APPENDIX ONE:
Questions for Council discussion about
the Future of a University-Wide Review Process
The SPR Self-Study, the Report of the SPR Review Team and the Response of
the SPR executive were distributed to Council in the Planning Committee’s report for the
March, 2005 meeting. At this meeting, the Planning Committee would like to hold a
Council discussion about SPR.
Please refer to the Planning Report for the March, 2005 meeting (agenda item 9)
for the documents to be discussed at this meeting. They are also available online by
joining the new Systematic Program Review Group at PAWS. Text or email copies are
available by contacting Cathie Fornssler or Alex Hockley at the Office of the University
Secretary.
Background
In A Framework for Planning at the University of Saskatchewan, which was
formulated by the Planning Committee and adopted by University Council in 1998, one
of the fundamental principles underlying the planning process which was envisioned was
that it should be “driven by considerations of quality.” The document further identified
one of the four goals of the planning process as being to “improve the quality of
instructional programs.”
An additional principle stated in the Framework for Planning was that of
accountability. This principle would be supported by transparency and broad consultation
both within and outside the University.
The Framework for Planning also emphasized the need to identify academic
priorities to guide future investments of University resources and to encourage the
development of areas of pre-eminence for the institution.
In light of these stated premises, the Planning Committee in collaboration with the
Office of the Vice-President Academic and Provost designed a system for the regular and
systematic review of instructional programs, which would help to identify programs
which meet criteria of excellence at the national and international level, programs which
need modification in order to meet these standards, and, in extreme cases, programs
whose continuation can no longer be seen as consistent with University priorities. The
program focus, which is a distinctive feature of SPR, was selected as a way of
concentrating attention on the student experience.
The completion of the first cycle of program review and of the review of the
process itself provide an opportunity to consider what the key design features of a future
assessment process should be. Over the next several months, the Planning Committee
will work with the SPR office, the Integrated Planning Office, the Provost, the Dean of
Graduate Studies and Research and, most importantly, the University community to
prepare a proposal for a systematic review process. This process will be an important
cornerstone in the University’s overall approach to assessment as described in the
Integrated Plan. We expect to present our recommendations to the university community
for discussion in the fall of 2005, and to University Council for approval in early 2006.
As a first step, we are requesting input from council committees, deans, department
heads, faculty and other interested members of the University community about the main
features of a future review process, based on the options, recommendations, and
responses identified in the review of SPR.
Questions
The SPR Self-Study records feedback and practical suggestions from many
members of the campus community based on their experience with SPR. Though the
observations and criticisms contained in the self-study provide useful background for a
consideration of how a future review process should be designed, we are urging you, in
answering the questions below to focus on key design features for the future, rather than
on the details of the process as it has operated to this point.
1. What should be the focus of a second round of reviews?
The review consultants observe that program review may not be the most
effective basis for assessment, and recommend that this University, like others, should
conduct reviews of academic units. Their conclusion is based in part on the fact that
external reviewers found it difficult to divorce a discussion of academic programs from
the qualities and resources of the sponsoring unit(s). The Planning Committee would
appreciate your thoughts about whether a distinctive program focus of the SPR process
should be retained.
Possible options would include:
• to continue the present focus on individual instructional academic program
reviews with emphasis on the student experience.
• to identify units as the review focus. These might be departments or colleges, a
disciplinary grouping such as Natural Sciences, interdisciplinary program
groupings, administrative and research units. If this is to be the model, how would
we retain the input of the student experience in academic programs?
• to institute a hybrid model which would include academic unit review as well
as review of graduate programs.
2. Can the process be streamlined in the next round of reviews? What should be
the scope?
If programs are retained as the focus of the review process, there are a number of
possible options, which would include:
• reviewing all graduate and undergraduate programs in one cycle
• establishing a rotating cycle so that graduate and undergraduate programs would
only be reviewed in every second cycle, or even less often
• reviewing selected programs only in the next cycle, based on the outcomes of
the first round of SPR
• reviewing only graduate programs in the next cycle
There may be other possibilities.
3. How should a review process be linked to Integrated Planning?
In the report of the external reviewers and the response of the SPR Executive,
attention is devoted to the question of how a review process and Integrated Planning
should be intertwined. Since SPR was put in place prior to the introduction of integrated
planning, it was impossible during this first cycle to dovetail the two processes.
The Planning Committee is interested in your feedback on how the two processes
could be linked in terms of such issues as
• Timing: Should program review be conducted consecutively or simultaneously
with unit planning as an interlinked process? Should there be an expedited
intensive review as a discrete step prior to unit planning?
• Data management and collection: Should Institutional Analysis be responsible
for co-ordinating all information for both review and integrated planning
processes, or should academic units be responsible for data collection and
communication of the data?
• Oversight: What would constitute an effective and useful reporting structure?
What Council committees – Planning, Academic Programs, Research or others –
should be involved in the oversight aspect of the process?
4. Should the purpose of a revised review process be primarily formative,
summative, or a combination of the two?
The Planning Committee hoped that the results of SPR would provide units
sponsoring the programs being reviewed with constructive guidance in strengthening
their programs, but it was also intended that SPR would provide a basis for operational
decisions at the University level, through the attachment of a grade from A to D. It is
clear from the commentary in the self-study and in the reviewers’ report that the issue of
whether the purpose of the review should be formative or summative – or both –
continues to be a subject of debate.
Do you think summative reviews carry more weight in an Integrated Planning
process? How would purely formative reviews be taken into account at higher levels?
5. What is the best way to dovetail accreditation processes with the University’s
review process?
Feedback about the SPR process indicates that there are ways to make the review
and accreditation processes more mutually supportive and less redundant. Issues surface
about the purpose and focus of the two processes, including differential data
requirements, as well as the cycle of the two sets of reviews.
6. Do you have any other comments or suggestions about a future review process?
APPENDIX TWO:
Systematic Program Review
Assessment Categories (June 2002)
Assessment
Categories
Category A
Description
[revised SPR Policy and Procedures, Section XIII]
The program is supported by evidence of academic vitality in teaching and
scholarly/artistic work and extension/public service sustained over a significant period of
time. It has achieved at least a national reputation, and might be expected to develop as a
centre of excellence. Few, if any, changes are required.
Such programs are typically characterized by most of the following:
• distinguished faculty with a national/international reputation for scholarly work;
• an up-to-date curriculum;
• sound teaching practices;
• strong student demand;
• evidence of high student satisfaction with their educational experience;
• routine use of evaluation procedures for all aspects of the program’s objectives;
and,
• justifiable program costs.
Category B
The program is supported by evidence of academic vitality in teaching and
scholarly/artistic work and extension/public service sustained over a period of time
but has some weaknesses. Some changes should be made. Modifications may
include program changes (e.g. curriculum revisions), internal redirection of faculty
resources, additional resource allocations, (both faculty and non-faculty), and,
measures to improve student satisfaction/quality of experience in the program.
Such programs are typically characterized by most of the following:
• many faculty actively engaged in scholarly work;
• a generally up-to-date curriculum;
• generally sound teaching practices;
• high to moderate student demand;
• evidence that students are generally satisfied with the program and the quality
of their experience in it;
• evaluation procedures which may not be as effective as they could be; and,
• high to moderate program quality to cost ratio.
Category C
The program is supported by some evidence of academic vitality in teaching and
scholarly/artistic work and extension/public service but has identifiable deficiencies
which should be rectified in a given timeframe. It is characterized by sufficient
demand, and/or may be essential to the service requirements of other units. Several
fundamental changes must be made to achieve adequacy and provide a credible
program. Deficiencies may be identified as program (e.g., curricular), faculty/scholarly
activity (e.g. quality and quantity of scholarship or breadth of expertise of faculty), and
non-faculty resources.
Such programs are typically characterized by most of the following:
• some distinguished faculty, but more who are not actively engaged in scholarly
work;
• a curriculum in need of revision;
• a need for attention to be directed to some aspects of the teaching enterprise;
• moderate student demand;
• some dissatisfaction of students with their educational experience;
• lack, or minimal use, of evaluation procedures; and,
• moderate to low program quality to cost ratio.
Category D
The program, over a period of years, has shown little evidence of academic vitality in
teaching or scholarly/artistic work or extension/public service. Such a program may
suffer from additional liabilities including low quality to cost ratio, low student demand,
and lack of provision of an important service component to other programs. The
academic quality of the program area is unlikely to improve without significant
additional resources. Many fundamental changes are required.
Such programs are typically characterized by most of the following:
• few faculty who are actively engaged in scholarly work;
• several significant weaknesses in the curriculum;
• uneven and often poor teaching practices and results;
• low student demand;
• significant dissatisfaction expressed by students with their educational
experience; and,
• lack of or ineffective evaluation procedures.
APPENDIX THREE:
VIABLE ENROLMENTS SUBCOMMITTEE
As established by the Planning Committee April 4, 2005
Composition: Chair: Lou Qualtiere
Planning: John Rigby, Commerce
Research: Rob Hudson, Philosophy
APC: Jim Merriam, Geological Sciences
IDCC: Linda Ferguson
Budget: Bernard Laarveld, Animal and Poultry Science
Student member: Evan Cole, USSU VP Academic-elect
Support: Rob Schultz; Pauline Melis; Cathie Fornssler
Mandate: To survey data on course enrollments and program/specialization graduation;
to study and analyze courses and programs/specializations that appear to have relatively
low enrollments; to identify from this analysis instances that may be of concern from a
university-wide planning perspective; to solicit input from responsible units where
necessary; and to make recommendations to Planning Committee concerning actions to
be taken.
In its study of selected courses or programs, the committee will consider such
factors as need and demand, resources, planning priorities, academic quality, significance
and impact, curriculum integrity, and interrelationships with other programs.
Process and timelines: The committee is charged with delivering a report to Planning
Committee within 6 months, and will expire when its final report is delivered. In this
first cycle of review, the committee will take an initial cut through the available data to
look at courses and programs that appear to have low enrollments or graduation rates
relative to others offered (example: review the smallest 10 percent, or some similar kind
of cutoff). Based on its experience, the committee may propose: a definition of what
constitutes a low-enrollment program or course; measures or data to be used in
identifying them; processes for reviewing them; and/or amended terms of reference for a
renewed or future committee review process.
Background Information
Excerpt from Integrated Plan: Addressing Low Enrolments
The University of Saskatchewan has not completed a substantial review of its program and
course structure for many years. We continue to offer a broad array of courses and programs, a
small number of which attract very few students. It is imperative that the University be more
intentional about the use of its limited resources and hold colleges and departments
responsible for enrolment patterns that cannot be sustained. While implementation details
have yet to be finalized, programs which graduate a small number of majors each year – even if
they were rated highly under SPR – will be examined by the Provost’s Office and Council
committees with a view to closing and/or amalgamating many of them in the coming three
years. All students in these programs will be assured of the courses they require to graduate.
While all of the criteria have not been fully established, one important component of this
examination will be the ‘service’ teaching provided by these units. In the same vein, low
enrolment courses will also be the subject of review with colleges required to establish a
minimum base of student numbers for the offering of any specific course.
APPENDIX FOUR:
Aboriginal Education Research Centre proposal documents
APPENDIX FIVE:
LIST OF CENTRES, UNITS, DIVISIONS, INSTITUTES, AND FACILITIES OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN
January, 2005
UNIVERSITY:
Animal Resources Centre
Director- Olfert, E. D., Veterinary Pathology, Western College of Veterinary Medicine
Canadian Agricultural Energy End-Use Data & Analysis centre (CAEEDAC)
Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture
Canadian Centre for Analysis of Regionalization and Health Care (CCAHR/CCARS)
Executive Director – Kouri, D.
Diefenbaker Canada Centre
Acting Director – Carlson, T.
Indigenous Peoples’ Health Research Unit
Director - Nilson, R., B.A.(Simon Fraser), M.Sc.(S. Connecticut), Ph.D.(Oregon)
Institute for Health and Outcomes Research
Hader, W., M.D., FRCPC, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, College of
Medicine
Institute of Agricultural, Rural and Environmental Health (I.ARE.H.) (formerly Centre for
Agricultural Medicine)
Director - Dosman, J. A., Department of Medicine, College of Medicine
International Centre for Governance and Development
Director - Sarkar, A. K., Department of Management & Marketing, College of Commerce
Saskatchewan Drug Research Institute
Acting Director – Anderson, S.
Saskatchewan Population Health and Evaluation Research Unit, Inc. (SPHERU)
Director - Labonte, R., Department of Community Health & Epidemiology, College of Medicine
Saskatchewan Process Philosophy Research Unit
Co-Director - Flynn, M., Department of Educational Psychology & Special Education, College of
Education
Co-Director - Regnier, R. H., Department of Educational Foundations, College of Education
Co-Director - Woodhouse, H., Department of Educational Foundations, College of Education
Saskatchewan Structural Sciences Centre
Director - Majewski, M., Department of Chemistry, College of Arts and Science
Toxicology Centre
Director - Liber, K., Department of Veterinary Biomedical Sciences, Western College of
Veterinary Medicine
Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization (VIDO)
Director - Babiuk, L. A., Department of Veterinary Microbiology, Western College of Veterinary
Medicine.
Women's Studies Research Unit
Executive Director - Green, M., B.A.(Sask.)
Co-Chair - Wason-Ellam, L. A., Department of Curriculum Studies, College of Education
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE:
Canadian Prairie Feed Resource Centre
Director - Racz, V. J., B.S.A., M.Sc.(Sask.)
Centre for Studies in Agriculture, Law and the Environment (CSALE)
Director - Fulton, M. E., Department of Agricultural Economics
CIBC Centre for Agricultural Entrepreneurship
Director - TBA
Crop Development Centre
Director - Holm, F. A., Department of Plant Sciences
Saskatchewan Centre for Soil Research (SCSR)
Director - Department of Soil Science
College of Agriculture Facilities:
Research Stations (Matador, Patterson Gardens, Potato Lake, Biddulp, Crop Science
Greenhouses) – Hughes, G.R., Department of Plant Science
Kernan Crop Research Farm – Field Operations Superintendent K. Blomquist
University Farm - Laarveld, B., Department of Animal & Poultry Science
COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCE:
Centre for the Study of Co-operatives
Acting Director – Hammond Ketilson, L, Department of Management & Marketing, College of
Commerce
Community-University Institute for Social Research
Co-Director - Muhajarine, N., Department of Community Health & Epidemiology, College of
Medicine
Community Co-Director - Waygood, K., B.A.(Tor.)
Eighteenth Century Studies
Acting Director - Stephanson, R. A., Department of English
Humanities Research Unit
Director - Findlay, L. M., Department of English
Co-Director - Battiste, M., Department of Educational Foundations, College of Education
Institute for Computer and Information Technology
Head - Greer, J. E., Department of Computer Science
Institute for Society & Humanity
Director – Porter, Jene, Professor Emeritus, Department of Political Studies
Institute of Space and Atmospheric Studies
Chair - Manson, A. H., Department of Physics & Engineering Physics
Research Unit in Algebra and Logic
Director – Marshall, M., Department of Mathematics and Statistics
Social Research Unit
Director - Mehta, M., Department of Sociology
Subatomic Physics Institute (SPIN)
Spokesperson - Steele, T. G., Department of Physics & Engineering Physics
College of Arts & Science Facilities:
Greystone Theatre – Department of Drama
Kenderdine Gallery/University Art Collection – Director/Curator K. Archer
Museum of Antiquities – Director C. Gunderson
Museum of Natural Sciences – S. Johnson
Snelgrove Gallery – Department of Art & Art History
W.P. Fraser Herbarium - Cota-Sanchez, H., Department of Biology
COLLEGE OF COMMERCE:
Centre for International Business Studies
Director - Buhr, N., Department of Accounting
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION:
Centre for School-Based Experiences
Administrative Coordinator L. Bayne
Child and Youth Development Institute
Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education
Saskatchewan Educational Leadership Unit
Director - Scharf, M. P., Department of Educational Administration
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING:
Division of Biomedical Engineering
Chair - Watson, L. G., Department of Mechanical Engineering
Division of Engineering Hydrology
TBA
Engineering Computer Centre/Peter N. Nikiforuk Innovative Teaching & Learning Centre
Manager – Hauser, G., B.Sc.
Environmental Engineering Division
Acting Chair – Lin, Y.-H., Department of Chemical Engineering
EXTENSION DIVISION:
Centre for Distributed Learning
Director - Wong, A. T., Extension
Centre for Second Language Instruction
Director - Parkinson, D. M., B.A.(West. Ont.), M.A., B.Ed.(Tor.), M.Ed.(Exon.)
Gwenna Moss Teaching & Learning Centre
Acting Director – Archer, W., Extension
Extension Divison Facilities:
Emma Lake Kenderdine Campus – Director K. Hobin
COLLEGE OF LAW:
Native Law Centre of Canada
Research Director - Henderson, J. Y., J.D.(Harvard)
COLLEGE OF MEDICINE:
Alvin Buckwold Child Development Program
Medical Director - Blakley, P. M., M.D.(Sask.), Ph.D.(Cincinnati), FRCPC
Applied Psychiatric Research
Director - D’Arcy, C., B.A., M.A.(Sask.), Ph.D.(Tor.)
Cameco MS Neuroscience Research Center
Director - Schreyer, D. J., Department of Anatomy & Cell Biology
Cardiovascular Risk Factor Reduction Unit
Director – Wilson, T.W., Department of Medicine
Cardiovascular Research Group
Director – Wang, R., Department of Physiology
Health Research Division, Saskatoon Cancer Agency and Division of Oncology
Executive Director - Carlsen, S. A., Department of Microbiology & Immunology
Geriatric Assessment Program
Department of Medicine
Neuropsychiatry Research Unit
Director - Li, X.-M., Department of Psychiatry
Prairie Region Health Promotion Research Centre
Director - Williams, L., Department of Community Health & Epidemiology
Prairie Women’s Health Centre of Excellence
Administrator – Willson, K., Department of Community Health & Epidemiology
Reproductive Biology Research Unit
Director - Pierson, R. A., Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences
Research Centre for the Elimination of Tuberculosis
Director – Bretscher, P., Department of Microbiology & Immunology
Saskatchewan Cancer Control Research Program
Director - Leis, A. M., Department of Community Health & Epidemiology
Saskatchewan Heart & Stroke Foundation Epidemiology Unit
Director – Reeder, B., Department of Community Health & Epidemiology
Saskatchewan Institute on Prevention of Handicaps
Director - Shanks, J., B.S.N.(Sask.), M.C.Ed.(Sask.)
Saskatchewan Neuroscience Network
Coordinator - Doucette, J. R., Department of Anatomy & Cell Biology
Saskatchewan Pediatric Auditory Rehabilitation Centre
Program Head - Brewster, L., Ph.D., Aud.(C), Cert.A.V.T.
Saskatchewan Sociobehavioral Cancer Research Satellite Centre
Director – Leis, A.M., Department of Community Health & Epidemiology
Saskatchewan Stroke Research Centre
Director - Reeder, B., Department of Community Health & Epidemiology
Sleep Disorder Clinic
Director – Skomro, R., Department of Medicine
College of Medicine Facilities:
Northern Medical Services Division – Director P. Butt
COLLEGE OF PHARMACY & NUTRITION:
Nutrition Resource and Volunteer Centre
Director - Berenbaum, S. L., College of Pharmacy & Nutrition
College of Pharmacy & Nutrition Facilities:
Saskatchewan Drug Information Service – Manager K. Janson
Saskatchewan Regional Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Program (SaskADR) – P. Sharma
Pharmaceutical Research and Analysis Lab (PRAL) – D. Rogowski
WESTERN COLLEGE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE:
Canadian Co-operative Wildlife Health Centre
Executive Director – Leighton, F.A., Department of Veterinary Pathology
WCVM Facilities:
Veterinary Teaching Hospital – Hospital Director S. Rubin
Goodale Research Farm – Manager W. Kerr
ST. THOMAS MORE COLLEGE:
Prairie Centre for the Study of Ukrainian Heritage
Director – Tataryn, Rev. M., Department of Religious Studies & Anthropology, College of Arts
& Science
ORGANIZATIONS REPORTING TO THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS
Canadian Light Source Inc.
Executive Director - Thomlinson, W., Department of Physics & Engineering Physics, College of
Arts & Science
Industry Liaison Office of the University of Saskatchewan
Managing Director - Gill, D., B.Sc.(McMaster)
Pharmalytics, Inc.
Chair – Midha, K.
Prairie Swine Centre Inc. (PSCI)
President and CEO - Patience, J. F., B.Sc.(Agr.), M.Sc.(Guelph), Ph.D.(Cornell)
Research Scientist, Ethology - Gonyou, H. W., B.Sc.(Agr.)(Guelph), M.Sc.(Alta.), Ph.D.(Sask.),
Adjunct Professor Animal and Poultry Science
Research Scientist, Engineering - Predicala, B.Z., BSc (UPLB), M.Eng.(A.I.I.), Ph.D. (Kansas
State), Adjunct Professor Agricultural and Bioresource Engineering
Prairie Diagnostic Services, Inc.
Director M. Jones
Saskatchewan Food Industry Development Centre
President – Prefontaine, D.
Western Beef Development Centre
Technology Transfer Coordinator - Lardner, H. A., B.S.A., M.Sc., Ph.D.(Sask.)
Please see the faculty listings in the Calendar for the academic qualifications of faculty
members shown on this list.
To update the information on this list, please contact the Office of the University
Secretary