Quality Assurance and IQAP

The Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance (Quality Council) is the body charged with the oversight of quality assurance processes at the province’s publicly assisted universities, a responsibility shared with the institutions themselves. As outlined in the Quality Assurance Framework, this shared responsibility ensures “a culture of continuous improvement and support for a vision of a student-centred education based on clearly articulated program learning outcomes” and an education system that is “open, accountable, and transparent”.

The Quality Assurance Framework (QAF), published in 2010 and revised in 2021, includes a set of principles and detailed protocols that govern quality assurance. In alignment with the QAF, this Institutional Quality Assurance Process (IQAP) is the University of Guelph’s local expression of the protocols and procedures for quality assurance in the pursuit of continuous improvement. The IQAP and any subsequent revisions are subject to approval by the University of Guelph Senate and ratification by the Quality Council; the IQAP is also subject to regular audit by the Quality Council to ensure alignment with institutional practices.

The University of Guelph is committed to continuous improvement, transparency, and public accountability, as outlined in the Mission Statement:

Additionally, the University of Guelph is committed to the fifteen quality assurance principles outlined in the QAF (Appendix A), in particular to the advancement of student learning, as outlined in QAF Principle 1.

This IQAP and associated templates also ensure the commitment of quality assurance processes towards fulfilling the University of Guelph’s institutional missions and mandates, including the Strategic Plan and initiatives such as Indigenization and decolonization (Bi-Naagwad); equity, diversity and inclusion (including the Anti-Racism Action Plan); and internationalization.

Commitment to the excellence of academic programs and to their continuous improvement, including development and assessment of learning outcomes, remains a faculty-driven process supported by Senate and the Provost. The University of Guelph’s Undergraduate Learning Outcomes (December 5, 2012) and Graduate Learning Outcomes (May 31, 2013), along with the 1987 Learning Objectives, serve as the basis from which to guide the development of degree programs, specializations and courses; as a framework to ensure outcomes are clear to students and to support their achievement; and to inform the process of assessment of outcomes through institutional quality reviews of programs. The five approved outcomes, in alignment with the University Undergraduate Degree-Level Expectations and Graduate Degree Level Expectations, are:

1. Critical and Creative Thinking
2. Literacy
3. Global Understanding
4. Communicating
5. Professional and Ethical Behaviour

1.1 Institutional Authorities

Senate

The University of Guelph Senate is the ultimate authority for ensuring the quality of the institution’s academic programs, including undergraduate and graduate programs. Senate establishes and delegates aspects of their authority and responsibilities to standing committees and boards, such as Senate Committee on Quality Assurance, Board of Undergraduate Studies, and Board of Graduate Studies.

Senate Committee on Quality Assurance

The Senate Committee on Quality Assurance (SCQA) recommends to Senate, for its approval, institutional policies and procedures related to quality assurance. The Committee receives and reviews Final Assessment Reports and Implementation Plans, and Follow-Up Reports to ensure they are complete and in compliance with the protocols outlined herein. SCQA presents these reports to Senate as items of information.

Board of Undergraduate Studies and Board of Graduate Studies

The Board of Undergraduate Studies (BUGS) recommends to Senate, for its approval, matters related to undergraduate degree education and policy, including the establishment or elimination of undergraduate degree or diploma programs, or changes to undergraduate degree or diploma programs, or their specializations. The Board of Graduate Studies (BGS) recommends to Senate, for its approval, matters related to graduate degree education and policy, including the establishment or elimination of graduate degrees or diplomas, and changes to graduate degrees, diplomas, or their specializations. BUGS and BGS have responsibilities to ensure that new or revised programming is consistent with the Quality Council’s evaluation criteria and in alignment the University’s goals and strategic directions, and a duty to make contributions that will enhance the overall academic reputation of the University.

Authority for Reporting to Quality Council

The Provost and Vice-President, Academic is the ultimate authority for the IQAP and its application, and is responsible for contact with, and reporting to, the Quality Council. This includes the submission of proposals for new programs, the review of existing programs, and an annual report of major modifications to existing programs. The Provost and Vice-President, Academic has delegated authority to the Associate Vice-President, Academic (AVPA), and Assistant Vice-President, Graduate Studies (AVPGS) for oversight of undergraduate and graduate programs, respectively. The AVPA and AVPGS have delegated authority to the Director, Academic Programs and Policy, as appropriate. Quality assurance activity is operationalized with support from the Office of Quality Assurance and the Office of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies, as well as many support units.

The Protocol for New Program Approvals: Undergraduate and Graduate outlines the steps by which new programs are proposed, reviewed and approved through the University’s academic governance processes.

At the undergraduate level, “new program” is understood as a degree program, specialization (major, minor or area of concentration), for-credit degree-level certificate or degree-level diploma. The Office of Quality Assurance, on behalf of the Provost, oversees the submissions of proposals for all new undergraduate programs.

At the graduate level, “new program” is understood as a graduate degree program, graduate diploma (Type 2 or Type 3) or collaborative specialization. Proposals for new graduate diplomas (Type 2, Type 3), or new standalone degree programs stemming from a long-standing field normally require only an expedited approval process (see 3. Expedited Approvals). The Office of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies, on behalf of the Provost, oversees the submissions of proposals for all new graduate programs.

Proposals for new Type 1 graduate diplomas, collaborative specializations, fields, minors, areas of concentration, areas of emphasis, for-credit undergraduate certificates and for-credit undergraduate diplomas must be approved by Senate but are not submitted to the Quality Council for review and approval; rather, they are reported as Major Modifications in the University’s Annual Report to the Quality Council (see 4.3 Annual Report on Major Modifications).

2.1 Notice of Intent

In the initial development phase, the unit(s) proposing a new program submits a Notice of Intent, a high-level summary of the envisioned program that includes rationale, anticipated demand and enrolment, and identifies anticipated resources. Information about this process is available from the OQA and OGPS websites.

The AVPA or AVPGS undertake initial review to ensure new programming is consistent with the strategic plans and directions for growth of the university. The proposed new program must receive a recommendation to move through the governance process from the AVPA or AVPGS on behalf of the Office of the Provost.

Once the sponsoring academic unit(s) receives approval in principle, the completed program proposal must be submitted to the Office of Quality Assurance (undergraduate) or Office of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (graduate) within 12 months or the approval will lapse and require resubmission.

The Office of Quality Assurance and Office of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies communicate all approved Notices of Intent to relevant support units.

2.2 Program Proposal

The development of a New Program Proposal Brief is initiated by an academic unit, following approval of the Notice of Intent. The proposal brief, following the institution’s template, addresses the QAF Evaluation Criteria for New Programs (Appendix B) including:

• program objectives;
• learning outcomes;
• admission requirements;
• program requirements;
• mode of delivery;
• assessment of teaching and learning;
• resources; and
• quality and other indicators.

The proposal brief also addresses the University’s internal Senate guidelines and the MCU program approval criteria, considers the institutional strategic directions, missions and mandates (e.g., Indigenization and decolonization; equity, diversity and inclusion; internationalization; experiential learning) and includes discussion of distinctive curriculum aspects, program innovations and/or creative components.

The proposal brief is expected to demonstrate broad consultation with campus partners and includes the following as supporting documentation, at minimum: sign off from the relevant Dean(s) and Chair(s)/Director(s); Library Assessment; Co-op Market Study, and confirmation of approval by the Co-op Program Coordinating Committee, if applicable; confirmation of support from contributing and affected units; Learning Outcomes Alignment Table; Student Progression Through the Program; Faculty Curricula Vitae; and Nominations of External Reviewers (see 2.3 External Evaluation).

Upon completion, the New Program Proposal Brief is approved by the College Dean(s) and submitted to the OQA or OGPS. The Office consults with the Dean and relevant AD (Academic or Research and Graduate Studies) of the sponsoring College, the Provost and relevant support units, as appropriate.

The New Program Proposal Brief is then submitted to the Degree Program Committee for approval (for undergraduate programs) or Division Committee for review and feedback (for graduate programs). For proposed undergraduate programs where no Degree Program Committee exists (i.e., for a new degree), the New Program Working Group or equivalent, is responsible for fulfilling the responsibilities of a Degree Program Committee throughout the approval process. If no significant issues of overlap or conflict of interest are identified, the New Program Proposal Brief is submitted to the External Reviewers in preparation for the site visit.

2.3 External Evaluation

Alongside the proposal brief, the academic unit includes the nominations of a minimum of four potential external reviewers with a rationale for their nomination, a brief curriculum vitae, and the identification of any previous affiliations with the University of Guelph. Wherever possible, nominations will ensure diversity in experience and jurisdiction, with meaningful inclusion of equity-deserving groups. The academic unit(s) proposing the new program makes initial contact with proposed reviewers to determine their willingness to serve and their availability to conduct the review.

Reviewers will normally be associate or full professors in the area of the proposed program with a strong record of accomplishment as academic scholars. As an overall team of evaluators, they will normally possess academic administrative experience and have experience with curriculum design and learning outcomes development. External reviewers must be at arm’s length from the program under review. Arm’s length status does not require that the reviewer must never have met or heard of a single member of the program, but that the reviewer is free of conflicts of interest (personal or professional) that could impact their ability to perform independent judgement. These conflicts include but are not limited to: a previous member of the program(s) or academic unit(s) under review, including being a visiting professor; received a graduate degree from the program under review; a regular or recent (within 7 years) research collaborator with a member of the program; a close personal (family/friend) relationship with a member of the program; a repeated external examiner of dissertations by doctoral students in the program; a recent doctoral supervisor (past several years) of one or more members of the program; a previous external reviewer for the program(s) or academic unit(s) in question (for additional examples, see: https://oucqa.ca/guide/choosing-arms-length-reviewers-2-2-1-and-5-2-1/). This combination of experience and arm’s length status helps ensure that a reviewer will provide informed and constructive feedback, and will not be “likely, or perceived to be likely, to be predisposed, positively or negatively, about the program” (QAF Guide).

From these nominations, two external reviewers will be invited by the Director, OQA, on behalf of the AVPA (for undergraduate programs) or by the AVPGS (for graduate programs). External reviewers are invited to review the New Program Proposal and adequacy of the academic unit’s planned utilization of existing resources (human, physical and financial), through an on-site or virtual site visit. For new undergraduate programs, an internal facilitator – from outside the discipline – is selected by the OQA to accompany the reviewers for the duration of their visit. Internal facilitators do not participate in reviews of new graduate programs. Participation as an internal facilitator is a service activity to the institution. Internal facilitators are normally tenure-stream or tenured faculty who are arm’s length from the program under review. They are nominated and selected in partnership with the Office of the Provost and the Colleges. The two external reviewers and internal facilitator, if applicable, receive the New Program Proposal Brief and all relevant documentation, including faculty CVs, and a template for the External Reviewers’ Assessment Report for New Programs.

The external reviewers will participate in a visit, including meeting with administrators, faculty, staff and students connected to the proposed program. Proposals for new programs normally include an on-site visit; however, a virtual site visit may be conducted if the AVPA or AVPGS, on behalf of the Provost, and external reviewers are satisfied that the off-site option is acceptable.

Conduct of the external review via desk audit or equivalent method will only occur under exceptional circumstances, and the Provost will provide clear justification to the Quality Council for the decision to use these alternatives in such cases.
Within two weeks of the visit, the external reviewers will provide a joint report to the OQA or OGPS that appraises the quality of the proposed program in identifying any clearly innovative aspects or areas the proposal could be strengthened, and provides specific, actionable recommendations. Specifically, the External Reviewers’ Assessment Report addresses the substance of the New Program Proposal Brief, responds to the criteria outlined in the template, including the New Program Evaluation Criteria (Appendix B), and comments on the adequacy of the existing physical, human, and financial resources.

Once the External Reviewers’ Assessment Report is submitted, the Director, Academic Programs and Policy or AVPGS conduct an initial review of the report, including fact-checking for material errors and confidential information. In the case that the report does not meet the requirements of the IQAP, the Director or AVPGS will initiate discussion with the external reviewers, seeking a timely resolution.

2.4 Internal Response

Upon completion of the External Reviewers’ Assessment Report, it is disseminated to the academic unit(s) proposing the program, as well as the Dean and relevant AD (Academic or Research and Graduate Studies) and includes a request for the Program Response and Dean’s Response. The academic unit(s) is also given the opportunity to identify any material errors of fact that would require revision to the report. Should any material errors be identified, the external reviewers are asked to revise the Assessment Report. A record of all versions of the report, as well as any identified errors, are kept on file.

The academic unit(s) proposing the program and Dean draft separate responses (Program Response and Dean’s Response, respectively). These respond directly to each of the recommendations outlined in the External Reviewers’ Assessment Report, and outline plans for implementing the recommendations.

In response to the External Reviewers’ Assessment Report and in alignment with the Program Response and Dean’s Response, any necessary changes to the program proposal documentation are made and the revised New Program Proposal Brief is re-approved at the relevant Degree Program Committee (for undergraduate programs). Any amendments made to the proposal documentation as a result of the review will be outlined in a Summary of Changes and accompany the proposal through the subsequent phases.

The internal responses are reviewed by OQA with consultation from the AVPA, for undergraduate programs, or by OGPS with consultation from the AVPGS, for graduate programs. If deemed acceptable, the new program proposal moves forward for institutional approval.

2.5 Institutional Approval

The new program proposal, including the New Program Proposal Brief and supporting documentation, External Reviewers’ Assessment Report, Program Response and Dean’s Response, is submitted by OQA/OGPS for approval by the Board of Undergraduate Studies (through its Calendar Review Committee [CRC]) or the Board of Graduate Studies (through its Graduate Programs and Faculty Committee [GPFC]). The Board of Undergraduate Studies or Board of Graduate Studies review the entire proposal and make a recommendation to Senate for approval based on the University’s quality assurance standards, in alignment with the QAF. The proposal then moves to Senate for approval.

Upon the approval of Senate or at the discretion of the Provost, the new program may be announced and advertised. When such announcements are made in advance of Quality Council approval, they must contain the statement:

2.6 External Approval

Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance

Following Senate approval, the New Program Proposal and all other required documentation are submitted to the Quality Council Secretariat for evaluation by the Appraisal Committee.

The Appraisal Committee focuses its review on the sufficiency of the External Reviewers’ Assessment Report, including the recommendations and suggestions included, adequacy of the internal responses (Program Response and Dean’s Response) and adequacy of the proposed methods for Assessment of Teaching and Learning given the proposed program’s structure, objectives, learning outcomes and assessment methods (Evaluation Criteria 2.1.2.4 a) and b)). The Appraisal Committee may seek further information from the University.

Based on this review, the Appraisal Committee makes a recommendation to the Quality Council and the Quality Council will reach one of the following decisions:

1. Approved to commence;
2. Approved to commence, with report*;
3. Deferred for up to one year during which the time the university may address identified issues and report back;
4. Not approved; or
5. Such other circumstances as the Quality Council considers reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.

*Reports on new programs will typically be required when significant additional action, such as a large number of new hires or other resources, are required to ensure the quality of the program, but have not yet been implemented at the time of approval. In the follow up for a with report condition, the Quality Council will make the decision of approved to continue without condition, approved to continue with additional follow-up, or required to suspend admission for a minimum of two years, until specified conditions are met.

The Quality Council Secretariat notifies the Provost and Vice-President, Academic, of the Quality Council’s decision. The OQA or OGPS then provides notice to the academic unit(s) and College proposing the program and provides notice to the Board of Undergraduate Studies (BUGS) or Board of Graduate Studies (BGS) and Senate Committee on Quality Assurance (SCQA) for information.

As outlined in the QAF, the University may request a reconsideration and/or appeal within 30 days of the Quality Council’s decision.

Ministry of Colleges and Universities

Concurrently with Quality Council approval, the new program is submitted by OQA or OGPS to the Ministry of Colleges and Universities (MCU) for funding approval*.

*New programs falling into the category of "Core Arts and Sciences" may not require MCU Approval. In these cases, decisions will be made in consultation with the Office of the Provost and IRP.

2.7 Implementation and Monitoring

The new program begins by enrolling its first cohort within thirty-six months of the date of Quality Council approval, otherwise the approval will lapse.

Upon approval, the new program is included in the Cyclical Program Review Schedule, with its first review occurring no more than eight years after the program’s initial enrolment.

All new programs are required to submit monitoring reports following commencement of the program, due within four years for an undergraduate program, two years for a master’s or graduate diploma program, or four years for a doctoral program.

The Follow-Up Report for New Programs will carefully evaluate the program’s success in realizing its objectives, requirements, and outcomes. It will provide an overview of any changes to the program since approval, evidence of student satisfaction, evidence of student success, and a reflection on the adequacy of new and existing resources. The report also includes an overview of enrolment and degree completions (if applicable). The Follow-Up Report for New Programs is completed by the Chair/Director(s) and signed by the College’s Dean. Upon approval by the AVPA or AVPGS, the report is submitted to BUGS or BGS for approval.

Ongoing monitoring of the new program will be conducted through academic governance processes of Senate, specifically by the Board of Undergraduate Studies or the Board of Graduate Studies, whose mandates specifically include the oversight of curricular integrity and the progress of students through academic programs. The monitoring of new programs will take into consideration the outcomes of the Follow-Up Reports, as well as any notes from the Quality Council, and will identify any additional areas to be considered in the first cyclical review of the new program.

The Protocol for Expedited Approvals outlines the process by which new programs are proposed, reviewed and approved through the University’s academic governance processes, and applies to proposals for a:

• New Graduate Diploma (Type 2, Type 3); and
• New standalone degree program stemming from a long-standing field.*

*In order to qualify for an expedited approval process as a standalone degree program, the field must stem from a master's or doctoral program that has undergone at minimum two program reviews and has at least two graduating cohorts.

At the discretion of the AVPA or AVPGS, the Protocol for Expedited Approvals may also apply to the review and approval of a new field(s) in a graduate program, a major modification, or any change that exceeds the criteria of major modification but is not considered a new program.

3.1 Procedures

The procedures for expedited approval are reflective of the Protocol for New Program Approvals (Section 2) but expedited by not requiring an External Evaluation. Procedures are outlined with exceptions noted, as follows:

1. Notice of Intent (2.1)
2. Program Proposal (2.2) (Unit(s) are not required to nominate external reviewers.)
3. Institutional Approval (2.5)
4. External Approval (2.6) (The Appraisal Committee will reach a decision of Approved to Commence, Approved to Commence with Report, or Not Approved and will report such decision to the Quality Council for information. New Graduate Diplomas (Type 2) do not require MCU Approval.)
5. Implementation and Monitoring (2.7)

As outlined in the QAF, major modifications to existing programs demonstrate continuous improvement and program renewal and are made in order to implement the outcomes of a cyclical program review, reflect the ongoing evolution of the discipline, accommodate new developments in a particular field, facilitate improvements in teaching and learning strategies, respond to improvements in technology or respond to the changing needs of students, society, and industry.

Major modifications to existing programs generally include:

1. Requirements that differ significantly from those existing at the time of the previous cyclical program review (including the addition of a single new field in a graduate program);
2. Significant changes to the (program- or degree-level) learning outcomes, that do not meet the threshold for a new program (including changes in program name and/or degree nomenclature when they result in a change in learning outcomes); and
3. Significant changes to the program’s delivery, including the faculty and/or essential physical resources.

Oversight and approval of major modifications to existing programs resides with the institution; however, the Quality Council has the ultimate authority to determine if a major modification constitutes a new program and therefore must follow the Protocol for New Program Approvals (Section 2).

4.1 Determinants of Major Modifications

Specific examples of what are considered “significant” changes to requirements, learning outcomes, or faculty and/or other essential resources are defined below. In instances where it is unsure whether a proposed change constitutes “significant change”, the AVPA (for undergraduate programs) or AVPGS (for graduate programs), on behalf of the Provost, will be the arbiter to determine whether the change is considered a major modification.

Requirements that differ significantly from those existing at the time of the previous cyclical program review, such as:

• the diminution or increase in admission requirements
• major changes to courses comprising a significant proportion of the program
• the merger of two or more existing programs/specializations or separation of existing programs/specializations into two or more distinct programs/ specializations, in the absence of any other significant changes (e.g., to the degree designation, learning outcomes, etc.)
• the introduction of bridging options for college diploma graduates (e.g., 2+2 arrangements)
• the addition or deletion of an experiential learning option (e.g., co-operative education, internship, practicum)
• the deletion of a program or deletion of a specialization within an undergraduate degree program (major, minor, area of concentration, certificate)

For undergraduate programs, specifically:

• changes to graduation requirements or academic regulations (i.e., cumulative average, number of required credits, continuation of study, double-counting rules)
• the addition or deletion of a secondary area of study within the program (e.g., area of emphasis)
• the addition or deletion of a common core across specializations in a degree program

For graduate programs, specifically:

• changes to program requirements or program-specific regulations (e.g., number of required credits, nature of required courses, number of allowed undergraduate courses)
• the addition or deletion of a program completion option (i.e., thesis, Major Research Project/Paper, or coursework)
• changes to the nature and/or structure of a doctoral qualifying examination
• the addition, change, or deletion of a field within an existing graduate program
• the addition or deletion of a combined degree program or dual degree program where the degree programs to be combined already exist
• the addition of a degree level within an existing collaborative specialization

Significant changes to the (program- or degree-level) learning outcomes, that do not meet the threshold for a new program, such as:

• changes to the program name, degree designation or program content, when the changes affect the learning outcomes but do not meet the threshold for a new program

Significant changes to the program’s delivery, including the faculty and/or essential physical resources, such as:

• changes to the faculty delivering the program (e.g., a large proportion of the faculty retires)
• the establishment of an existing program at a different or additional location
• the offering of an existing program mostly or entirely online where it had been previously offered face-to-face, or vice versa
• the addition or deletion of a part-time option
• changes to the essential resources, where the changes impair the delivery of the approved program

4.2 Procedures

Major modifications to existing programs are normally identified by the program making the change, the Dean or AD responsible for the program, or by the Program Committee, based on the criteria outlined above. These parties may also seek consultation with the OQA or OGPS in determining the appropriate Evaluation Criteria to be completed in the major modification proposal. The proposal includes:

1. Description of, and rationale for, the proposed changes;
2. Alignment to the program-level learning outcomes and maintenance of the program objectives and program-level learning outcomes;
3. Assessment of the impact of the proposed modification on students (current and future), including how the proposed major modification will improve the student experience; and
4. Input from current students and recent graduates; and
5. Any other criteria relevant to the specific modification, as outlined in the template*.

*For example, when changing the mode of delivery from in-person to fully or mostly online, the major modification brief will also consider the adequacy of the technological platform and tools, sufficiency of support services including training for instructors, sufficiency of support for students in the online environment, and access.

The major modification will follow typical curriculum changes processes and is submitted by OQA or OGPS for approval by the Board of Undergraduate Studies (through its Calendar Review Committee [CRC]) or the Board of Graduate Studies (through its Graduate Programs and Faculty Committee [GPFC]). Depending on the type of major modification, final authority for approval will be the Board of Undergraduate Studies/Board of Graduate Studies or Senate, based on the University’s quality assurance standards and in alignment with the QAF.

Undergraduate Modifications Not Meeting the Threshold for a Major Modification

Regular curriculum changes (e.g., changes to program requirements, courses, or regulations) are submitted in consultation with the OQA. Such changes are not considered major modifications and require, at minimum, the following approvals:

1. Curriculum Committee
2. Program Committee
3. Calendar Review Committee
4. Board of Undergraduate Studies

Graduate Modifications Not Meeting the Threshold for a Major Modification

Regular curriculum changes (e.g., minor changes to program requirements, the addition of a new program to an existing collaborative specialization; minor modifications to admission requirements) are submitted in consultation with the OGPS. Such changes are not considered major modifications and require, at minimum, the following approvals:

1. Academic Unit(s)
2. Assistant Vice-President, Graduate Studies

Non-Degree Credentials

Proposals for new non-degree credentials (e.g., micro-credentials, laddering, stacking or similar options) are considered as not meeting the threshold for major modification. Such credentials are considered by the Senate Committee on Non-Degree Studies and are not under the purview of this IQAP.

4.3 Annual Report on Major Modifications

On an annual basis, the University of Guelph will file an Annual Report on Major Modifications to the Quality Council, which includes all major modifications approved through governance.

The Annual Report on Major Modifications also includes program closures as well as new programs that are approved internally but are not submitted to the Quality Council for approval, such as minors, areas of concentration, for-credit undergraduate certificates, for-credit undergraduate diplomas, Type 1 graduate diplomas and graduate collaborative specializations.

The University of Guelph's quality assurance processes place strong emphasis on the importance of the assessment of learning outcomes along with quality of faculty, instructional support and academic learning environments required to mount and sustain successful programs and support the academic planning process. Cyclical reviews of academic programs emphasize the University’s dedication to continuous curriculum improvement and program evolution (QAF Principle 13) and have overarching goals to:

• Reflect upon institutional strategic directions, missions and mandates, such as Indigenization and decolonization; equity, diversity and inclusion; internationalization, experiential learning, etc.;
• Continue to develop and deliver programs with high standards, quality and innovation;
• Ensure quality enhancement and continuous improvement; and
• Meaningfully engage students, faculty, staff, alumni,external partners and other relevant groups.

The cyclical program review results in a Final Assessment Report and Implementation Plan which become the basis of continuous improvement and monitoring of key performance indicators. The primary responsibility to execute the Implementation Plan and ensure ongoing quality enhancement lies jointly with the College Dean(s) and Chair/Director of the academic program.

5.1 Schedule of Reviews

The Office of Quality Assurance, on behalf of the Provost, establishes and maintains the Cyclical Program Review Schedule, which outlines a cycle, not to exceed eight years*, of reviews for all undergraduate and graduate programs, specifically:

• Undergraduate Degrees and Specializations (baccalaureate 4-year honours and 3-year general degree programs and majors, including joint or collaborative degree programs or majors and professional degree programs);
• Graduate Degrees (doctoral programs, thesis- and course-based masters programs, and executive programs, including joint graduate programs, dual degree graduate programs, and combined degree programs); and
• Graduate Diplomas (Type 1, Type 2, Type 3).

*The maximum eight-year interval between consecutive reviews is marked by the start of the first consecutive review.

This Review Schedule will apply to all program offerings eligible for cyclical program review, including all modes of program delivery, joint/inter-institutional programs and those offered at multiple sites.

Normally, programs within a single academic unit (Department/School) will be addressed within one omnibus report; undergraduate and graduate programs offered by the same unit are also reviewed concurrently. In such cases, the quality of each academic program and the learning environment of students in each program will be explicitly addressed in both the Self-study and the External Reviewers’ Assessment Report.

The Cyclical Program Review Schedule will also include all programs that are accredited by a professional body, for which effort will be made to schedule the cyclical program review in coordination with the accreditation review (see 5.5 Accredited Programs). Programs offered in full, in part, conjointly, and in partnership with other institutions, are also scheduled for review on an eight-year cycle agreed upon by all participating institutions (see 5.4 Programs Joint with Other Institutions).

The first cyclical program review of any new program will be scheduled to take place no more than eight years after the program’s initial enrolment.

The scope of cyclical program review does not extend to programs that have been closed. Programs for which admission has been suspended may be outside of the scope of cyclical program review, for example if the program is actively pursuing closure. All decisions around the review of suspended programs will be made by the AVPA/AVPGS in consultation with the Provost and Dean(s) and will be based on the reasons for suspension and timeline for reopening applications, if applicable.

5.2 Procedures

The Office of Quality Assurance, under the authority of the Office of the Provost, initiates the scheduled review. The call for review will identify the specific program or programs that will be reviewed and identifying, where there is more than one mode or site involved in delivering a specific program, the distinct versions of each program that are to be reviewed.

5.2.1 Self-study

The cyclical program review process includes the submission of a Self-study, following the institution’s template, that is broad-based, reflective, and forward-looking, and includes critical analysis of the program(s) strengths, challenges, weaknesses and opportunities for improvement. Normally, where there are multiple programs offered within the same academic unit (Department/School), these will be addressed in a single Self-study. There may be cases where more than one report is warranted, and those decisions will be made in consultation with the Dean and the Chair/Director for said programs.

The Self-study addresses the QAF Evaluation Criteria for Cyclical Program Reviews (Appendix C) and incorporates the views of faculty, staff, students, alumni, external partners and other relevant groups. The Self-study will include, at minimum:

• A brief overview of the undergraduate and graduate program(s) included in the review, with historical context addressing the evolution of the program(s), the administrative and reporting structures of the program(s) and, if relevant, relation to other academic units;
• The alignment of the curriculum and/or program delivery to the University’s strategic goals and directions, the relevant College’s strategic goals and directions, as well as institutional priorities such as Indigenization and decolonization, equity, diversity and inclusion, internationalization, experiential learning, etc.;
• A description of the actions and outcomes resulting from the program’s last review. This includes recommendations detailed in the Final Assessment Report, Implementation Plan and subsequent monitoring reports from the previous cyclical program review; or, for the first cyclical review of a new program, the steps taken to address the external reviewers’ recommendations from the new program approval process, opportunities for improvement identified in monitoring reports, and/or items identified for follow-up by the Quality Council (e.g., in the form of a note and/or report for the first Cyclical Program Review in the Quality Council’s approval letter);
• Program-related data and measures of performance, including applicable provincial, national and professional standards (where available), with a notation of all relevant data sources;
• The identification of any unique curriculum or program innovations, experiential learning, creative components, or significant high impact practices;
• An assessment of the adequacy of all relevant academic services that directly contribute to the academic quality of each program under review;
• An analytical and reflective discussion that identifies areas that the program’s faculty, staff and/or students have identified (e.g., through surveys, focus groups or informational interviews) as requiring improvement, or as holding promise for enhancement and/or opportunities for curricular change;
• The demonstration of a sufficient number of qualified core faculty, including the current curriculum vitae for each faculty member contributing to the respective academic programs; and
• The nominations of arm’s length, external reviewers.

Upon completion, the Self-study is approved by the College Dean(s) and submitted to the OQA. The Office consults with the Dean and relevant ADs (Academic or Research and Graduate Studies) of the sponsoring College, as well as the AVPA/AVPGS, the Provost and relevant support units, as appropriate.

If no significant issues of overlap or conflict of interest are identified, the Self-study and supporting documentation are submitted to the external reviewers in preparation for the site visit.

5.2.2 External Evaluation

Alongside the Self-study, the Chair/Director includes the nominations of a minimum of six potential external reviewers with a rationale for their nomination, a brief curriculum vitae, and the identification of any previous affiliations with the University of Guelph. Wherever possible, nominations will ensure diversity in experience and jurisdiction, with meaningful inclusion of equity-deserving groups. The academic unit makes initial contact with proposed reviewers to determine their willingness to serve and their availability to conduct the review.

Reviewers will normally be associate or full professors in the area of the program with a strong record of accomplishment as academic scholars. Ideally, they will have academic administrative experience, experience with curriculum design and learning outcomes development. External reviewers must be at arm’s length from the program under review. Arm’s length status does not require that the reviewer must never have met or heard of a single member of the program, but that the reviewer is free of conflicts of interest (personal or professional) that could impact their ability to perform independent judgement. These conflicts include but are not limited to: a previous member of the program(s) or academic unit(s) under review, including being a visiting professor; received a graduate degree from the program under review; a regular or recent (within 7 years) research collaborator with a member of the program; a close personal (family/friend) relationship with a member of the program; a repeated external examiner of dissertations by doctoral students in the program; a recent doctoral supervisor (past several years) of one or more members of the program; a previous external reviewer for the program(s) or academic unit(s) in question (for additional examples, see: https://oucqa.ca/guide/choosing-arms-length-reviewers-2-2-1-and-5-2-1/). This combination of experience and arm’s length status helps ensure that a reviewer will provide informed and constructive feedback, and will not be “likely, or perceived to be likely, to be predisposed, positively or negatively, about the program(s)” (Guide).
From these nominations, two external reviewers will be invited by the Director, OQA, on behalf of the AVPA (for undergraduate programs) and AVPGS (for graduate programs). External reviewers are invited to review the Self-study and adequacy of the academic unit’s utilization of existing resources (human, physical and financial), through an on-site or virtual site visit, with the invitation letter outlining their role and obligation. An internal facilitator – from outside the discipline – is selected by the OQA to accompany the reviewers for the duration of their visit. Participation as an internal facilitator is a service activity to the institution. Internal facilitators are normally tenure-stream or tenured faculty who are arm’s length from the program under review. They are nominated and selected in partnership with the Office of the Provost and the Colleges. Additional discretionary members may be assigned. Such additional members might be appropriately qualified and experienced individuals selected from industry or the professions, and/or, where consistent with the university’s own policies and practices, student members. Where a review is scheduled alongside an accreditation review, the external reviewers may be chosen from the accreditation review panel.

Upon agreement to participate, the external reviewers and internal facilitator receive the Self-study and relevant supporting documentation, including faculty CVs, the template for the External Reviewers’ Assessment Report for Cyclical Program Reviews as well as links to online materials, including the University’s Strategic Framework, relevant College and Departmental strategic plans, this IQAP, and websites.

The external reviewers will participate in a visit, including meeting with administrators, faculty, staff and students connected to the proposed program. Reviews normally include an on-site visit; however, a virtual site visit may be conducted if the AVPA or AVPGS, on behalf of the Provost, and external reviewers are satisfied that the off-site option is acceptable.

Conduct of the external review via desk audit or equivalent method will only occur under exceptional circumstances, and the Provost will provide clear justification to the Quality Council for the decision to use these alternatives in such cases.

During initial contact and introductory meetings, the AVPs and the Director, Office of Quality Assurance, meet with the reviewers to discuss the conduct of the review, including recognition of the university’s autonomy to determine priorities for funding, space, and faculty allocation and the confidentiality required for all aspects of the review process.

In the case of professional programs, the views of employers and professional associations will be solicited and made available to the external reviewers through either existing accreditation reports, or additional materials to supplement the self-study.

The external reviewers will normally provide a single joint report which follows the provided template for Assessment Reports for Cyclical Program Reviews. The report will:

1. Address the substance of the self-study, with particular focus on responding to the evaluation criteria detailed therein;
2. Identify and commend the program’s notably strong and creative attributes;
3. Describe the program’s respective strengths, areas for improvement, and opportunities for enhancement;
4. Provide evidence of any significant innovation or creativity in the content and/or delivery of the program relative to other such programs;
5. 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
6. Identify the distinctive attributes of each discrete program documented in the self-study.

It is important to note that, while the Assessment Report may include commentary on issues such as faculty complement and/or space requirements when related to the quality of the program under review, recommendations on these or any other elements that are within the purview of the university’s internal budgetary decision-making processes should be tied directly to issues of program quality or sustainability and may be referred to decanal and other senior leadership.

The external reviewers will submit their report to the Office of Quality Assurance within 14 days of the end of the site visit. Once the External Reviewers’ Assessment Report is submitted, the AVPA, AVPGS and Director conduct an initial review of the report, including fact-checking for material errors and confidential information. In the rare case that the report does not meet the requirements of the IQAP, the Director will initiate discussion with the external reviewers on behalf of the AVPA and AVPGS, seeking to get a timely resolution.

5.2.3 Internal Response

Upon completion of the External Reviewers’ Assessment Report, it is disseminated to the academic unit(s), as well as the Dean and relevant ADs (Academic or Research and Graduate Studies) and includes a request for the Program Response and Dean’s Response. The academic unit is also given the opportunity to identify any material errors of fact that would require revision to the report. Should any material errors be identified, the external reviewers are asked to revise the Assessment Report. A record of all versions of the report, as well as any identified errors, are kept on file.

The academic unit(s) offering the program(s) under review and relevant Dean draft separate responses (Program Response and Dean’s Response, respectively). These respond directly to each of the recommendations outlined in the External Reviewers’ Assessment Report, and outline plans for implementing the recommendations.

The internal responses are reviewed by OQA in consultation with the AVPA and AVPGS. If deemed acceptable, they are incorporated into the Final Assessment Report.

5.2.4 Final Assessment Report and Implementation Plan

The Final Assessment Report, drafted by the OQA, provides the institutional synthesis of the external evaluation of the program and strategies for continuous improvement, and:

1. Identifies significant strengths of the program;
2. Identifies opportunities for further program improvement and enhancement with a view towards continuous improvement;
3. Lists all recommendations of the external reviewers and the associated separate internal responses and assessments from the academic unit(s) and from the Dean(s);
4. Explains why any external reviewers’ recommendations not selected for further action in the Implementation Plan have been rejected;
5. Includes any additional recommendations that the unit(s), the Dean(s) and/or the university may have identified as requiring action as a result of the program’s review;
6. May include a confidential section (for example, where personnel issues need to be addressed) ; and
7. Identifies who will be responsible for approving the recommendations set out in the Final Assessment Report.
   

The Final Assessment Report also includes an Implementation Plan that sets out and prioritizes those recommendations that are selected for implementation, identifies the group or individual responsible for providing resources needed to address recommendations from the external reviewers or action items identified by the university, identifies who will be responsible for acting on those recommendations and provides specific timelines for acting on and monitoring the implementation of those recommendations.

5.2.5 Approvals and Reporting

The Final Assessment Report and Implementation Plan will be presented to the AVPA/AVPGS, together with the response of the program and Dean, for review and comment before being forwarded to Senate Committee on Quality Assurance (SCQA) for approval and through report, to Senate.

The Final Assessment Report also includes an Executive Summary which is published on the University of Guelph’s website alongside the associated Implementation Plan.

The approved Executive Summary, Final Assessment Report and Implementation Plan will be provided to the academic unit(s) who bear primary responsibility for the execution of the plans. It is strongly recommended that the academic unit(s) post the Executive Summary, excluding confidential information, on its own website to maintain transparency.

5.2.6 Implementation and Monitoring

The Chair/Director and Dean will be responsible for timely implementation and monitoring, in alignment with the plans outlined in the Final Assessment Report and Implementation Plan.

Two years after SCQA approval of the Final Assessment Report and Implementation Plan, the academic unit(s) will complete a Follow-up Report outlining:

1. Status of implementation of each recommendation (completed, in progress, incomplete);
2. Circumstances that have affected the original implementation plan, including a rationale for any alternations; and
3. Significant developments or initiatives that have arisen since the cyclical review.

Upon completion, the Two-Year Follow-up Report is reviewed and approved by the Dean and relevant AD (Academic or Research and Graduate Studies) and submitted to the OQA.

The Follow-up Report will be presented to the AVPA/AVPGS for review and comment before being forwarded to Senate Committee on Quality Assurance (SCQA) for approval and through report, to Senate. Should the follow-up report prove unsatisfactory (e.g., a significant number of recommendations are not completed), an additional report may be requested by SCQA with a specified timeline.

Approved Follow-up Reports are published on the University of Guelph’s website.

5.3 Reporting Requirements

In keeping with adjusted oversight, the University of Guelph will submit an annual report to the Quality Council, which lists the past year’s completed Final Assessment Reports, Implementation Plans and monitoring reports and links to web postings of such reports. The annual report will provide an attestation by the Provost (or delegate) that all IQAP-required Cyclical Program Review processes have been followed.

Per the QAF, the annual report and related documentation will be subjected to a spot check by the Quality Council. Only when members find an issue or potential area of concern will the report be discussed by the Quality Council. Should the Council then determine that a substantive issue(s) appears to exist, it may decide to initiate a Focused Audit (see 6.4 Focused Audit).

5.3.1 Public Access

The following documents associated with each cyclical program review will be available to members of the Senate Committee on Quality Assurance and members of Senate through a password-protected portal:

1. Information made available for the Self-study (e.g., institutional data, CVs, etc.);
2. Self-study report;
3. Report of the external reviewers; and
4. Specified responses to the External Reviewers’ Assessment Report.

The information made available for the Self-study, the Self-study and the Internal Responses will not generally be publicly available, but can be disseminated to internal members with permission from the Chair/Director. It is expected that the full report from the external reviewers will be afforded an appropriate level of confidentiality.

5.4 Programs Joint with Other Institutions

For programs that are offered in full, in part, conjointly, and in partnership with other institutions – conjoint degree programs, cotutelles, dual credential programs and joint degree programs – the Provosts, or delegates, of the institutions involved in the joint program will establish the schedule for the review, on an eight-year cycle.

The cyclical program review of joint programs is led by one institution and governed by their IQAP (typically the institution with responsibility for administration of the program at the time of the review), with consultation and participation from all institutions involved in the joint program (see Guidance provided by the Quality Council).

5.5 Accredited Programs

For programs that are accredited by a professional body, an accreditation review can usefully replace some of the requirements outlined above but will not wholly replace a cyclical program review. The substitution or addition of documentation to the procedures outlined in Section 5.2 will be allowed only when these elements are fully consistent with the requirements established in the QAF and if the accreditation has or will take place within the same eight-year cycle.

Substitutions will be made on a case-by-case basis at the discretion of the Director, Academic Programs and Policy, in consultation with the Dean and AVPA or AVPGS. In determining whether components of an accreditation review may substitute for components of the cyclical program review, the Office of Quality Assurance will utilize the accreditation templates, processes and procedures of the professional accreditation and the reporting required by the accrediting body to determine whether or not there is sufficient alignment with the QAF and the University’s IQAP. Should the professional accreditation requirements be sufficient for substitution for elements of the cyclical program review, a record of substitution or addition, and the grounds on which they were made, will be produced and kept on file in the Office of Quality Assurance. If it is determined that a joint external evaluation is appropriate, the Office of Quality Assurance will vet external reviewer nominations.

If there are components of the cyclical program review that are missing and the accreditation insufficient in aligning with the IQAP and QAF, the program will be required to complete the procedures as outlined in Section 5.2. Regardless of any other stages of the review process that may be substituted by an accreditation review, a Final Assessment Report, Executive Summary, Implementation Plan and subsequent monitoring reports, as detailed in Section 5.2.4 - 5.2.6 must be produced and approved for all programs.

In its dedication to continuous improvement, transparency and public accountability, the University of Guelph is committed to continuously evaluate the operation and impact of its quality assurance activities. To maintain accountability to post-secondary education’s principal partners, including students, the University participates in an audit of its quality assurance activities on an 8-year cycle, under the terms outlined in the QAF. The University also agrees to participate in a Focused Audit, as requested by the Quality Council.

The institutional audit will evaluate the University’s overall approach to continuous improvement, as well as its current and past practices and their alignment to the QAF. Importantly, the audit is an opportunity to identify best practices and areas for improvement.
Approximately one year in advance of the next institutional audit, the University will participate in a half-day briefing meeting with the Quality Council Secretariat and a member of the assigned Audit Team.

6.1 Institutional Self-Study

In preparation for the audit, the University will complete a self-study, in consultation with campus partners, that evaluates its quality assurance processes and forms the foundation for the audit. The self-study will reflect on the strengths, challenges, weaknesses, and opportunities for improvement in its quality assurance activities. It will pay particular attention to responding to the recommendations and suggestions from the previous audit.

Responsibility for completion and submission of the self-study rests with the AVPA and AVPGS, in consultation with the Provost.

6.2 External Evaluation

The Quality Council will select three auditors from the Audit Committee to conduct the external evaluation (via desk audit and site visit). A desk audit will be conducted to evaluate the alignment of the processes with the institution’s IQAP, for the following quality assurance activities:

• All new undergraduate and/or graduate programs that have been approved since the previous audit are eligible for selection in the University’s next audit. An audit cannot reverse the approval of a program to commence.
• Programs created or modified through the Protocol for Expedited Approvals are not normally eligible for selection in the University’s audit.
• Major modifications are not normally eligible for selection in the University’s audit.
• All cyclical program reviews that have been undertaken since the previous audit are eligible for selection in the University’s next audit
  • A record of substitution for accredited programs that have undergone cyclical program review is eligible for audit.

Following the desk audit, the auditors will conduct a site visit, where they will meet with senior academic leadership, representatives from programs selected for audit, students, and representatives from units that support quality assurance activities. The site visit may also include meetings with representatives from units in the process of proposing new programs or completing cyclical program reviews to gain a better understanding of current practices at the institution.

Following the completion of the desk audit and site visit, the auditors prepare an audit report which provides an overall assessment of the performance of the University in relation to its quality assurance activities, and identifies best practices, makes forward-looking suggestions, makes recommendations to align the institution’s practices with the QAF, and identifies any causes for concern.
Upon approval by the Quality Council, the Audit Report, absent any confidential information, is published on the University of Guelph and the Quality Council websites.

6.3 Audit Follow-up

When requested, a Follow-up Report is completed, which outlines the steps taken to address any recommendations and/or causes for concern. Upon approval by the Audit Team and Quality Council, the Follow-up Report is published on the University of Guelph and the Quality Council websites.

6.4 Focused Audit

A Focused Audit may be requested at the discretion of the Quality Council at any time if the Quality Council has concerns about the quality assurance processes at the institution, for example if there is a cause for concern found as a result of the audit. A Focused Audit may take the form of a desk audit and/or additional site visit.

As with Institutional Audits, reports from Focused Audits will be published on both the University of Guelph and Quality Council websites.

Appendix A – Quality Assurance Principles for Ontario Universities and the Quality Council

https://oucqa.ca/framework/part-one-quality-assurance-principles-for-ontario-universities-and-the-quality-council/

As part of their ongoing commitment to a robust system of quality assurance that reflects international standards, Ontario’s publicly assisted universities (institutions) renew their commitment to quality assurance with the Quality Assurance Framework. In particular, all Ontario universities and the Quality Council commit to the principles articulated below.

Experience of the Student

Principle 1: The best interest of students is at the core of quality assurance activities. Quality assurance is ultimately about the centrality of the student experience in Ontario. It is about student achievement in programs that lead to a degree or diploma; about ensuring the value of the university degree in Ontario, and of ensuring that our highly qualified graduates continue to be strong and innovative contributors to the well-being of Ontario’s economy and society.
Oversight by an Independent Body

Principle 2: While primary responsibility for quality assurance in all undergraduate and graduate programs offered by Ontario Universities rests with the institutions themselves, the universities have vested in the Quality Council final authority for decisions concerning all aspects of quality assurance.

Principle 3: The Quality Council operates at arm’s length from both the institutions and the government to ensure its independence of action and decision.

Principle 4: With this responsibility to grant and withhold approval comes the Quality Council’s recourse to substantial sanctions and remediation for use when necessary and as a last resort.

Principle 5: The Quality Council will have due and iterative processes in consultations with institutions, and have robust appeal processes.

Principle 6: The Quality Council itself will undergo a regular periodic quality assessment review by a review committee that includes, equally, reviewers who are external to the system and to the province, and reviewers who are internal to the system and to the province. This review will take place at least every eight years.

Autonomy of Universities

Principle 7: The Quality Council acknowledges and respects the autonomy of the institutions and the role of senates and other internal bodies in ensuring the quality of academic programs as well as determining priorities for funding, space, and faculty allocation.

Principle 8: The institutions have vested in the Quality Council the final authority for decisions concerning ratification of Institutional Quality Assurance Processes (IQAP), approval of new programs and compliance with the Audit Protocols. As the primary agents for quality assurance, all institutions have designed and implemented their own IQAP that is consistent not just with their own mission statements and their university Degree Level Expectations, but also demonstrably embodies the principles and procedures articulated in this Quality Assurance Framework.

Transparency

Principle 9: The Quality Council operates in accordance with publicly communicated principles, policies and procedures. Both the Quality Council’s assessment process and the internal quality assurance process of individual institutions are open, transparent, and accountable, except as limited by constraints of laws and regulations for the protection of individuals.

Increased Responsibility for Quality Assurance

Principle 10: The Quality Council facilitates efficient institutional procedures, appreciating that processes for ensuring quality will be different from one institution to another, but requiring that all must comply with the broad processes identified in the Quality Assurance Framework.

Principle 11: The over-riding approach of the Quality Council is education, guidance, persuasion and negotiation. In this regard, the Council recognizes that institutional capacity for quality assurance differs between institutions and so resources of the system will be directed to those institutions that continue to face challenges.

Principle 12: The Quality Council recognizes past performance of institutions and adjusts oversight accordingly.

Continuous Monitoring and Quality Improvement

Principle 13: Quality is not static, and continuous program improvement should be a driver of quality assurance and be measurable. An important goal for quality assurance is to reach beyond merely demonstrating quality at a moment in time and to demonstrate ongoing and continuous quality improvement. The Quality Council is committed to sharing effective best practices in quality assurance to assist institutions in their quality improvement work.

Expert Independent Peer Review

Principle 14: Whether for new programs or cyclical review of existing programs, expert independent peer review is foundational to quality assurance.

Appropriate Standards

Principle 15: The Quality Council’s standards are appropriate to the nature and level of degree programs, are flexible and respectful of institutions and international standards, and encourage innovation and creativity in degree programming. In applying these standards, documentation should be significantly relevant to decision-making, and not be burdensome.

Appendix B – QAF New Program Evaluation Criteria

https://oucqa.ca/framework/2-1initial-institutional-process/

As per QAF 2.1.2, New Program Proposals will be required to address the following criteria in their proposal.

2.1.2.1 Program objectives

1. Clarity of the program’s objectives;
2. Appropriateness of degree nomenclature given the program’s objectives;
3. Consistency of the program’s objectives with the institution’s mission and academic plans.

2.1.2.2 Program requirements

1. Appropriateness of the program's structure and the requirements to meet its objectives and program-level learning outcomes;
2. Appropriateness of the program’s structure, requirements and program-level learning outcomes in meeting the institution’s undergraduate or graduate Degree Level Expectations;
3. Appropriateness of the proposed mode(s) of delivery (see Definitions) to facilitate students’ successful completion of the program-level learning outcomes;
4. Ways in which the curriculum addresses the current state of the discipline or area of study.

2.1.2.3 Program requirements for graduate programs only

1. Clear rationale for program length that ensures that students can complete the program-level learning outcomes and requirements within the proposed time;
2. 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; and
3. For research-focused graduate programs, clear indication of the nature and suitability of the major research requirements for degree completion.

2.1.2.4 Assessment of teaching and learning (see Guidance)

1. Appropriateness of the methods for assessing student achievement of the program-level learning outcomes and degree level expectations; and
2. Appropriateness of the plans to monitor and assess:
   1. The overall quality of the program;
   2. Whether the program is achieving in practice its proposed objectives;
   3. Whether its students are achieving the program-level learning outcomes; and
   4. How the resulting information will be documented and subsequently used to inform continuous program improvement.

2.1.2.5 Admission requirements

1. Appropriateness of the program’s admission requirements given the program’s objectives and program-level learning outcomes; and
2. Sufficient explanation of alternative requirements, if applicable, for admission into a graduate, second-entry or undergraduate program, e.g., minimum grade point average, additional languages or portfolios, and how the program recognizes prior work or learning experience.

2.1.2.6 Resources

Given the program’s planned/anticipated class sizes and cohorts as well as its program-level learning outcomes:

1. Participation of a sufficient number and quality of core faculty who are competent to teach and/or supervise in and achieve the goals of the program and foster the appropriate academic environment;
2. If applicable, discussion/explanation 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;
3. If required, provision of supervision of experiential learning opportunities;
4. Adequacy of the administrative unit’s planned utilization of existing human, physical and financial resources, including implications for the impact on other existing programs at the university;
5. Evidence that there are adequate resources to sustain the quality of scholarship and research activities produced by students, including library support, information technology support, and laboratory access; and
6. If necessary, additional institutional resource commitments to support the program in step with its ongoing implementation.

2.1.2.7 Resources for graduate programs only

Given the program’s planned/anticipated class sizes and cohorts as well as its program-level learning outcomes:

1. Evidence that faculty have the recent research or professional/clinical expertise needed to sustain the program, promote innovation, and foster an appropriate intellectual climate;
2. Where appropriate to the program, evidence that financial assistance for students will be sufficient to ensure adequate quality and numbers of students; and
3. Evidence of how supervisory loads will be distributed, in light of qualifications and appointment status of the faculty.

2.1.2.8 Quality and other indicators

1. Evidence of the quality of the faculty (e.g., qualifications, funding, honours, awards, research, innovation and scholarly record; appropriateness of collective faculty expertise to contribute substantively to the program and commitment to student mentoring); and
2. Any other evidence that the program and faculty will ensure the intellectual quality of the student experience

Appendix C - QAF Cyclical Program Review Evaluation

https://oucqa.ca/framework/5-1-3-1-evaluation-criteria/

As per QAF 5.1.3.1, Cyclical Program Reviews will be required to address the following criteria in both the Self-Study and External Reviewers’ Assessment Report.

5.1.3.1.1 Program objectives

1. Consistency of the program’s objectives with the institution’s mission and academic plans.

5.1.3.1.2 Program requirements

1. Appropriateness of the program’s structure and the requirements to meet its objectives and the program-level learning outcomes;

2. Appropriateness of the program’s structure, requirements and program-level learning outcomes in meeting the institution’s own undergraduate or graduate Degree Level Expectations;

3. Appropriateness and effectiveness of the mode(s) of delivery (see Definitions) to facilitate students’ successful completion of the program-level learning outcomes; and

4. Ways in which the curriculum addresses the current state of the discipline or area of study

5.1.3.1.3 Program requirements for graduate programs only

1. Clear rationale for program length that ensures that students can complete the program level learning outcomes and requirements within the time required;

2. 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; and

3. For research-focused graduate programs, clear indication of the nature and suitability of the major research requirements for degree completion.

5.1.3.1.4 Assessment of teaching and learning (see Guidance)

1. Appropriateness and effectiveness of the methods for assessing student achievement of the program-level learning outcomes and degree level expectations; and

2. Appropriateness and effectiveness of the plans to monitor and assess:

   1. The overall quality of the program;

   2. Whether the program continues to achieve in practice its objectives;

   3. Whether its students are achieving the program-level learning outcomes; and

   4. How the resulting information will be documented and subsequently used to inform continuous program improvement.

5.1.3.1.5 Admission requirements

1. Appropriateness of the program’s admission requirements given the program’s objectives and program-level learning outcomes; and

2. Sufficient explanation of alternative requirements, if applicable, for admission into a graduate, second-entry or undergraduate program, e.g., minimum grade point average, additional languages or portfolios, and how the program recognizes prior work or learning experience.

5.1.3.1.6 Resources

Given the program’s class sizes and cohorts as well as its program-level learning outcomes:

1. Participation of a sufficient number of qualified core faculty who are competent to teach and/or supervise in and achieve the goals of the program and foster the appropriate academic environment;

2. If applicable, discussion/explanation 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 (see Guidance);

3. If required, provision of supervision of experiential learning opportunities;

4. Adequacy of the administrative unit’s utilization of existing human, physical and financial resources; and

5. Evidence that there are adequate resources to sustain the quality of scholarship and research activities produced by students, including library support, information technology support, and laboratory access.

5.1.3.1.7 Resources for graduate programs only

Given the program’s class sizes and cohorts, as well as its program-level learning outcomes:

1. Evidence that faculty have the recent research or professional/clinical expertise needed to foster an appropriate intellectual climate, sustain the program, and promote innovation;

2. Where appropriate to the program, evidence that financial assistance for students is sufficient to ensure adequate quality and numbers of students; and

3. Evidence of how supervisory loads are distributed, in light of qualifications and appointment status of the faculty.

5.1.3.1.8 Quality and other indicators

1. Evidence of the quality of the faculty (e.g., qualifications, funding, honours, awards, research, innovation and scholarly record; appropriateness of collective faculty expertise to contribute substantively to the program and commitment to student mentoring);

2. Any other evidence that the program and faculty ensure the intellectual quality of the student experience; and

3. For students: grade-level for admission, scholarly output, success rates in provincial and national scholarships, competitions, awards and commitment to professional and transferable skills, and times-to-completion and retention rates.

Appendix D – Explanatory Chart of Procedures for New Program Proposals

Appendix E – Templates

The following websites will contain, at minimum, the templates referenced in this IQAP.

Office of Quality Assurance

link to be provided when website revision complete

New Undergraduate Programs:

• External Reviewers’ Assessment Report for New Undergraduate Programs
• Follow-Up Report

Cyclical Program Reviews:

• Self-Study
• External Reviewers’ Assessment Report for Cyclical Program Reviews
• Follow-Up Report

Office of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies

link to be provided when website revision complete

New Graduate Programs:

• External Reviewers’ Assessment Report for New Graduate Programs
• Follow-Up Report

Curriculum Inventory Management System

https://next-calendar.uoguelph.ca/programadmin

New Programs:

• Notice of Intent
• New Program Proposal

Major Modifications:

• Edit Program Form