INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE POLICY

Transcription

1 INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE POLICY Approval: Responsibility: Contact Office: University Senate; Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance (Quality Council) Provost and Vice-President Academic Manager, Office of Provost and Vice-President Academic Initial Approval Dates: Senate May 10, 2011; Quality Council March 31, 2011 Initial Effective Date: September 1, 2011 Approval Dates of Revision: Senate December 2, 2014; Quality Council December 18, 2014 Effective Date of Revision: September 1, 2015 Date for Next Review: Fall 2018 Note: Revision of this policy and set of procedures is subject to ratification by the Quality Council Related Policies, Procedures and Guidelines: Institutional Quality Assurance Procedures Policies superseded by this Policy include: Policy on Undergraduate Program Review (February 2003) Procedure for Approval of New Graduate Programs (April 2005) Procedures for New Degree Programs (May 2003) PURPOSE OF POLICY The Institutional Quality Assurance Policy (IQAP) and associated Procedures work to ensure the high quality of, and promote standards of excellence in, Trent s new and existing academic programs. The IQAP complies with the Quality Assurance Framework (QAF), developed by the Ontario Council of Academic Vice-Presidents (OCAV) and adopted by the Council of Ontario Universities (COU) in April This policy governs the: i) Periodic Cyclical Review of Existing Degree and For-Credit Graduate Diploma Programs; ii) Development of New Degree Programs; and iii) Expedited Approval of New Collaborative Programs, New For-Credit Graduate Diplomas, and New Fields in a Graduate Program and Major Modifications of Existing Degree Programs. 1 See

2 IQAP APPROVED BY SENATE DECEMBER 2, The policy and associated procedures governing the periodic cyclical program review of existing programs help promote, maintain, and improve the quality of education at Trent, and provide Trent s students and prospective students, Trent s partners, the provincial government, and the broader public with the necessary assurance of this quality. Cyclical program reviews provide information upon which the University may make decisions about academic programs. Insight about program quality derived from such reviews may result in recommendations for improvement, modification, or termination of an academic program. Degree-level expectations, combined with peer-review judgment by expert disciplinary and interdisciplinary scholars, provide the benchmarks for assessing a program s standards and quality. The policy and associated procedures governing the review of new program proposals ensure that new academic programs are consistent with the objectives of Trent s Institutional Integrated Plan (including the University s Vision, Mission and Strategic Directions) and with the guidelines for University Undergraduate and Graduate Degree Level Expectations (DLEs) developed by the Ontario Council of Academic Vice-Presidents and affirmed by Trent s Senate. The policy also ensures that new programs are of high quality, meet a perceived interest and demand, are supported with available funding and make good use of institutional resources, and draw upon and enhance existing strengths at the University. New program proposals need to be approved by the Quality Council. The policy and associated procedures governing the Expedited Approval of new collaborative programs, new for-credit graduate diplomas, and new fields in a graduate degree program ensure that these programs meet the quality assurance standards of Trent University and of the Quality Council. The policy and associated procedures governing major modifications ensure that any major changes to existing degree programs enhance the quality of the program and are consistent with Trent s Institutional Integrated Plan and the DLEs. SCOPE OF POLICY AND POLICY STATEMENT This policy applies to all existing and new undergraduate and graduate degree programs, collaborative programs, and for-credit graduate diplomas offered in full by Trent University or in part/conjointly by Trent University in partnership with another post-secondary institution. All existing undergraduate degree programs, graduate degree programs, and for-credit graduate diploma programs are subject to periodic cyclical review conducted at a minimum once every eight years. Cyclical program review is a self-regulatory process subject to periodic audit by the Quality Council. All new programs at the University are subject to an internal review process to ensure quality. Proposals for new degree programs are subject to a full internal procedure including external reviewers; proposals for new collaborative programs, new for-credit graduate diploma programs, and new fields in a graduate degree program are subject to an abbreviated internal procedure. All new degree programs, new collaborative programs, new for-credit graduate diplomas, and new

3 IQAP APPROVED BY SENATE DECEMBER 2, fields in a graduate program require approval by the Quality Council. New program proposals may also need to be submitted to the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. Major modifications to existing degree programs are approved through existing Senate committees and are reported annually to the Quality Council. This policy and its procedures are subject to ratification by the Quality Council, both initially and following each revision. The University is audited by the Quality Council on an 8 year cycle, under the terms outlined in the Quality Assurance Framework, to ensure compliance with its IQAP. ACRONYMS AP&B COU CPRC CPRs DLEs GDLEs GSC IQAP MTCU OCAV OIPA QAF QC USC UDLEs Academic Planning & Budget Committee Council of Ontario Universities Cyclical Program Review Committee Cyclical Program Reviews University Degree Level Expectations Graduate Degree Level Expectations Graduate Studies Committee Institutional Quality Assurance Policy Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Ontario Council of Academic Vice-Presidents Office of Institutional Planning and Analysis Quality Assurance Framework Quality Council (Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance) Undergraduate Studies Committee Undergraduate Degree Level Expectations DEFINITIONS Collaborative Program A collaborative program is an intra-university graduate program that provides an additional multidisciplinary experience for students enrolled in and completing the degree requirements for one of a number of approved programs. Students meet the admission requirements of and register in the participating (or home ) program but complete, in addition to the degree requirements of that program, the additional requirements specified by the collaborative program. The degree conferred is that of the home program, and the completion of the collaborative program is indicated by a transcript notation indicating the additional specialization that has been attained. Degree An academic credential awarded on successful completion of a prescribed set and sequence of

4 IQAP APPROVED BY SENATE DECEMBER 2, requirements at a specified standard of performance consistent with OCAV s Degree Level Expectations and the institution s own expression of those Degree Level Expectations. Degree Level Expectations The Degree Level Expectations established by OCAV serve as Ontario universities academic standards and identify the knowledge and skill outcome competencies that reflect progressive levels of intellectual and creative development. They may be expressed in subject-specific or in generic terms. Graduates at specified degree levels (e.g., Bachelors or Masters) are expected to demonstrate these competencies. Degree Program The complete set and sequence of courses, combinations of courses and/or other units of study, research and practice prescribed by an institution for the fulfillment of the requirements of a particular degree. Diploma Program Universities may grant diplomas in acknowledgement of students participation in either for-credit or not-for-credit activities at the undergraduate and graduate level. Not-for-credit and for-credit undergraduate diploma programs are not subject to approval or audit by the Quality Council. The Quality Council recognizes only three types or categories of Graduate Diploma Type 1: Awarded when a candidate admitted to a master s program leaves the program after completing a certain proportion of the requirements. Students are not admitted directly to these programs. Type 2: Offered in conjunction with a master s (or doctoral) degree, the admission to which requires that the candidate be already admitted to the master s (or doctoral) program. This represents an additional, usually interdisciplinary, qualification. Type3: A stand-alone, direct-entry program, generally developed by a unit already offering a related master s (and sometimes doctoral) degree, and designed to meet the needs of a particular clientele or market. New Type 1 and Type 2 diploma programs and Type 3 diploma programs that have been conceived and developed as distinct and original entities require submission to the Quality Council for Expedited Approval (no external reviewers required) prior to their adoption. Once approved, they will be incorporated into the institution s schedule for cyclical reviews as part of the parent program. Expedited Approval The Quality Council will normally require only an Expedited Approval process where: a) an institution requests endorsement of the Quality Council to declare a new Field in a graduate program. (Note that institutions are not required to declare fields in either master s or doctoral programs.); or b) there is a proposal for a new Collaborative Program; or c) there are proposals for new for-credit graduate diplomas; or d) at the request of an institution, there are Major Modifications to Existing Programs, as already defined through the IQAP, proposed for a degree program.

5 IQAP APPROVED BY SENATE DECEMBER 2, Field In graduate programs, field refers to an area of specialization or concentration (in multi/ interdisciplinary programs a clustered area of specialization) that is related to the demonstrable and collective strengths of the program s faculty. Institutions are not required to declare fields at either the master s or doctoral level. Joint Degree Program A program of study offered by two or more universities or by a university and a college or institute, including an Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning, in which successful completion of the requirements is confirmed by a single degree document. Major Modification of an Existing Program A significant change in the requirements, learning outcomes or human and other resources associated with an existing degree program or program of specialization. Major Modifications include: Significant changes to a program s requirements; Significant changes to the learning outcomes; and Significant changes in modes of delivery and/or to essential resources. New Program Any degree, degree program, or program of specialization, currently approved by Senate or equivalent governing body, which has not been previously approved for that institution by the Quality Council, its predecessors, or any intra-institutional approval processes that previously applied. A change of name, only, does not constitute a new program; nor does the inclusion of a new program of specialization where another with the same designation already exists (e.g., a new honours program where a major with the same designation already exists). For the purposes of this Framework, a new program is one that has substantially different program requirements and substantially different learning outcomes from those of any existing approved programs offered by the institution. Program of Specialization (e.g., a Major, Honours Program, Concentration or similar) An identified set and sequence of courses, and/or other units of study, research and practice within an area of disciplinary or interdisciplinary study, which is completed in full or partial fulfillment of the requirements for the awarding of a degree, and is recorded on the graduate s academic record. A Program of Specialization does not include an Emphasis, Specialization, Option, Minor or similar programming completed on an optional basis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the awarding of a degree. Where changes to an existing Emphasis, Specialization, Option, Minor or similar programming are made, they normally constitute minor or major modifications and do not require approval by the Quality Council.

6 IQAP APPROVED BY SENATE DECEMBER 2, RESPONSIBILITIES Provost and Vice-President Academic The Provost and Vice-President Academic is the administrative authority responsible for the University s quality assurance policy and procedures for new and existing programs. The Provost and Vice-President Academic is the authoritative contact with the Quality Council for new program approvals, cyclical reviews, expedited approvals, and major modifications. The Provost and the Vice- President Academic is the arbiter in deciding whether a proposal constitutes a proposal for a new program or a major modification. The Office of the Provost supports the day-to-day workings of the processes governed by the IQAP. Deans The Deans are responsible for advising and assisting academic units undergoing cyclical program reviews. They are responsible for nominating internal members of Review Committees and assisting the Provost and Vice-President Academic in ranking nominees for members of Review Committees, inviting internal members of Review Committees, signing off on an academic unit s Self-Study, responding to Review Committee s Reports, and ensuring that an academic unit follows up on and reports back to CPRC on recommendations included in Implementation Plans. The Deans are responsible for providing advice and support for new program proposals, drafting Initial Proposals, consulting with the Provost and Vice-President Academic on the rank ordering of nominated external reviewers, overseeing the development of and signing off on Full Proposals, writing Letters of Support to AP&B for new programs, and submitting one-year Monitoring Reports on new programs to AP&B. (Reference to Dean in this policy is taken to include the Head, Trent University Durham, for those courses, degree programs, and certificates (new and existing) that are offered only at Trent University Durham.) Academic Units Academic Units are responsible for writing the Self-Study when existing programs for which they are responsible are undergoing cyclical program reviews, for nominating external members of the Review Committee, for drafting the schedule for the site visit of the Review Committee, for responding to the Review Committee s Report, and for implementing and reporting on those recommendations in Implementation Plans that are within their purview. Academic units are often the proponents of new academic programming and in any event are significantly involved in consultation about new program proposals. (Reference to Chair of a department in this policy is taken to include a Chair or Director of an undergraduate program or a Director of an interdisciplinary school.) Provost s Planning Group (PPG) PPG is the senior administrative committee that reviews and approves initial proposals for new programs. Office of Institutional Planning and Analysis The Office of Institutional Planning and Analysis collects, aggregates, and distributes institutional data to assist academic units in writing their Self-Studies.

7 IQAP APPROVED BY SENATE DECEMBER 2, Centre for Teaching and Learning The Centre for Teaching and Learning assists academic units in articulating learning outcomes and mapping their curricula against DLEs for the purposes of cyclical program reviews or the development of new programs. Senate Senate is responsible for approving the Institutional Quality Assurance Policy and any subsequent revisions. Senate is also responsible for approving new degree programs, new collaborative programs, new for-credit graduate diplomas, new fields in a graduate program, and major modifications and some minor modifications to existing programs. Senate receives for information Final Assessment Reports on Cyclical Program Reviews, some minor modifications to existing programs, and Annual Implementation Reports. Academic Planning & Budget Committee (AP&B) AP&B, a standing committee of Senate, is responsible for reviewing and recommending for approval to Senate all new degree programs and for-credit graduate diplomas. AP&B reviews Final Proposals for New Programs, External Reviewers Reports, Responses from the Working Group and Letters of Support from the Dean(s), and makes recommendations to Senate. AP&B is also responsible for recommending to Senate the termination of an existing degree program. The Terms of Reference and Membership of AP&B can be found at Cyclical Program Review Committee (CPRC) CPRC, a standing committee of Senate, is responsible for overseeing cyclical program reviews. CPRC reviews Self-Studies, Review Committee Reports, and Responses from the academic unit and the Dean(s), and drafts Final Assessment Reports (including Implementation Plans and Executive Summaries) for approval by the Provost and Vice-President Academic. CPRC receives Follow-Up Implementation Reports from academic units and submits Annual Implementation reports to Senate for information. The Terms of Reference and Membership of the CPRC can be found at Graduate Studies Committee (GSC) GSC, a standing committee of Senate, is responsible for reviewing and recommending for approval to Senate modifications to existing graduate degree programs, proposals for new collaborative programs, and proposals for new fields in an existing graduate program. In consultation with the Provost and Vice-President Academic, the Chair of GSC is the arbiter on whether a proposed change to an existing graduate program constitutes a major or a minor modification. GSC also makes recommendations to AP&B on the degree requirements and curriculum, including new courses, of proposed new academic programs. The Terms of Reference and Membership of GSC can be found at Undergraduate Studies Committee (USC) USC, a standing committee of Senate, is responsible for reviewing and recommending for approval to Senate modifications to existing undergraduate degree programs. In consultation with the Provost and Vice-President Academic, the Chair of USC is the arbiter on whether a proposed change

8 IQAP APPROVED BY SENATE DECEMBER 2, to an existing undergraduate program constitutes a major or a minor modification. USC also makes recommendations to AP&B on the degree requirements and curriculum, including new courses, of proposed new academic programs. The Terms of Reference and Membership of USC can be found at

9 INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES IQAP APPROVED BY SENATE DECEMBER 2, Purpose These procedures set out the steps and actions that must be undertaken to implement the Institutional Quality Assurance Policy for the cyclical review of existing programs, new program proposals, proposals requiring expedited approval, and major modifications to existing programs. These procedures are enacted further to the University s Institutional Quality Assurance Policy. Provision of Support The Office of the Provost develops and posts (see templates that, where appropriate, clearly reflect the Evaluation Criteria outlined in the QAF for: Self-Studies; Nominations of External Reviewers; Review Committee s Reports (for Cyclical Program Reviews); Initial Proposals of a New Degree Program for In-Principle Approval by PPG; Full Proposals for a New Degree Program; External Reviewers Reports (for New Program Proposals); Budgets for New Undergraduate Degree Programs; and Budgets for New Graduate Degree Programs. The Deans meet with the members of academic units scheduled to undergo cyclical program reviews to make sure they understand their roles and responsibilities, as well as those of other members of the University. The Centre for Teaching and Learning assists academic units in articulating learning outcomes and mapping their curricula against DLEs for the purposes of cyclical program reviews or the development of new programs. The Office of Institutional Planning and Analysis collects, aggregates, and distributes institutional data to assist academic units in writing their Self-Studies. Contact Officer Manager, Office of the Provost and Vice-President Academic

10 IQAP APPROVED BY SENATE DECEMBER 2, TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I CYCLICAL REVIEW OF DEGREE AND FOR-CREDIT GRADUATE DIPLOMA PROGRAMS PART II NEW DEGREE PROGRAM PROPOSALS PART III PROPOSALS REQUIRING EXPEDITED APPROVAL AND MAJOR MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING PROGRAMS APPENDIX A LIST OF ALL UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE DEGREE PROGRAMS AND ALL FOR- CREDIT GRADUATE DIPLOMAS CURRENTLY OFFERED BY TRENT UNIVERSITY APPENDIX B EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR THE CYCLICAL REVIEW OF EXISTING PROGRAMS APPENDIX C EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR NEW PROGRAM PROPOSALS APPENDIX D UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE LEVEL EXPECTATIONS APPENDIX E GRADUATE DEGREE LEVEL EXPECTATIONS

11 IQAP APPROVED BY SENATE DECEMBER 2, PART I CYCLICAL REVIEW OF DEGREE AND FOR-CREDIT GRADUATE DIPLOMA PROGRAMS I.1 GENERAL PROVISIONS Periodic cyclical reviews are conducted of all existing undergraduate degree programs, graduate degree programs, and for-credit graduate diploma programs at a minimum once every eight years. The Office of the Provost prepares and maintains a schedule of reviews identifying the academic unit(s) responsible for each degree program. 2 A master list of Trent s current degree program offerings is contained in Appendix A. An updated list and the review schedule can be found on the website of the Office of the Provost at Cyclical reviews provide opportunities for an evaluation of the quality of the University s degree programs by the units offering them and by external reviewers. These evaluations provide the Cyclical Program Review Committee (CPRC) with information upon which recommendations for improvement, modification, or termination of a degree program may be made. The Provost and Vice-President Academic approves the Final Assessment Report (including the associated Implementation Plan and the Executive Summary) for each cyclical program review. The Final Assessment report (exclusive of any confidential information) is forwarded to Senate and the Quality Council for information. Implementation Plans and Executive Summaries are posted on the website of the Office of the Provost at The Provost and Vice-President Academic serves as Trent s authoritative contact with the Quality Council. I.1.1 UNDERGRADUATE AND RELATED GRADUATE DEGREE PROGRAMS Undergraduate degree programs will normally be reviewed concurrently with related graduate degree/diploma programs. However, the quality of each degree program and the learning environment of the students in each degree program will be independently evaluated. I.1.2 DEGREE PROGRAMS OFFERED AT MORE THAN ONE LOCATION OR THROUGH MORE THAN ONE MODE OF DELIVERY In cases where a degree program is delivered in more than one location with different faculty and resources or is offered through more than one mode of delivery, each distinct offering will occur on the master list of degree programs, though reviews of related degree programs will normally occur concurrently. 2 Reference to degree program throughout Part I of the IQAP is deemed to include undergraduate degree programs, graduate degree programs, and for-credit graduate diplomas.

12 I.1.3 JOINT DEGREE PROGRAMS IQAP APPROVED BY SENATE DECEMBER 2, In cases where a Trent degree program is offered jointly or in partnership with another institution, the Office of the Provost will work with the partner institution s counterpart office to ensure that the requirements of both institutions quality assurance policies and procedures will be met in a way that avoids duplication and streamlines the process as much as possible. Specifically: There will be a single Self-Study that will explain how input was received from faculty, staff and students at each partner institution (see I.5); Each partner institution will be involved in nominating (see I.5.1) and selecting (see I.6.1.e) external reviewers; Selection of the internal member of the Review Committee requires joint input and may include one internal member from each partner institution, or preference may be given to an internal member from another academic unit offering a joint program, preferably with the same partner institution; Site visits will include all partner institutions and, at least where partners are institutions in Ontario, will include all sites; and There will be a single Response to the Review Committee s Report (see I.7.2), prepared jointly by members of the academic units of each partner institution, and there will be a single Dean(s) Response to the Review Committee s Report and the academic unit s Response (see I.7.3), prepared jointly by the Deans of each partner institution; There will be a single Final Assessment Report, Implementation Plan, and Executive Summary that are subject to the governance processes at each partner institution (see I.8); and Partner institutions will agree on an appropriate monitoring process for the Implementation Plan (see I.9). I.1.4 USE OF ACCREDITATION AND OTHER EXTERNAL REVIEWS The University may use components of accreditation and other external review processes in addition to, or in substitution of, required components of the cyclical program review process, where such is judged by the Provost and Vice-President Academic, in consultation with CPRC, to be appropriate and reasonable, the purpose being to reduce duplication during the review of professional degree programs. In such cases, the documentation will be consistent with the requirements established in these procedures and a record of addition/substitution of documentation will be fully outlined in the Final Assessment Report. I.2 PROVISION OF SUPPORT The Office of the Provost develops and posts templates for Self-Studies, Nominations of External Reviewers, and Review Committee s Reports. See The Centre for Teaching and Learning provides workshops or orientation sessions to academic units to assist them in articulating learning outcomes and mapping their curricula against DLEs, where deemed appropriate.

13 IQAP APPROVED BY SENATE DECEMBER 2, The Office of Institutional Planning and Analysis collects, aggregates and distributes institutional data and outcome measures required for Self-Studies, including but not limited to enrolment and retention data. This ensures data being used for the Self-Studies are both accurate and consistent across university degree programs. OIPA provides data to the Office of the Provost and to the Dean(s). OIPA will aim to provide data by the beginning of May of the spring that academic units are preparing their Self-Studies. The Dean(s) will review the data before forwarding them to the academic unit. Programs are responsible for providing an analysis of the data. I.3 PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS OF CYCLICAL PROGRAM REVIEWS Cyclical program reviews are comprised of five principal components: A. Self-Study a critical appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of the degree program from the perspective of members of the academic unit responsible for delivery of the degree program; B. Review Committee s Report external evaluation by disciplinary/interdisciplinary experts containing recommendations for the improvement of the degree program; C. Final Assessment Report (including Implementation Plan and Executive Summary) institutional evaluation by CPRC based on the review of the Self-Study, the Review Committee s Report, and the Responses by the academic unit(s) and the Dean(s); D. Follow-up Implementation Report report from the academic unit to CPRC detailing how it followed up on the recommendations under its purview included in the Implementation Plan; and E. Annual Implementation Report omnibus report prepared by CPRC for Senate on the Follow-Up Implementation Reports of all cyclical program reviews competed that year. I.4 TIMELINE OF REVIEWS Cyclical program reviews normally span three academic years. In the first academic year the academic unit prepares the Self-Study and nominates members of the Review Committee. In the second academic year, the site visit by the Review Committee takes place, the Review Committee s Report is received, and the academic unit and the Dean respond. Later in the second academic year (for fall term site visits) or in the third academic year (for winter term site visits), CPRC reviews the documentation and drafts a Final Assessment Report for approval by the Provost and Vice-President Academic. Academic units submit a Follow-Up Implementation Report according to the timelines in the Implementation Plan included in the Final Assessment Report. The Office of the Provost will notify academic unit(s) responsible for the cyclical review of degree programs by no later than the September of the academic year in which an academic unit is to prepare its Self-Study. Information and support will be provided as per I.2. Academic unit(s) may choose to have a Fall or Winter site visit.

14 IQAP APPROVED BY SENATE DECEMBER 2, For a timeline for the review process, please see I.5 SELF-STUDY The academic unit(s) responsible for a program(s) under review will prepare a Self-Study document using the Self-Study template (see Academic units are encouraged to consult with their Dean(s) and the Centre for Teaching and Learning as they prepare their Self-Study. Where more than one academic unit is responsible for a degree program, the units will work together in the preparation of the Self-Study. The academic unit s Self-Study of its degree program(s) will be broad-based, reflective, forwardlooking and will include critical analysis. It will provide an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the degree program(s), address concerns or recommendations raised in previous reviews, and will comment on areas where enhancements of quality are possible. The Self-Study will discuss the consistency of the degree program s learning outcomes with Trent s mission and affirmation of the DLEs, and how its graduates achieve those outcomes. It will include programrelated data and measures of performance, and as appropriate and where available, it will provide comparisons with provincial, national, and/or professional standards. It will discuss the academic services that contribute directly to the academic quality of the degree program(s) under review, and it will document the participation of faculty, staff, and students from the academic unit in the preparation of the Self-Study. The evaluation criteria used in the Self-Study will be those listed in Appendix B. The Self-Study document may also contain the input of others deemed to be relevant and useful, such as graduates of the degree program(s), representatives of industry, related professions, and practical training programs, and employers, as appropriate. The Self-Study document (marked Confidential ) will be submitted to the Dean(s) for review. The Dean(s) will provide feedback and facilitate improvements. When the Dean(s) is satisfied that the Self-Study is complete and accurate, he/she will sign off on the document and submit it to the Office of the Provost for distribution to CPRC. After review, CPRC will either approve the document or advise the unit and the Dean(s) of revisions to be made before re-submission and reconsideration by CPRC. Where the head of an academic unit whose program(s) is being reviewed is a Dean, the Self-Study will be submitted directly to the Provost and Vice-President Academic. I.5.1 NOMINATIONS OF EXTERNAL REVIEWERS The academic unit will complete and forward to the Office of the Provost the completed Nominations of External Reviewers template (see including the names and required information of no fewer than six qualified possible external reviewers (see I.6.1.c), all of whom are to be at arm s length (see I.6.1.d). Where there is to be more than one external member on the Review Committee, half of the

15 IQAP APPROVED BY SENATE DECEMBER 2, reviewers should be identified from institutions outside of Ontario. The Nominations of External Reviewers should be submitted of the Office of the Provost by May of the first year of the cyclical review process, prior to the completion of the Self-Study. If there are two or more distinct areas of study within the degree program(s) to be reviewed, these should be clearly identified for each nominated external reviewer. As per I.1.3, in the case of joint programs each partner institution will be involved in nominating external reviewers for the Review Committee. Members of the academic unit are not to contact possible external reviewers for any reason. I.6 EXTERNAL EVALUATION I.6.1 ESTABLISHMENT OF REVIEW COMMITTEE I.6.1.a NUMBER OF REVIEWERS REQUIRED Degree Program External Members Internal Member Undergraduate 1-2 reviewers; 2 preferred 1 Graduate MA/MSc 2 reviewers; at least 1 outside of ON 1 Graduate PhD 2 reviewers; at least 1 outside of ON 1 Concurrent Undergraduate and Graduate 2-3 reviewers; at least 1 outside of ON 1 As per I.1.3, the Review Committee for a joint program may include two internal members (one from each partner institution), or preference may be given to an internal member from another academic unit offering a joint program, preferably with the same partner institution. An additional member, appropriately qualified and experienced, may be assigned from industry or the professions at the discretion of the Provost and Vice-President Academic, in consultation with the Dean. I.6.1.b INTERNAL MEMBER OF REVIEW COMMITTEE The Dean(s) under whose authority the degree program(s) is being delivered will nominate to the Provost and Vice-President Academic no fewer than three senior faculty members (with more than 10 years of experience) from Trent University. Nominated faculty members will be outside the academic unit responsible for the degree program(s) under review, but will normally be within the division. When a graduate program is being reviewed, the internal member should be an individual experienced in graduate teaching and supervision. Using his/her knowledge of institutional practices and culture, the internal member facilitates the work of the external member(s) of the Review Committee. The internal member accompanies the

16 IQAP APPROVED BY SENATE DECEMBER 2, external member(s) throughout the site visit and attends meetings with the Provost and Vice- President Academic, the Dean(s), Chair(s) and/or Director(s), faculty, students, and staff. The internal member does not participate in the writing of the Review Committee Report, except to answer questions, as appropriate. I.6.1.c QUALIFICATIONS OF EXTERNAL REVIEWERS Suitable external reviewers will normally be Associate or Full Professors; have experience in developing, assessing, and/or managing degree programs at the university level; be active experts in the relevant disciplinary or interdisciplinary fields; in the case of graduate degree programs, have experience with graduate teaching and supervision; in the case of graduate degree programs, have combined professional experience to cover the majority of any explicitly identified fields of expertise; in the case of a concurrent review of an undergraduate degree program(s) and a related graduate degree program(s), be qualified by discipline and experience to review both program levels. If there are two or more distinct areas of study within the degree program(s) to be reviewed, all efforts will be made to ensure a balanced Review Committee with the required expertise. I.6.1.d REQUIREMENT OF ARM S LENGTH External reviewers must be at arm s length from members of the academic unit whose program(s) is being reviewed. Upon accepting an invitation to review a degree program, reviewers will be required to declare in writing that they are at arm s length. To avoid conflict of interest and the appearance of conflict of interest, reviewers will not be a close friend or relative of a member of the academic unit whose degree program(s) is under review; have been a supervisor within the past ten years of a member of the academic unit whose degree program(s) is under review; have been a regular or repeated external examiner of students in the academic unit whose degree program(s) is under review; have collaborated (i.e., significantly contributed to intellectual work with another) within the past ten years with a member of the academic unit whose degree program(s) is under review, or have plans to collaborate with a member in the immediate future; have been an instructor or a visiting scholar within the past ten years in the academic unit whose degree program(s) is under review; have been a student within the past ten years in the academic unit whose degree program(s) is under review; or have received an undergraduate or a graduate degree from Trent.

17 I.6.1.e SELECTION OF MEMBERS OF REVIEW COMMITTEE IQAP APPROVED BY SENATE DECEMBER 2, After review of the Self-Study and the lists of nominated external and internal members of the Review Committee, the Provost and Vice-President Academic, in consultation with the Deans, will develop ranked lists of the external member(s) and the internal member of the Review Committee. The Office of the Provost will invite, according to the ranked list, nominees for external member(s) of the Review Committee; the Dean will invite, according to the ranked list, nominees for internal member of the Review Committee. In the case of degree programs offered jointly with another institution, the Provost and Vice- President Academic will develop a ranked list of external and internal members of the Review Committee in consultation with his/her counterpart at the partner institution. I.6.2 ARRANGING THE SITE VISIT The Office of the Provost will oversee the arrangements for the campus site visit. The visit will normally be scheduled for two consecutive days, though a review of multiple degree programs may take longer, particularly if a visit to more than one campus is necessary. The Chair and/or Director of the academic unit(s) whose degree program(s) is being reviewed will draft the schedule for the site visit in consultation with the Office of the Provost. The Office of the Provost has final approval of the schedule. I.6.3 DOCUMENTATION FOR REVIEW COMMITTEE The Office of the Provost will provide to each member of the Review Committee a copy of: Trent s Institutional Program Quality Assurance Policy and Procedures (IQAP); Self-Study document (including the Appendices with faculty CVs, course outlines, calendar copy, University degree requirements, program degree requirements, handbook(s) and policies of academic unit, if applicable); Template for Review Committee s Report (see Site visit schedule; and In the case of professional programs, there will be a description provided of how the views of employers and professional associations will be solicited and made available to the Review Committee. I.6.4 INSTRUCTIONS TO REVIEW COMMITTEE The Provost and Vice-President Academic (or delegate) will explain to the members of the Review Committee their roles and obligations with respect to the review and the preparation of the Review Committee s Report. The instructions will direct the reviewers, for each program under review, to: Identify and commend the program s notably strong and creative attributes and/or clearly innovative aspects;

18 IQAP APPROVED BY SENATE DECEMBER 2, Describe the program s strengths, areas for improvement, and opportunities for enhancement using the Evaluation Criteria listed in Appendix B; Recommend specific steps to be taken to improve the degree program, distinguishing between those the academic unit can make itself, and those that require external action; Recognize the institution s autonomy to determine priorities for funding, space, and faculty allocation; Respect the confidentiality required for all aspects of the review process. In addition, members of the Review Committee may be asked to respond to any additional questions from the Provost and Vice-President Academic in their final report. Such instruction may include a request to respond to: Issues of special concern identified by the Provost and Vice-President Academic and/or CPRC for the degree program(s) under review, for example, appropriateness of the curriculum, breadth of the curriculum, enrolment levels, recruitment, quality of the permanent or limited-term faculty, adequacy of staffing, space or equipment, program-specific library resources, etc; and/or Concerns and/or recommendations raised in previous external reviews of the degree program(s). I.6.5 REVIEW COMMITTEE S REPORT The Review Committee s Report will address the substance of both the Self-Study document and the Evaluation Criteria (see Appendix B) as they apply to the degree program(s). The Report is to be completed using the Review Committee s Report template available at The Review Committee will provide preliminary oral feedback to the Provost and Vice-President Academic (or delegate) before the conclusion of the site visit. Within one month of the site visit, the Review Committee will submit a final written report (marked Confidential ) to the Provost and Vice-President Academic. The Report will include a Summary and a clearly defined List of Recommendations. Electronic submissions are preferred. The Review Committee will normally submit a single omnibus report on all degree programs reviewed, with distinctive attributes reported on for each discrete degree program. There may be situations, as determined by the Provost and Vice-President Academic, where separate reports may be submitted. I.7 INSTITUTIONAL EVALUATION I.7.1 DISTRIBUTION OF REVIEW COMMITTEE S REPORT Upon receipt of the Review Committee s Report, the Provost and Vice-President Academic will review it to ensure that it provides a comprehensive assessment of the degree program(s). The

19 IQAP APPROVED BY SENATE DECEMBER 2, Office of the Provost will distribute the Review Committee s Report to the Dean(s) and will note and redact, where appropriate, any confidential and/or sensitive information before distributing the Report to the Chair(s) of the department(s) responsible for the program(s) under review and/or the Director(s) of the graduate degree program(s) under review, as well as to CPRC. I.7.2 RESPONSE BY ACADEMIC UNIT(S) The Office of the Provost will ask the Chair(s) of the department(s) and/or the Director of the graduate degree program(s) to provide a Response from their academic unit to the Review Committee s Report and specifically to the Report s recommendations. The Chair(s) and/or Director(s) will consult with members of the academic unit in finalizing a Response. The Response will be submitted to the Office of the Provost within one month of the request. I.7.3 RESPONSE BY DEAN(S) After receipt of the Response by the academic unit, the Office of the Provost will ask the Dean(s) to provide a written Response within one month to the plans/recommendations proposed in the Self- Study, the Review Committee s Report, and the academic unit s Response to the Review Committee s Report. In addition, the Dean will be asked to describe, accounting for each distinct program: Any changes in curriculum, program organization, policy or governance necessary to meet the recommendations; Any resources, financial and otherwise, that will be provided to support the implementation of those recommendations requiring resources; and A proposed timeline for the implementation of any recommendations. Where the head of an academic unit whose program(s) is being reviewed is a Dean, there will be a single Response to the Review Committee s Report, prepared by the academic unit. I.8 FINAL ASSESSMENT REPORT In preparing the Final Assessment Report, CPRC will review four documents: Self-Study, with its plans and recommendations (internal assessment); Review Committee s Report, including a Summary and a List of Recommendations (external assessment); Response by academic unit(s) to Review Committee s Report; and Response by the Dean(s). CPRC will review these documents and prepare a draft of the Final Assessment Report for approval by the Provost and Vice-President Academic. The Final Assessment Report is an institutional synthesis of the internal self-assessment, the external evaluation, and the internal responses. The Final Assessment Report will be a single report on all degree programs reviewed by a Review Committee with a report on the distinctive attributes of each discrete degree program.

20 IQAP APPROVED BY SENATE DECEMBER 2, The Final Assessment report will: Identify the significant strengths of the degree program(s); Identify opportunities for degree program improvement and enhancement; Set out and prioritize the recommendations that are selected for implementation; Identify and explain the circumstances related to any recommendations that will not be implemented; and Include an Implementation Plan and an Executive Summary. Any confidential personnel information that is included in the Final Assessment Report will be in a section expressly marked Confidential. The information included in such a section will be circulated only as necessary to the Chair(s) of a department and/or Director of a graduate degree program, and Dean(s), with a record kept in the Office of the Provost. The confidential section will otherwise be excised from circulated reports. I.8.1 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The Implementation Plan in the Final Assessment Report will expressly identify: The body/individual responsible for approving the recommendations (e.g., Provost and Vice- President Academic, Dean(s), University Librarian); The source(s) of any additional resources required to implement the recommendations (e.g., Provost and Vice-President Academic, Vice-President Administration); The individual(s) responsible for the timely implementation and monitoring of the recommendations (e.g., Dean(s), University Librarian, Chair of a department, Director of a graduate degree program); and Appropriate timelines for acting on recommendations and submitting follow-up Implementation Reports. I.8.2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The institutional Executive Summary will be a summary of the Final Assessment Report that contains no confidential information and that is suitable for publication on the institution s website. I.9 FOLLOW-UP IMPLEMENTATION REPORTS Unless otherwise indicated in the Implementation Plan, the Dean(s) under whose authority the degree program(s) being reviewed is offered is responsible for ensuring that the academic unit implement in a timely manner the recommendations for which they are responsible. The Dean(s) is also responsible for ensuring that the academic unit submits a Follow-Up Implementation Report to CPRC in accordance with timelines set out in the Implementation Plans. CPRC will prepare for Senate s information an omnibus Annual Implementation Report on the Follow-Up Implementation Reports received by CPRC that year.

21 I.10 DISTRIBUTION AND POSTING OF REPORTS I.10.1 DISTRIBUTION IQAP APPROVED BY SENATE DECEMBER 2, After the Provost and Vice-President Academic approves the Final Assessment Report, the Office of the Provost is responsible for the distribution of Final Assessment Reports as follows: Final Assessment Reports to Chairs and/or Directors of reviewed degree programs; Relevant Dean(s); Senate (for information, and with any confidential information removed); and Quality Council (for information, and with any confidential information removed). Annual Implementation Reports to Chairs and/or Directors of reviewed degree programs;; Dean(s) under whose authority the degree program(s) being reviewed is offered; and Senate (for information). I.10.2 POSTING The Office of the Provost will post on its public website (see the Executive Summaries and Implementation Plans for all degree programs reviewed, as well as Annual Implementation Reports. I.11 DOCUMENTS NOT SUBJECT TO PUBLIC ACCESS Given the highly sensitive nature of the documentation used in the cyclical program review process, in which academic units and external reviewers are asked to be critical in their evaluations, the documents produced are deemed confidential. Institutional failure to protect the confidentiality of the documents reviewed by CPRC could seriously impair frank appraisal, discourage free flow of analytical information, and compromise the efficacy of the review process. As such, and at the discretion of the Provost and Vice-President Academic, the following documents are deemed to be confidential and therefore not subject to public access : Specialized instructions made available to external reviewers in preparation for the review; Self-Study documents; Review Committee s Reports; and Responses to the Review Committee s Report from the academic unit(s) and from the Dean(s). In response to a written request, the Provost and Vice-President Academic may provide excerpts from the confidential documents on a case-by-case basis.