2.1 Cyclical Review of Undergraduate and Graduate Academic Programs

Print | PDF

This online version is for convenience; the official version of this policy is housed in the University Secretariat. In case of discrepancy between the online version and the official version held by the Secretariat, the official version shall prevail.

Approving Authority: Senate

Original Approval Date: April 1, 1997

Date of Most Recent Review/Revision: December 2, 2021 (Senate approval); May 26, 2022 (OUCQA re-ratification)

Office of Accountability: Provost and Vice President: Academic

Administrative Responsibility: Quality Assurance Office

I. Objectives

A rigorous and transparent system of academic program review ensures quality and demonstrates accountability to the public and to current and prospective students. It also provides a sound basis for program enhancement and improvement. Within the university's commitment to the principle of academic freedom, reviews should be objective, analytical and constructive. Components of the review process have been mandated by the Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance Council (Quality Council) of the Council of Ontario Universities.

Wilfrid Laurier University’s Institutional Quality Assurance Procedures (IQAP), comprising this policy and policy 2.2, represent the university’s commitment to quality assurance and continuous improvement as articulated in the principles outlined in the Quality Assurance Framework. Core to the university’s approach to quality assurance is the centrality of the student and their learning experience, the importance of transparency in its quality assurance activities, the value of expert peer review, and the support of an independent external body, all of which operate in the context of the overall goal of continuous program improvement.

The Institutional Quality Assurance Procedures are subject to approval upon revision and will be audited by the Quality Council on an eight-year cycle.

As set out in the Quality Assurance Framework, the unit of examination throughout the review process is at the program-level, reviewing the program, or set or programs, offered by an academic unit. In the Wilfrid Laurier academic calendar, a program is defined as a group of courses, generally a combination of required and elective courses and milestones, which leads to a degree. The review process is designed to evaluate the program’s objectives, requirements, structure, content, and resources as described in Section C of this policy.

This policy pertains to the review of the following programs at Wilfrid Laurier University and all of its federated and affiliated colleges:

1. undergraduate degree, general and honours
2. graduate degree and diploma
3. collaborative and joint programs

II. Institutional Quality Assurance Procedures

A. Responsibilities

• The administration of the review process for all graduate and undergraduate degree programs and diploma programs is the responsibility of the Provost and Vice-President: Academic who is the sole contact between the institution and the Quality Council.
• The development of review documents for all undergraduate and graduate programs is overseen by the Quality Assurance Office in conjunction with the Associate Vice-President: Academic.
• The Program Review Sub-Committee of the Senate Academic Planning Committee, supported by the Quality Assurance Office, is responsible for managing the review process.
• The Senate Academic Planning Committee is responsible for approving the recommendations of the Program Review Sub-Committee and presenting them to Senate.

Wherever possible, programs that are offered at both the undergraduate and graduate level in the same discipline, department, or unit will be reviewed together. Similarly, programs that are offered at more than one campus will be reviewed together. Whether a cyclical review addresses single or multiple programs, the quality of each academic program, and the learning environment of the students in each program, will be explicitly addressed in the self-study and the external reviewers’ report.

The review schedule for all programs, which includes all degree levels, campuses, modes of delivery, and joint programs with other institutions, can be found on the Quality Assurance Office website and is reviewed and updated annually. All programs must be reviewed within eight years of their initial approval or last review.

Accredited Programs

In the case of programs which must also receive review by a professional accreditation body (e.g., programs in Business, Education, Music Therapy, Social Work, and Theology), these review documents may replace those prescribed by this policy only when all evaluation criteria outlined in Section C is included or appended. The Program Review Sub-Committee will make a determination of the suitability of accreditation documents for the purposes of program review. Where the committee determines that accreditation documents may be substituted for all or part of the Self-Study, a record of all substitutions and additions made, along with the rationale for those decisions, will be created by the Quality Assurance Office in collaboration with the academic unit.

Joint Programs with Other Institutions

In the case of joint programs with other postsecondary institutions, the participating institutions will agree on a common review schedule. Cyclical reviews will be conducted according to the IQAP of the institution administering the review (usually the institution at which the current director holds appointment) and under the leadership of that institution’s program director. For purposes of consistency, the institution that holds directorship of the joint program at the beginning of the cyclical review will be responsible for leading the process through to the completion of it.

The following principles shall apply to reviews of joint programs:

• There will be a single Self-Study, which will clearly explain how input was received from faculty, staff and students at each partner institution.
• The selection of arm’s length external reviewers will involve participation by each partner institution, including the appointment of an internal reviewer from each partner.
• The external review will involve all partner institutions and preferably all sites, if the review is held in person. Reviewers will consult faculty, staff, and students at each partner institution.
• Feedback on the reviewers’ report will be solicited from participating units at each partner institution, including the deans.
• One Final Assessment Report, with input and agreement from each partner, will be written and submitted through the appropriate governance processes at each institution. The Final Assessment Report will be submitted to the Quality Council by all partners, and will be posted on the university website of each partner.
• Partner institutions will agree on an appropriate monitoring process for the Implementation Plan, and all implementation reports will be posted on each partner institution’s website.

In cases where degree and/or diploma programs are offered jointly or as dual credential programs with non-IQAP institutions (e.g., colleges of applied arts and technology or institutes of technology and advanced learning), Wilfrid Laurier University will take the lead in the review process; all criteria and principles described below shall pertain as relevant.

B. Steps in the Review Process for Undergraduate Degree and Graduate Degree and Diploma Programs

1. The review process will be initiated by the Quality Assurance Office, as the designate of the Provost and Vice-President: Academic. A letter identifying all of the specific programs to be included in the review will be sent to the academic unit at the beginning of the review cycle.

2. A Self-Study will be prepared by the academic unit and include consultation with students and other relevant communities. These communities may include academic departments or programs within the university, as well as stakeholders in the broader community, such as employers and professional associations, whose perspectives should be included in the review of professional programs. One author whose responsibility it is to assemble all material must be identified and recorded on the document. Typically, this author will be a chair, program coordinator, or associate dean (in non-departmentalized faculties).

3. A draft of the Self-Study will be submitted for review and comment to the Quality Assurance Office and relevant Faculty dean(s), in the case of undergraduate programs. In the case of graduate programs, the Self-Study draft will be submitted to the Quality Assurance Office, Faculty dean and dean of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies. Where both undergraduate and graduate degrees are being reviewed, the Quality Assurance Office and all relevant deans will receive the draft Self-Study.

4. After receiving feedback from the Quality Assurance Office and the dean(s), the program director, coordinator, chair, or associate dean will revise the Self-Study in response to the feedback.

5. The Program Review Sub-Committee will select a review committee (in camera) from the nominees recommended by the academic unit.

6. The Quality Assurance Office will contact the review committee, schedule the external review, and submit the Self-Study and other relevant documents to the review committee.

7. Following its external review, the review committee will write a report summarizing the strengths of the program(s) and note any concerns or recommendations for change.

8. The academic unit will write a response to the report of the external review committee.

9. The relevant dean(s) will prepare a response to the reviewers’ report and the unit’s response, including an implementation plan that identifies which recommendations made by the review committee will be prioritized.

10. The key outcome of the cyclical review process is the Final Assessment Report and associated Implementation Plan, which become the basis of a continuous improvement process through monitoring of key performance indicators. The Final Assessment Report, which consists of an institutional synthesis of the review process and relevant documents (Self-Study, Reviewers’ Report, Unit Response, Decanal Response), as well as the Implementation Plan, will be prepared by the Quality Assurance Office and reviewed and approved by the Provost and Vice-President: Academic.

11. The Program Review Sub-Committee will review the Final Assessment Report for adherence to criteria outlined in Section I (below) and submit it to the Senate Academic Planning Committee with a recommendation for final approval.

12. The Final Assessment Report will be submitted to Senate and the Quality Council for information, and posted on the university’s Public Accountability cyclical program review webpage.

C. Criteria for Evaluating the Self-Study

The Self-Study provides an opportunity for the unit to engage in serious self-reflection through the analysis of the strengths and areas for improvement of all aspects of the program(s) under review. As such, the report is intended to be contemplative and analytical, not defensive, evasive, or merely descriptive. The opportunity should be taken for a probing examination of the academic character of the program(s) and for exploring innovative alternatives within the broader context of continuous program improvement.

The Self-Study consists of three volumes: the Self-Study report (Volume I), full faculty curricula vitae (Volume II), and proposed external reviewers (Volume III). The report should make clear how all data were collected, in what form, and by whom. Only data relating to the period under review should be included, i.e., normally the previous eight (8) years. Program faculty, staff, students, and (where applicable) external stakeholders and professional accrediting bodies should participate in the self-study process and have their contributions acknowledged. For professional programs, feedback from employers and professional associations should be included in the Self-Study.

Where an academic unit is reviewing multiple programs within a single Self-Study, each program must be discussed discretely where applicable. The following evaluation criteria apply to all programs being reviewed in the Self-Study.

1. Background

1. Brief history and background of the program(s) under review and their purpose within the institution. Include a list of all programs offered, including those with majors, combined degrees, minors, options, diplomas, or certificates. For graduate reviews, identify any fields within the program.
2. Description of how the Self-Study was written, including how the views of faculty, staff and students were obtained and considered. 
3. Actions that have been taken based in response to the previous cyclical review, with specific reference to any concerns raised by the reviewers and recommendations prioritized for implementation in the Final Assessment Report. For new programs undertaking their first cyclical review, this includes the steps taken to address any issues or items flagged in the monitoring report for follow-up, and/or items identified for follow-up by the Quality Council. 
4. For professional programs, a summary of any recent accreditation reports.
5. Questions or issues that the unit would like the review committee to provide feedback on to enhance the quality and viability of the program. 

2. Objectives of the Program

The distinction between program objectives and program-level learning outcomes is an important one in the cyclical review process. For the purposes of the cyclical review, program objectives refers to clear and concise statements that describe the broad goals of the program. Clear and thorough articulation of program objectives can provide transparency in what the program seeks to accomplish, describe to potential students why the discipline is important, and explain how the program is unique and meaningful in the context of the discipline as a whole. Program objectives are often framed or phrased from the perspective of the program and what it aims to accomplish through its curriculum.

In contrast, program-level learning outcomes are framed or phrased from the perspective of the student, rather than the program. They are clear and concise statements that describe what successful students should have achieved, as well as the knowledge, skills, and abilities that they should have acquired, by the end of the program. Program-level student learning outcomes emphasize the application and integration of knowledge rather than simply coverage of content. They articulate the expectations for student success—what students should know and/or know how to do by the end of the program.

The self-study will address the following related to the program objectives and program-level learning outcomes:

1. Consistency of the program’s objectives with Wilfrid Laurier University’s guiding documents, including the Laurier Strategy, Strategic Academic Plan, and other guiding documents that speak to academic priorities, such as the Strategic Plan for Equity, Diversity and Inclusion, and Indigenization Strategy.
2. Clarity and appropriateness of the program’s requirements and associated program-level learning outcomes addressing Laurier’s undergraduate (UDLEs) or graduate (GDLEs) degree level expectations.
3. For professional programs, consistency of the program level outcomes with provincial, national and professional standards.

3. Admission Requirements

a. Appropriateness of the program’s admission requirements for the learning outcomes established for completion of the program, including adherence to the university’s minimum requirements (consult the undergraduate and graduate academic calendars for minimum university requirements).

b. Explanation of alternative requirements, if any, for admission into a graduate, second-entry or undergraduate program, including minimum grade point average, additional languages, portfolios or creative work, along with how the program recognizes prior work or learning experience.

4. Curriculum

1. Appropriateness of the program's structure and curriculum to meet its learning outcomes, whether all program courses listed in the calendar are necessary to meet curricular objectives, and whether any new courses are needed to reflect recent developments in the discipline/profession.
2. How the curriculum reflects the current state of the discipline, area of study or field.
3. Patterns in average class size.
4. Modes of delivery used within the program and how these methods are appropriate and effective in meeting the program’s learning outcomes.
5. Amount of service teaching for other academic units and any advantages / disadvantages of this activity.
6. Ways in which the unit incorporates High Impact Practices into its curriculum, including a discussion of the provision of supervision of experiential learning opportunities, as relevant
7. Innovation or creativity in the content and/or delivery of the program relative or comparable to other such programs.
8. Ways in which the unit has worked towards incorporating principles of equity, diversity, and inclusion into its program curriculum and teaching and learning practices.
9. Identification of any efforts that have been made or initiatives that have been undertaken to incorporate Indigenous knowledges, perspectives, and methodologies into the program curriculum offered by the unit, as well as any future plans to do so.
10. The inclusion of professional or transferable skills in the program curriculum.
11. Discussion of any current or ongoing initiatives, and/or future plans that the unit has undertaken to promote and encourage academic integrity across the program curriculum.
12. Recent or ongoing significant curriculum changes that have been made, or will be made, to meet program- and course-level learning outcomes along with strategies and a proposed schedule for implementing any future changes.
13. For graduate reviews, a clear rationale for program length that ensures that students can complete the program-level learning outcomes and requirements within the time required.
14. For graduate reviews, 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.
15. For research-focused graduate programs, clear indication of the nature and suitability of the major research requirements for degree completion.
16. For graduate programs, an explanation of the purpose of fields and how they are staffed and supported appropriately.

5. Assessment Methodologies

1. Appropriateness and effectiveness of the methods for assessing student achievement of the defined program- and course-level learning outcomes and degree level expectations.
2. Appropriateness and effectiveness of the methods of assessment, especially in the students’ final year of the program, in clearly demonstrating achievement of the program-level learning outcomes and Laurier’s Degree Level Expectations.
3. How the resulting information is documented and used to inform continuous program improvement.
4. Ways in which the unit assesses the overall quality of its programs and attainment of its objectives

6. Resources

1. Adequacy of the administrative unit’s utilization of existing human, physical and financial resources.
2. Description of the administrative and decision-making structure/process within the unit (e.g., titles of all standing or ad hoc committees, how members are appointed/elected, the frequency of meetings) and an assessment of the effectiveness of the current structure and process.nd financial resources.
3. Description and evaluation of the academic services that contribute directly to the academic quality of each program under review and to student success, including library support, information technology support, laboratory access, services offered through Teaching and Learning, Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies, Co-operative Education, and academic advising.
4. Faculty external research funding. 

7. Quality Indicators

a. Faculty:

i) Discussion of the sufficiency of the faculty complement, along with evidence that faculty have the recent research or professional/clinical expertise needed to foster an appropriate and inclusive intellectual climate, sustain the program, and promote innovation.

ii) Description of the type and amount of professional service provided to the profession, discipline, or community.

iii) Description of the quality and quantity of scholarly and creative activity within the program, including involvement by undergraduate students where applicable.

iv) Qualifications and appointment status of faculty who provided instruction and supervision, including the qualifications of part-time faculty. Discussion of the role and approximate percentage of adjunct and part-time faculty/limited term appointments used in the delivery of the program and the associated plans to ensure the sustainability of the program and quality of the student experience. Evidence of how teaching and supervisory loads were distributed and the criteria used to determine this distribution.

v) For graduate programs, the numbers of faculty who have graduate faculty status by type of status. 

b. Undergraduate Students:

i) Numbers of applications and registrations, compared to targets (if applicable).

ii) Average GPA of students entering from secondary school (for first undergraduate degree programs only) or from any previous postsecondary degrees (if applicable).

iii) Percentage of students obtaining the necessary GPA, or other requirements, to progress through the program and attrition rates per year.

iv) Number of students graduating from the program each year and their average GPA at program completion, as well as the percentage of graduating students who have completed the program within the normal number of years (e.g., four years for an honours program; one or two years for a second degree or master’s program; four years for a doctoral program).

v) Average number of honours, general, and graduate students in the program per year, by level and any changes in unit enrolment patterns during the time period under review.

vi) Number of international students in the program per year and the resources available to support their academic success.

vii) Overview of academic awards available to students.

viii) Summary of course evaluations and summarized exit surveys, where permitted by the Collective Agreement and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).

ix) Employment options and career successes 6 months and 2 years after graduation, an estimate of the numbers applying to graduate school and the rate of successful admissions, an estimate of number working in relevant “skills matched” fields.

x) Alumni reports of satisfaction with the program. (Programs should consult Policy 8.2 Ethics Approval for Administrative Research Using Human Subjects prior to surveying alumni.)

c. Graduate Students:

i) Numbers of applications and registrations, compared to targets.

ii) Graduate student cohort data. How students’ time to completion is both monitored and managed in relation to the program’s defined length and program requirements.

iii) Number of degrees granted.

iv) A discussion of the nature and suitability of the major research requirements for degree completion, including the number of students completing a Master’s degree by coursework, major research paper or thesis.

v) Student enrolment patterns and predicted future trends.

vi) Number of international students in the program per year and the resources available to support their academic success.

vii) vEvidence that financial support for students has been sufficient to ensure adequate quality and numbers of students.

viii) Course evaluations and summarized exit surveys, where permitted by the Collective Agreement and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).

ix) iDiscussion of the employment rates and further education choices of program graduates.

x) Alumni reports of satisfaction with the program. (Programs should consult Policy 8.2 Ethics Approval for Administrative Research Using Human Subjects prior to surveying alumni.

9. Conclusion

1. Strategic plan for future directions and aspirations for the program, including barriers to reaching these objectives.
2. Concerns or problems that the unit and/or university should address to enhance the quality or viability of the program, as well as recommendations for action to improve the quality of the program or its administration.
3. Summary and conclusion to the Self-Study, articulating the unit’s strengths and weaknesses as well as opportunities for enhancing the quality of the teaching and learning environment. 

D. Self-Study Handbook

The university will prepare a detailed handbook for the conduct of cyclical program reviews. The handbook will include templates for all volumes of the Self-Study. In addition, the handbook will provide guidance on the benefits and conduct of rigorous, transparent, objective, analytical, and constructive self-studies; establish criteria for nomination and selection of arm’s length external peer reviewers; and identify responsibilities for the collection, aggregation and distribution of institutional data and outcome measures required for self-studies.

E. External Reviewers

The academic unit(s) responsible for the program under review will submit to the Quality Assurance Office the names, contact information, and rationale for those they wish to nominate as reviewers, as specified here:

• at least four tenured associate or full professors at Laurier from outside the academic unit who are recognized as excellent teachers and scholars, and who are known for their objectivity and judgment; and
• at least eight associate or full professors from other North American universities who are within the discipline. Normally, four of these will be from universities within Ontario and four from outside Ontario. These nominees will have suitable disciplinary expertise, qualifications and program management experience, including an appreciation of pedagogy and learning outcomes, and will be at arm’s length from the program under review. These nominees must not have any past or current formal affiliation with the unit or with members of the unit (e.g., PhD supervisor, co-author) and must be in compliance with Policy 8.1 Conflict of Interest Policy. The nominees may be grouped into categories reflecting different areas or fields within the discipline, with the request that at least one member from each category be selected.
• if appropriate for the program being reviewed, a list of at least four representatives of industry, the professions, and practical training programs.

In keeping with the requirement that reviewers must be at arm’s-length, the academic unit(s) will not contact the reviewers directly but will submit the names of prospective reviewers to the Quality Assurance Office. The Quality Assurance Office will contact the nominees to determine their interest and availability and collect the information to complete the Volume III template.

From the lists of nominees, the Program Review Sub-Committee will use the criteria identified above, as well as additional considerations such as diversity, institutional affiliations, and complementarity to select a review committee that consists of one internal reviewer from outside the academic unit(s) and two external reviewers for all undergraduate, graduate, and augmented reviews. If the Sub-Committee is not satisfied with the appropriateness of the nominees, they will request additional names from the academic unit. The Sub-Committee will submit the names of the review committee members to the Senate Academic Planning Committee for information. Following approval by the Program Review Sub-Committee, the Quality Assurance Office will contact the nominees to confirm their role and to schedule the site visit.

The internal reviewer is included as a member of each review committee in order to provide valuable institutional context. The internal reviewer has access to the same documentation as the external reviewers, and participates as an active member in all of the review meetings. The internal reviewer is not expected to contribute to the writing of the reviewers’ report, but may take on the role of reviewing the report prior to submission.

It is the responsibility of the Associate Vice-President: Academic to ensure that all members of the review committee:

a. Understand their role and obligations;

b. Identify and commend the program’s notably strong and creative attributes;

c. Describe the program’s respective strengths, areas for improvement, and opportunities for enhancement;

d. Recommend specific steps to be taken to improve the program, distinguishing between those the program can itself take and those that require external action;

e. Recognize the University’s autonomy to determine priorities for funding, space, and faculty allocation, and are informed that any recommendations related to the purview of the university’s budgetary decision-making processes (e.g. faculty complement and/or space requirements) should be tied directly to issues of program quality or sustainability;

f. Respect the confidentiality required for all aspects of the review process.

These expectations will be conveyed to the review committee in written instructions and face-to-face meetings with the relevant dean(s) and the Provost and Vice-President: Academic and/or Associate Vice-President: Academic. The Provost and Vice-President: Academic and/or the Associate Vice-President: Academic will also be responsible for providing the review committee with explicit instructions that each program is to be evaluated against the criteria listed in C above.

F. The Review and Report

The review committee will receive the unit’s Self-Study, in addition to a volume of faculty CVs and course syllabi from the Quality Assurance Office approximately one month in advance of the external review. The review committee may request additional information, and these requests will be fulfilled and documented through the Quality Assurance Office. External reviews will normally take the format of a one to two day site visit at the relevant Laurier campuses. External reviews for undergraduate programs will normally take place on campus, but may be conducted via desk review, virtual site visit, or equivalent method if the external reviewers are satisfied that the off-site option is acceptable and a clear and sufficient rationale is provided by the provost and vice-president: academic, or delegate. External reviews of master’s level programs will normally be conducted on campus; exceptions made be made for professional master’s programs be conducted via desk review, virtual site visit, or equivalent method if the external reviewers are satisfied that the off-site option is acceptable and a clear and sufficient rationale is provided by the Provost and Vice-President: Academic, or delegate. External reviews for doctoral programs must take place on campus.

Regardless of the review format, the review committee will meet with the Provost and Vice-President: Academic and/or Associate Vice-President: Academic; faculty, staff, and undergraduate and graduate students within the unit; the deans of the relevant Faculties; the chair/director/coordinator of the unit under review and of any collaborating units (for interdepartmental programs); the University Librarian; and any other members of the university community who can provide needed information.

The report of the external review committee must be submitted to the Quality Assurance Office within four weeks of the site visit. In the written report, the review committee should:

• identify the distinctive attributes of each discrete program documented in the self-study;
• comment on compliance with all evaluation criteria outlined in Section C;
• identify and commend the program’s notably strong and creative attributes;
• describe the program’s respective strengths, areas for improvement, and opportunities for enhancement;
• comment on innovation or creativity in the content and/or delivery of the program relative or comparable to other such programs;
• make at least three recommendations for specific steps to be taken that will lead to the continuous improvement of the program, distinguishing between those the program can itself take and those that require external action;
• and respond to any questions posed by the unit in the Self-Study.

The reviewers’ report will be treated as confidential, but should contain an executive summary suitable for inclusion in the Final Assessment Report and posting on the university’s Public Accountability cyclical program review webpage. Should the reviewers’ report not adequately address all of the above, it will be returned to the committee by the Quality Assurance Office for revision.

G. Response of the Unit to the Report of the Review Committee

Upon receipt of the reviewers’ report, the Quality Assurance Office will distribute copies to the provost and vicepresident: academic, dean(s) and chairperson(s)/co-ordinator(s)/associate dean(s) of the academic unit(s) under review. Within one month of receiving the report, the unit(s) will prepare a written response which includes:

a. clarifications or corrections of statements in the report;

b. answers to all questions and responses to all recommendations made by the reviewers.

H. Response of the Dean(s) to the External Reviewers’ Report and Unit Response

Following completion of the Unit Response, the dean(s) of the relevant faculties will prepare a Decanal Response that responds to the recommendations made by the review committee as well as the unit’s response to those recommendations. The dean(s) will also prepare the Implementation Plan, which identifies those recommendations prioritized for implementation, who is responsible for implementing the recommendation, and the target completion dates for each recommendation. Primary responsibility to execute the Implementation Plan lies with the leadership of the program. The Decanal Response will also provide an explanation for any recommendations that are not prioritized for implementation in the plan. This Implementation Plan will form part of the Final Assessment Report.

An exception to the requirement for separate responses from the unit and the dean is in the case of single-department Faculty (or equivalent), where the Dean (or equivalent) is essentially the Divisional Head (e.g. Faculty of Education).

I. Final Assessment Report

The Quality Assurance Office will prepare the Final Assessment Report, and submit it to the Provost and Vice-President: Academic, for review and approval, prior to submission to the Program Review Sub-Committee. The Final Assessment Report will:

a. Include an executive summary of the review process;

b. Identify significant strengths of the program;

c. Identify opportunities for program improvement and enhancement, with a view towards continuous improvement;

d. Include the executive summary and all recommendations from the external reviewers’ report, along with the associated internal responses and decanal responses;

e. Explain which recommendations from the reviewers’ report will be approved and why;

f. Prioritize recommendations approved for implementation in the Implementation Plan;

g. Include any additional recommendations that the unit, the dean(s) and/or the university may have identified as requiring action as a result of the cyclical review;

h. If necessary, contain a confidential section where personnel issues may be addressed;

i. Include an implementation plan that identifies for each recommendation:

• Who will be responsible for approving the recommendation;
• Who will be responsible for acting on the recommendation;
• Any changes in organization, policy or governance, at any level, that would be necessary to meet the recommendation;
• The resources, financial and otherwise, that would be provided in supporting the implementation of recommendation;
• Who will be responsible for providing resources made necessary by the recommendation;
• A proposed timeline for the implementation of all recommendation.

J. Final Approval and Reporting Requirements

1. The Program Review Sub-Committee will review the Final Assessment Report to ensure it meets and includes all criteria outlined in Section I, then submit the Final Assessment Report to the Senate Academic Planning Committee for approval or further modification, as necessary.

2. The Final Assessment Report (excluding all confidential information) will be provided to the program and relevant deans and submitted for information to Senate and the Quality Council.

3. The Final Assessment Report will be posted on the university’s Cyclical Review Public Accountability website.

4. Only the Final Assessment Report will be publicly accessible. All other information will remain confidential.

K. Implementation Reports

Two years following the submission of the Final Assessment Report to Senate, the unit will be asked to prepare an Implementation Report describing progress made on the implementation of the recommendations prioritized. The Quality Assurance Office will send the unit the template and instructions for the Implementation Report several months in advance of its due date. In the Implementation Report, the unit will propose a revised implementation date for any recommendations not completed, and identify any significant developments or initiatives since the cyclical review that have impacted the implementation of recommendations. The report will be submitted to the relevant dean(s) for comment, then to the Program Review Sub-Committee for review and approval, and to the Senate Academic Planning Committee for information. The Program Review Sub-Committee will determine if and when a subsequent report is necessary and communicate that decision back to the unit. All implementation reports will be made public on the university’s Public Accountability cyclical review webpage.

L. Cyclical Audits

A Cyclical Audit of the university’s internal quality assurance procedures, conducted by the Quality Council, ensures transparency and accountability to the stakeholders of Ontario’s post-secondary education system, including students, employers, the government, and the general public. The Cyclical Audit assesses the extent to which the university’s quality assurance policies, procedures, and practices are aligned with the standards and criteria outlined in the Quality Assurance Framework. Through the development of an institutional Self-Study, combined with the examination of quality assurance artefacts from the previous audit cycle, and an external review, the Cyclical Audit provides the university with an opportunity to reflect upon and evaluate its approach and commitment to continuous program improvement, and enables the Quality Council to identify strong institutional practices, and areas for improvement.

The following steps will apply to the Cyclical Audit:

1. The university will be audited by the Quality Council on an 8-year cycle under the terms outlined in the Quality Assurance Framework. All undergraduate and/or graduate program reviews, along with new program developments, that were undertaken since previous Audit, are eligible for selection in the university’s next Cyclical Audit.
2. The Cyclical Audit will begin with a half-day briefing from the Quality Council Secretariat and an Audit Committee member with the Key Contact and other relevant stakeholders, approximately one year in advance of the Audit.
3. As part of the Cyclical Audit process, the university will prepare an institutional Self-Study in advance of the focused audit that presents and assesses its own quality assurance processes and pays particular attention to any issues raised during the previous audit. The institutional Self-Study will be written by the Quality Assurance Office, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, before submission to the Quality Council Secretariat.
4. The Audit Team will select a number of programs to be included in the Audit and communicate this to the university. The Quality Assurance Office will prepare and submit the program materials to the Audit Team for its desk audit.
5. The Audit Team will conduct a site visit to the university in order to ask questions and address gaps that arose during the desk audit. During the two to three day site visit, the Audit Team will meet with senior administrators and others involved in the quality assurance functions of the university, in addition to representatives from each program included in the audit, such as students, faculty, staff, and other relevant stakeholders.
6. The Audit Report will be published on the university’s Cyclical Review Public Accountability webpage.
7. When a Follow-Up Response Report to the Audit is required, it will be published on the university’s Cyclical Review Public Accountability webpage. The Auditors’ Report on the scope and adequacy of the university’s response will also be published on the university’s Cyclical Review Public Accountability webpage.
8. In addition to the scheduled Cyclical Audit, should the Audit Team find any Causes for Concern during the university’s audit, the Quality Council may require the university to participate in a Focused Audit to probe further into the issues identified, through a desk audit and/or additional site visit. The report of any Focused Audit will be published on the university’s Cyclical Review Public Accountability webpage.

Related Policies, Procedures, and Documents

• Policy 2.2: Approval of New Undergraduate and Graduate Programs
• Quality Assurance Framework