, 2015 Page 10
Program Review Process Overview of Steps and Roles Step Faculty IAP Dean s Office SSCPR 11. One-Year Follow-up Prepare Follow-up report Write report on progress of implementation of Action Plan to date Manager, SP&Q will: o Remind program review team when one-year follow-up is due o Provide guidelines for Followup report Provide input to the Follow-up report Present Follow-up Report Deliver Follow-up report to Research Analyst, QA at least 2 weeks prior to SSCPR meeting Present highlights at SSCPR meeting Research Analyst, QA will: o Post Follow-up report on SharePoint site o Review Follow-up Report Manager, SP&Q, will: o Coordinate timing of presentation to SSCPR o Provide guidelines for presenting report o Read the report Attend meeting of SSCPR when 1-Year Follow-up is presented (optional, but encouraged) Review Follow-up report and decide whether to approve, or to ask for specific revisions to deal with inadequacies Updated August 21, 2015 Page 11
A Proposal for a Quality Assurance Framework for KPU Office of the President and Vice Chancellor Draft: August 10, 2015 Quality assurance (QA) processes and frameworks for higher education have been adopted around the world by provinces, states, nations and international collectives. Assessing the quality of programs and, increasingly, the learning outcomes of program graduates, is a vital aspect of any credible institution or system. For KPU, while a number of policies and processes exist, adopting an overall framework would help to: address the call for increased public accountability identify duplication and gaps in current evaluations include the academic support services that contribute to learner success align QA with the goals of the Academic Plan and Vision 2018 ensure balance between imposed accountability (we understand AVED to be considering a similar process) and continuous improvement and innovation in curricular and teaching developments. There are many systems, especially from elsewhere in Canada, the US, Australia and Europe, that can be adopted or adapted. No overarching QA system exists in BC, but KPU is typical in having a number of regular and relevant reporting channels: KPU reports annually to the Ministry of Advanced Education through its Accountability Plan and Report; degree program proposals require ministerial approval in the context of the Degree Quality Assessment Board (for which KPU has Exempt Status, and needs to ensure that it continues to meet the necessary criteria for such status and) and which is itself consistent with the Council of Ministers of Education Ministerial Statement on Quality Assurance of Degree Education in Canada; as a member of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, KPU regularly has to attests to the criteria for membership, which include having appropriate QA policies; and several program areas such as Nursing, Business, Design and Trades are subject to external validation and accreditation of various kinds. 1
In addition, KPU undertakes numerous surveys of students (with respect to their courses and instructors), with graduates, and with the community. It also has in place, or is developing policies for program development, revision, review and discontinuation. Through its internal audit activity, KPU also reviews supporting services such as Information Technology, and Purchasing etc. Performance reviews of faculty, staff and administrators are required for all employees, and in some cases these are undertaken in the context of collective agreements. Adopting a QA framework at KPU is not complicated: a lot of work has been done elsewhere which has already taken account of international best practices. The following proposal is based largely on the QA processes found in Ontario universities and colleges which have evolved over decades of implementation. The KPU framework focusses on the policies, processes and practices for: program design and development continuous improvement of programs and curricula continuous improvement of program delivery and assessment continuous improvement of educational support services allocation of resources to academic and support areas. These 5 areas of the framework are expanded in the tables following. The establishment of the KPU QA Framework requires broad consultation with all the stakeholders in teaching and learning at KPU, and will be subject to a periodic audit which will involve: A self-study by KPU on its implementation of the QA Framework undertaken by Institutional Analysis and Plannning. Depending on the outcome of this self study: An audit of the self-study by a team of external colleagues A report to Senate and to Board on the results of the audit, along with a plan for adjustments and improvement. After discussion with governance groups and the KFA, it is intended that this self-study and audit be undertaken in the 2015/16 year. 2
QA Area 1. Program design and development 2. Continuous improvement in programs and curricula 3. Continuous improvement of program delivery and assessment Criteria 1.1 Policies and procedures exist and are implemented for new program development which prescribes the pertinent information needed to allow internal and external governance bodies to assess academic and fiscal viability. 1.2 Each program has clearly stated intended learning outcomes which are consistent with the credential being granted. 1.3 Each program s intended learning outcomes are operationally meaningful and provide a sound basis for curricula development and revision and for the design of teaching and learning activities and assessments, are used in the day to day work of faculty, and are used in prior learning assessment. 1.4 Requirements for admission to, and continuation in each program, along with options for transferring credit and for prior learning assessment are derived from, and flow coherently from, the program s stated learning outcomes. 1.5 All program requirements are accurately and clearly communicated to prospective and current students. 2.1 Policies and procedures exist and are implemented for the regular review of programs and their stated learning outcomes that identify and rectify weaknesses, and facilitate the evolution of programs to maintain their relevance and fitness with the KPU Mission and with the needs of the region that KPU serves. Where relevant, external program review may also be required, or may serve in lieu of the KPU process. 2.2 Data is gathered from graduates, employers, students and other stakeholders are used for the regular quality assurance of all programs. 2.3 Systems exist that monitor improvement following program reviews. 2.4 Policies and procedures exist and are implemented that determine the continuation or suspension of courses and programs 2.5 Policies and procedures exist and are implemented ensure the regular review of individual courses to ensure their currency and relevancy, and their fit with the relevant program s intended learning outcomes. 2.6 Assessment of the capabilities of program graduates (including knowledge, understanding, skills and attitudes) demonstrates consistency with the intended program learning outcomes. 3.1 Policies and practices are established, implemented and monitored regarding the continuous improvement of teaching and learning strategies, with encouragement and support for innovation and new methods which are consistent with best practices and research. 3.2 Academic policies and procedures for assessment and appeals are established and implemented 3
4. Continuous improvement of educational support services 5. Allocation of resources to academic and support areas across each program to ensure that evaluation methods are aligned with course objectives; methods are valid and reliable; required standards are clearly specified; learners receive prompt and constructive feedback (both formative and summative) and there is an appropriate process for student academic appeal and supplemental assessments. 4.1 Policies and procedures are established, implemented and monitored to ensure that the library; learning centres; advising; financial aid; coöp and career services, counseling, and other academic support services meet the needs of students, and facilitate learning, and are provided by appropriately qualified faculty and staff. 5.1 Policies and procedures exist and implemented to ensure that the teaching staff involved in any program: possess the combination of experience and credentials appropriate to, and required by, the program s stated learning outcomes; provide the published learning experience, participate in reflective practice; undergo initial and continuing professional development to enhance their teaching expertise and/or to ensure current in their subject matter; and are oriented, coordinated and evaluated. 5.2 Policies and procedures exist and are implemented to ensure that teaching staff: execute their professional responsibilities; are accessible and available for student inquiries; meet the needs of students and facilitate the achievement of the course objectives and thus the program intended learning outcomes; provide prompt and constructive feedback to students; and promote a positive attitude to learning for students. 5.3 Learning facilities, equipment and IT support the promised modes of delivery, and are accessible to students. 5.4 Policies and procedures exist to ensure sufficient numbers and continuity of faculty and staff to carry out both classroom and non-classroom support roles for student success. 5.5 Leadership, organization and the management of human resources, learning resources and academic facilities are optimized without sacrificing quality. 5.6 Budgeting, financial services, facilities and IT ensure an appropriate level of support and assistance to program areas and contribute to student achievement of intended learning outcomes. 4
Faculty Program Discipline Cluster Credential Year Due to Start Start Month Prior Review Cycle Frequency Notes Arts Counselling Minor 2015 September 1st 5 years Arts Sociology Associate 2015 September 1st 5 years Arts Sociology Bachelor 2015 September 1st 5 years Arts Anthropology Associate 2016 TBD 1st 5 years Arts Anthropology Bachelor 2016 TBD 1st 5 years Arts Asian Studies Associate 2016 TBD 1st 5 years Arts Asian Studies Bachelor 2016 TBD 1st 5 years Arts Fine Arts Certificate 2016 TBD 1st 5 years Arts Fine Arts Diploma 2016 TBD 1st 5 years Arts Fine Arts Bachelor 2016 TBD 1st 5 years Arts Journalism Bachelor 2016 TBD 1st 5 years Business Business Management Certificate 2015 September 1st 7 years Business Business Management Diploma 2015 September 1st 7 years Business Business Administration Diploma 2015 October 1st 7 years Business Economics Associate 2015 October 1st 5 years Business Public Relations Diploma 2015 September 1st 7 years Health Graduate Nurse (Internationall Educated Re-Entry) Certificate 2016 September 1st 7 years Science & Horticulture Engineering Certificate 2015 September 1st 7 years Science & Horticulture Environmental Protection Diploma 2016 January 1st 7 years Notes: Programs in the same Program Discipline Cluster will be reviewed together If Prior Review is blank, the program has never been reviewed before Program Review scheduled in conjunction with external accreditation External accreditation every 3 years
Self-Study External Review Action Plan One-Year Follow-up Faculty Program Planning Began Report Approved Site Visit Report Received Report Approved Funding Approved Due Report Received Progress Update Arts Criminology 2009 Mar-12 Nov-12 Jun-13 Mar-13 Feb-14 Apr-15 Revision needed Revision required Arts Music 2011 Feb-14 Apr-14 May-14 Action plan under development Arts English Sep-12 Feb-14 Mar-14 May-14 Oct-14 Mar-15 Oct-15 Arts Sociiology Sep-15 Initial planning stages Arts Counselling Sep-15 Initial planning stages Business BTech IT + Cert and Dipl 2010 Sep-13 Nov-13 Jan-14 Sep-14 Sep-15 Action plan funding not applied for Business Public Relations Sep-15 Initial planning stages Business Business Management Certificate and Diploma Sep-15 Initial planning stages Business Legal Admin May-13 Self-Study Report still in progress Program Reviews in Progress As of: 9/18/2015 Page 1 of 2
Self-Study External Review Action Plan One-Year Follow-up Faculty Program Planning Began Report Approved Site Visit Report Received Report Approved Funding Approved Due Report Received Progress Update Business Human Resource Management BBA May-14 Student and faculty surveys completed; awaiting feedback from SST on Alumni and Industry surveys Business Entrepreneurial Leadership BBA May-14 Student and faculty surveys completed; awaiting feedback from SST on Alumni and Industry surveys Business Business Management Certificate and Diploma Sep-14 Self-Study planning underway Business Business Administration Diploma Sep-14 Planning was stalled. About to resume October 2015 Program Reviews in Progress As of: 9/18/2015 Page 2 of 2
Role of SSCPR in Reviewing Reports From Policy B12: The Senate Standing Committee on Program Review is responsible for developing policy and procedures for the program review process, and oversees the review of all programs under the governance of Senate. It has a wide representation of members, including faculty, deans, administration, and support staff. Report Role of SSCPR Members Self-Study Report Prior to the meeting, review Self-Study Report to determine that it: o addresses all the criteria in the Self-Study Guide o the scope of Self-Study is adequately covered, or a clear rationale is provided for items not covered o includes evidence based conclusions and recommendations (SSCPR does not have to agree with recommendations, only that they are evidence-based, with a clear rationale) o represents our standards for a Self-Study During the meeting ask questions of the presenter(s) as required to determine whether or not to approve the report. Vote on whether to approve, or to ask for specific revisions to deal with inadequacies. External Reviewers Prior to the meeting, review Externals report to determine that: Report o the scope of their review is appropriate; it should cover the scope as set out in the Self-Study Guide and in the Self-Study report o the conclusions and recommendations are clear and relevant to program review (SSCPR does not have to agree with recommendations, only that they are evidence-based, with a clear rationale) During the meeting discuss concerns you have with the report, if any Vote on whether to approve that the report meets our standards. It is possible to send the report back to the author to ask for clarification or changes if required to ensure our standards are met. Action Plan Prior to the meeting, review the Action Plan to determine that: o it addresses all the recommendations in the Self-Study and External Review reports, or provides a clear rationale when a recommendation is not addressed o provides clear, realistic plan of actions that are within the department s purview During the meeting ask questions of the presenter(s) as required to determine whether or not to approve the plan. Vote on whether to approve, or to ask for specific revisions to deal with inadequacies. Institutional Response One-Year Followup Report The Institutional Response is submitted with the Action Plan. Prior to the meeting review the Institutional Response as this provides a context for the Action Plan. SSCPR is receiving, not vetting, the Institutional Response. Prior to the meeting, review the one-year follow-up report During the meeting ask questions of the presenter(s) as required Vote on whether to approve, or to ask for specific revisions to deal with inadequacies. Revised April 2, 2015