Self-Evaluation Template (Appendix B)
***Please modify the below to fit the individual needs of the programs as seen fit. ***
Please see below for a standard outline that may be used in compiling the Self-Evaluation Report for an
undergraduate academic program review. The outline consists of the following:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
Title Page
Table of Contents (see further instructions below)
Headings and Sub-Headings
Table 1: Sample Program Listing
Table 2: Faculty Data
Table 3: Coursework by Instructor
Table 4: Enrolment Trends Over the Past Five Years
Table 5: Grade Distributions
List of appendices.
Faculty Data Form
An automated Table of Contents has been set up based on the proposed headings. To auto update the
content of the Table of Contents (e.g. for changes in headings or page numbers), double click anywhere
on the Table of Contents. This will open the Table of Contents box. Select “Update Table” on the upper
left hand of the box and follow the prompts. If adding headings or sub-headings to your template,
highlight the text and assign it a Style as Heading 1, Heading 2 or Heading 3 (as appropriate). Follow the
instructions to update the Table of Contents and your new (sub) headings should be reflected in the table
accordingly.
Should you have any questions regarding the Self-Evaluation Report or template, please contact
Cassandra Davidson, Undergraduate Program Analyst, at Cassandra.Davidson@ad.umanitoba.ca or at
204-474-7847.
Page | 1
{Faculty/School}
{Department/Unit(s)}
Undergraduate Academic Program
Review
Date (Month Day, Year)
Prepared by:
{List of Authors / contributors}
umanitoba.ca
Page | 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ................................................................................ 5
Overview ................................................................................................... 6
Program Description ................................................................................................................... 6
Program Strengths ....................................................................................................................... 6
Academic Collaboration .............................................................................................................. 6
Reputation ................................................................................................................................... 6
Program Structure ....................................................................................................................... 6
Table 1: Sample Program Listing .................................................................................................... 7
Human Resources .................................................................................... 8
Academic Staff ............................................................................................................................ 8
Table 2: Faculty Data ....................................................................................................................... 8
Courses Taught ............................................................................................................................ 8
Table 3: Coursework by Instructor .................................................................................................. 9
Support Staff ............................................................................................................................... 9
External Support.......................................................................................................................... 9
Physical Resources ................................................................................ 10
Space ......................................................................................................................................... 10
Equipment ................................................................................................................................. 10
Computer Resources ................................................................................................................. 10
Library Resources ..................................................................................................................... 10
Students .................................................................................................. 11
Student Body ............................................................................................................................. 11
Enrolment Trends ...................................................................................................................... 11
Table 4: Enrolment Trends over the Past Five Years .................................................................... 11
Table 5: Grade Distributions .......................................................................................................... 12
Conclusion .............................................................................................. 13
Page | 3
Appendices ............................................................................................. 14
A.
Academic Calendar ........................................................................................................... 14
B.
Faculty Data ...................................................................................................................... 15
C.
Library Report ................................................................................................................... 16
D.
Student Data ...................................................................................................................... 17
E.
Procedure for the Periodic Review of Undergraduate Programs ...................................... 18
Page | 4
Executive Summary
Please provide a summary of your program and the main points of the report on this page. Please
highlight any perceived strengths or weaknesses of the program.
Page | 5
Overview
Program Description
In this section:
-describe the program(s) overall
-state the objective of the program(s)
-highlight any novel or innovative features of the program(s)
-discuss how the program(s) responds to current and future needs of Manitoba and/or Canada.
Program Strengths
Identify the particular strengths of the program. For example, this program is known for its strength in
areas A, B and C within the discipline. Provide evidence.
Academic Collaboration
Discuss how the program(s) collaborates and compliments or strengthens other programs internal to the
University of Manitoba; Manitoba’s other post-secondary institutions as well as any other national or
international institutions.
Reputation
Indicate the extent to which the program(s) enhance the national and/or international reputation of the
University of Manitoba.
Program Structure
Describe the program under the following headings. Append a copy of the relevant section of the latest
Academic Calendar as Appendix A (found at
http://crscalprod1.cc.umanitoba.ca/Catalog/ViewCatalog.aspx)
Admission Requirements
Page | 6
Course Requirements
Evaluation Procedures
Thesis, Practicum or Comprehensive Procedures and Regulations (IF APPLICABLE)
Transferability of Course Credits from other Post-Secondary Institutions
Sample Program Listing
Provide a sample program listing for a typical student as well as a timeline for completion of studies.
Table 1: Sample Program Listing
Year
Coursework
1
CRSE IXXX
CRSE 1XXX
Required/Elective
Other
Required
Elective
18 credit hours of
electives outside
program
2
CRSE 2XXX
CRSE 2XXX
Required
Elective
3
CRSE 3XXX
CRSE 3XXX
CRSE 3XXX
CRSE 3XXX
4
CRSE 4XXX
CRSE 4XXX
Required
Required
Fieldwork
Honours Thesis
Page | 7
Human Resources
Academic Staff
Provide a general overview of the Faculty appointments within the program(s). Please complete Table 2
below for each academic appointment, including adjuncts. This information may be supplemented by
providing the Review Committee with access to faculty CV’s or alternatively the Faculty Data Forms (see
Appendix B below). If additional information is provided, please attach as an appendix to the report.
Table 2: Faculty Data
Faculty Member
Rank1
Smith, Jane
Li, Xiang
Doe, Jonathan
Professor
Assoc. Professor
Adjunct
1
Tenure
(y/n)
Y
N
N
Specialization
Medical Anthropology
Ethnobotany
Pre-historic Archaeology
Please sort faculty list by rank – Emeritus, Professor, Assoc. Professor, Asst. Professor, Adjunct, Other (identify status)
Courses Taught
Outline the number of undergraduate courses taught on a yearly basis and explain how course load is
distributed among the academic staff. Complete Table 3 below for the last five (5) years, listing courses
taught within the program (by year and term), and the number of students registered in each course along
with the name and status of the instructor for each course (e.g. tenured or probationary, graduate
student, on-student stipendiary appointment, etc.). Contact the Registrar’s Office for this data.
Page | 8
Table 3: Coursework by Instructor
Course
(Number/Listing)
Year/Term
ANTH 1XXX
ANTH 2XXX
ANTH 4XXX
2012/Fall
2012/Fall
2013/Winter
Registered
Students Instructor
47
23
12
Doe, Jonathan
Li, Xiang
Smith, Jane
Instructor Status
Adjunct Professor
Assoc. Professor
Professor
Please indicate whether there are any expected academic staff retirements over the next five (5) years,
how these retirements may affect the program, and what plans are in place to maintain the quality of the
program following the retirement(s).
Support Staff
Indicate the role or participation in the program(s), if any, of clerical or technical support staff in the
delivery or administration of the program. It would be useful to indicate the position description, gender
and FTE status where possible.
External Support
Indicate the participation in the program, if any, of individuals or groups external to the University of
Manitoba, and indicate the rational for their participation. List the credentials for each individual/group
supporting their involvement.
Page | 9
Physical Resources
Space
Describe the physical space in which students pursue this program of study/research. Where applicable,
include descriptions of student offices, study carrels, study/reading rooms, rooms with computer facilities,
laboratory space and other teach, research, or study space.
Equipment
Describe available and anticipated equipment in the following two categories:
Teaching Equipment
Describe any instructional equipment used in the delivery of courses/seminars in the program (e.g. video
projectors, data projectors, other computer assisted instructional equipment).
Research Equipment
Major research equipment accessible to undergraduate students in the program and any plans to update
the equipment over the next five years.
Computer Resources
Outline facilities available to students in this program (desktop machines, laptops, scanners, printers,
etc.), access to open computer areas and the like.
Library Resources
Please contact the Library Bibliographer in your area to coordinate this part of the self-study report. In
order to guarantee an accurate assessment of your program’s library resources, it is important that the
library is made aware of the areas/fields in which your program currently specializes and/or plans to
specialize in the future.
a)
b)
c)
d)
Evaluate existing resources available for use in the program
Evaluate pertinent resources added within the last 5 years
Evaluate pertinent new resources anticipated in the next 5 years
Evaluate services available to the program
Once you have received the library assessment (attach as Appendix C), please address any concerns or
issues raised in the assessment (e.g., lack of resources or types of holdings, etc.).
Page | 10
Students
In this section, please summarize data on student –body and enrolment trends. Please remember that
historical course data is required for a maximum of five years. Data and course enrolments and grade
distribution (including VW’s) for that period can be requested from the Registrar’s Office. As well,
student statistics targeted for use in the program review process are available (in PDF and Excel
Spreadsheet format) from the Office of Institutional Analysis:
http://umanitoba.ca/admin/oia/program_reviews/2064.html
Please attach the raw data provided by the RO and OIA as appendices to this report.
Student Body
Make-Up
For the past five years, please summarize the make-up of your student body in terms of full-time vs. part
time and male vs. female. This information can be found on the OIA website above. If and where
possible, comment on the student-body make-up in terms of origin (e.g. province of origin, Canadian vs.
international, etc.). Any data collected should be appended to this report.
Awards/Honours
Describe national/and or international awards, or any other distinctions, won by students in this program
over the last five years.
Enrolment Trends
Comment on any trends in enrolment over the last five years. Please contact the Registrar’s Office for
grade distribution and enrolment reports for the requested period. Any data collected should be
appended to this report. Information on enrolment, FT/PT status, gender and number of degrees
conferred can be found on the OIA website. You may wish to complete Table 4 below to provide an
overall picture of enrolment over the last five years.
Table 4: Enrolment Trends over the Past Five Years
Registered FullYear
Term Degree/Program Students
Time
PartTime
Male
Female
No. of Degrees
Conferred
Page | 11
The program may benefit by collating the following for each of the past five years. Using Table 5, list the
courses taught, provide the number of credit hours, number of students and grade distributions (including
VW’s) for each course. Comment on any trends or concerns raised within the data.
Table 5: Grade Distributions
Course
(Number/Listing)
Year/Term
ANTH 1XXX
ANTH 2XXX
ANTH 4XXX
2012/Fall
2012/Fall
2013/Winter
Grade Distribution
Hours
No of
Students
+A
A
+B
B
+C
C
D
F
VW
New
Y/N1
6
3
3
145
37
12
6
2
1
15
6
3
20
8
1
24
8
3
26
4
0
32
3
2
10
2
1
7
2
0
5
2
1
N
N
Y
1
Please indicate whether the course is new within the last five years.
Provide projections of enrolment in this program over the next five years and discuss the factors which
are thought to be most important in this regard.
Page | 12
Conclusion
Provide a brief summary of the results of the review. It may be helpful to outline any plans the program
may have in place going forward.
Page | 13
Appendices
A.
Academic Calendar
Append a copy of the relevant section of the latest Academic Calendar (found at
http://crscalprod1.cc.umanitoba.ca/Catalog/ViewCatalog.aspx).
Page | 14
B.
Faculty Data
Append copies of faculty CV’s or the alternate Faculty Data Form below.
Faculty Data Form
Name
Academic rank
Appointment Type
Teaching areas
The following information may be reported on for the past 5 years only
Academic Experience (e.g. Headships, Graduate Chair experience, etc.)
Teaching (e.g. credit hours, level of coursework)
Graduate Supervision (if applicable)
Professional Experience
Research Experience
Academic / University Service (e.g. Senator)
Publications
Presentations
Visiting Critic and Lectures
Recognition / Awards
Page | 15
C.
Library Report
Please append the assessment report provided by the libraries.
Page | 16
D.
Student Data
Append any student data collected from OIA and the RO.
Page | 17
E.
Procedure for the Periodic Review of Undergraduate Programs (Revised
February 2013)
A. Introduction
In response to a University of Manitoba Task Force on Strategic Planning (February 1998) a set of
evaluative criteria for assessing existing academic programs, and a process to review all academic
programs was devised with the goal to maintain the academic integrity of academic programs at the
University of Manitoba. Senate initially approved the document outlining the criteria and the process in
May 2000, encapsulated in the policy and procedures governing Academic Program Reviews. In 2005,
Senate approved a revised Academic Program Reviews Policy and related procedures. The 2005
documents remain current.
Tertiary education is replete with evaluations. Academic staff are evaluated for promotion and tenure
and, in many institutions; students are evaluated for admission, performance on comprehensive
examinations, and degree completion; courses are evaluated as they are added to the curriculum; and
facilities and financial resources are scrutinized annually in the budgeting process. However, program
review provides the only comprehensive evaluation of an entire academic program, integrating all of the
elements that contribute to its success.
While it is true that the reviews conducted by professional licensing or accrediting associations are also
comprehensive in scope, they have specific goals, which may or may not coincide with those of the
institution. Accreditation reviews generally focus on the standards required for entry to practice. They do
not necessarily embrace the broader academic perspective and/or consider recommendations for change in
program’s direction that might come out of a program review. Notwithstanding, in those cases where
academic programs are subject to reviews by external accreditation bodies, such accreditation reviews
shall be considered as equivalent to reviews undertaken under the aegis of the University of Manitoba
policy on Academic Program Reviews, unless the Provost determines otherwise.
Our programs at the University of Manitoba are dynamic; they change constantly as faculty come and go,
the student applicant pool increases or declines, degree requirements change, and academic disciplines
evolve. Although degree programs are reviewed carefully when they are first proposed, once approved
they may never be evaluated again. While over scrutiny is unhealthy for any program, thorough periodic
reviews ensure that academic programs maintain academic excellence and live up to their original goals
as well as identifying key areas that should be strengthened. Such reviews will also identify programs
that should be reinforced, downsized, or if necessary eliminated.
Page | 18
B. Overview of Review Process
Each undergraduate program shall be reviewed at least once every ten (10) years on a schedule set by the
Office of the Vice-President (Academic) and Provost, in consultation with the President. In establishing
these schedules, every effort will be made to co-ordinate program reviews with accreditation reviews.
The academic unit (the unit) delivering the program to be reviewed, in collaboration with the
Undergraduate Program Analyst in the Office of the Vice-President (Academic) & Provost, shall collect
the pertinent data as described in the following sections of this document.
The process for each academic program review shall consist of the following elements:
a)
the preparation of a Self-Evaluation Report by the unit delivering the program being
reviewed;
b)
an external peer assessment of the report and the academic program being reviewed;
c)
an opportunity for the unit delivering the program, and the Dean/Director of the unit in
question to respond to the external assessment;
d)
an assessment by the Vice-President (Academic) and Provost respecting the academic
review results.
Submission of reports: As the respective reports become available, the relevant Dean/Director shall
forward electronic copies to the Office of the Vice-President (Academic) and Provost, via the ViceProvost (Academic Planning and Programs).
Programs: Programs may be defined as any set of articulated and integrated courses and/or other learning
activities prescribed as requirements for attaining a particular degree. For the sake of the undergraduate
program review process, programs will be clustered together and reviewed at the Departmental/unit level.
In the case of joint-programs, double honours/majors or majors taught by one faculty and offered within
another, the respective teaching units will be responsible for reviewing their portion of the program
during the review process.
The review process should take approximately twelve to eighteen months depending on the circumstances
of each review. Each of the main elements described above can be tied to a corresponding stage within
the process. Each stage is summarized in Figure 1 below, with details noted in the corresponding sections
of this document.
Note: to facilitate the review process, please refer to the Checklist for Administrators (Appendix A).
Page | 19
Figure 1. Stages of Undergraduate Program Review
Stages of
Undergraduate Program Review
Initiate Review
Process
Submission of
Self-Evaluation
Report
External
Review Report
Received
Site Visit
Responses
Submitted to
Vice-Provost
Unit Head
Response
Stage 1:
Stage 2:
Stage 3:
Stage 4:
Self- Evaluation
External Review
Responses
VPA
▪ Approximately 9 months
▪ Prepare Self-Evaluation Report
▪ Gather statistical data with help from OIA, RO
and VP (Academic) & Provost
▪ Nominate potential reviewers
▪ Approximately 4 months
▪ Identify review
committee
▪ Arrange Site Visit
▪ Meet with Review
Committee
▪ Prepare Review Report.
▪ Approximately 4
months
▪ Prepare responses
from unit head
▪ Prepare responses
from Dean/Director.
▪ Assessment by
VP (Academic) &
Provost
▪ Summary report to
Senate Committee
on Academic Review
▪ Follow-up
Page | 20
C. Self-Evaluation & Reviewer Nomination, Stage 1
Initiate Review Process
Submission of Self-Evaluation Report
Stage 1:
Self- Evaluation
▪ Approximately 9 months
▪ Prepare and submit the Self-Evaluation Report to Dean/Director, with a copy to be forwarded to the Office of
the Vice President (Academic) & Provost
▪ Gather statistical data with help from OIA, RO and VP (Academic) & Provost
▪ Nominate potential reviewers
In consultation with the departmental council, or an equivalent body in cases where the program is not
offered by a department, the unit head shall prepare a Self-Evaluation Report. This report shall be
submitted by the unit within nine months of a request from the relevant Dean/Director to whom the unit
reports and within twelve months of the Office of the Vice-President (Academic) & Provost initiating the
review. During this period the unit head, in consultation with members of the unit, will also nominate
potential reviewers for the external review—see Section C2.
1.
Self-Evaluation Report (SER) Guidelines
In consultation with his/her colleagues, the unit head shall prepare a Self-Evaluation Report addressing
the following issues, as appropriate. An Executive Summary is also required. It is strongly encouraged
that the unit preview the document with the respective Dean/Director’s office prior to releasing it for
external review. A template of the report format can be found under Appendix B.
1.1 Program Description
1.1.1 Clearly state the objective of the program.
1.1.2 List the areas of specialties offered within the program.
1.1.3 Highlight novel or innovative features within the program.
1.1.4 Indicate the extent to which the program responds to current or future needs of
Manitoba and/or Canada.
1.1.5 Indicate the extent to which the program operates in collaboration with other
academic programs at the University of Manitoba.
1.1.6 Indicate the extent to which the program enhances co-operation among Manitoba’s
post-secondary institutions.
1.1.7 Indicate the extent to which the program enhances the national and/or international
reputation of the University of Manitoba.
Page | 21
1.1.8
Identify the particular strengths of the program. For example, this program is known
for its strength in areas A, B, and C within the discipline. Provide evidence.
1.1.9 Indicate the extent to which the program compliments and strengthens other
programs at the University of Manitoba.
1.1.10 Describe the program under the following headings.
(a) Admission requirements
(b) Course requirements
(c) Evaluation procedures
(d) Thesis, practicum or comprehensive procedures and regulations (where
applicable)
(e) Transferability of course credits from other post-secondary institutions.
1.1.11 Provide a sample program listing for a typical student in the program, and a timeline
for completion of his/her studies leading to completion of the program. Please refer
to Table 1 in the Self-Evaluation Template.
1.2 Human Resources
1.2.1 Academic appointments: using Table 2 in the Self-Evaluation Template (Appendix
B), please list all academic staff members (including adjuncts) associated with the
program, indicating specialization, academic rank and tenure status. This
information may be supplemented by providing the Review Committee with access
to faculty CV’s, or alternatively, the sample Faculty Data Form (Appendix B in the
Self-Evaluation Template) and should be attached as an appendix to the report.
Where supplemental data are provided:
(a) Members of the Review Committee should be advised in writing of the
provisions of Article 37 of the UM-UMFA Collective Agreement 2010-2012,
specifically Article 37.1;
(b) Faculty would be requested to provide a copy of their current CV (or
completion of a Faculty Data Form) for the purposes of addressing the
requirements in C.1.1 (Program Description – see above), and informed that
the Review Committee has been advised about the appropriate use of such
information, pursuant to Article 37.
1.2.2 Courses taught: for each of the past five (5) years. Using Table 3 in the SelfEvaluation Template (Appendix B), list the courses taught1 within this program (by
year and term), the number of students registered in each course, together with the
name and status of the instructor of each course (e.g. tenured or probationary,
graduate student, non-student stipendiary appointee, etc.) See also 1.4.2 below.
1.2.3 Staff retirements: indicate probable academic staff retirements over the next five (5)
years. Discuss how these may affect the program, and what plans are in in place to
maintain the quality of the program following the retirements.
1.2.4 Support staff: indicate the role or participation in the program, if any, of clerical or
technical support staff in the delivery or administration of the program. It would be
useful to indicate position description, gender and fte status where possible.
1
Source – Registrar`s Office
Page | 22
1.2.5
External support: indicate the participation in the program, if any, of individuals or
groups external to the University of Manitoba, and indicate the rationale for their
participation. List the credentials for each individual/group supporting their
involvement.
1.3 Physical Resources
1.3.1 Space: Describe the physical space in which students pursue this program of
study/research. Include description of student offices, study carrels, study/reading
rooms, rooms with computer facilities, laboratory space, and other teaching, research
or study space as appropriate for this program.
1.3.2 Equipment: Describe available and anticipated equipment in the following
categories:
a)
Teaching: Instructional equipment used in delivery of courses/seminars
in the program (e.g., video projectors, data projectors, other computer
assisted instructional equipment).
b)
Research: Major research equipment accessible to undergraduate
students in the program, and plans to upgrade this equipment during the
next five years.
1.3.3
Computer Resources: Describe facilities available to students in this program
(desktop machines, laptops, scanners, printers, etc.), access to open computer areas,
and the like.
1.3.4 Library Resources:
a) Evaluate existing resources available for use in this program.
b) Evaluate pertinent resources added within the last five years.
c) Evaluate pertinent new resources anticipated in the next five years.
d) Evaluate services available to the program.
1.4 Students
1.4.1 Using Table 4 in the Self-Evaluation Template (Appendix B), provide data on
enrolment and degrees granted by this program2 over each of the past five years,
under the following headings:
a) Full time
b) Part time
c) Male
d) Female
1.4.2 Courses Taught: Program may benefit by collating the following for each of the past
five years. Using Table 5 in the Self-Evaluation Template (Appendix B) list the
courses taught (by year and semester)3 within this program; provide the credit hours,
the number of students registered in, and grade distributions (including VWs) for
each course. Please indicate whether the course is new within the last five years. See
also 1.2.2 (above).
2
3
Source – OIA, see http://umanitoba.ca/admin/oia/program_reviews/2064.html
Source – Registrar’s Office
Page | 23
1.4.3
1.4.4
Describe national and/or international awards won by students in this program over
the past five years.
Provide projections of enrolment in this program over the next five years, and discuss
the factors which are thought to be most important in this regard.
1.5 Additional Materials
While not required, it would be useful to provide some additional information to help the
reviewers in their assessment. Some examples may include:
1.5.1 Faculty or School strategic frameworks that address the role of the program(s) within
the short-and long–term plans of the Faculty.
1.5.2 Indigenous programming in respect to the University’s strategic planning
framework.
1.5.3 Additional metrics on teaching and enrollment (e.g. teaching loads by academic
staff, undergraduate credit hours taught in the program’ and time to completion
data).
1.5.4 Data on student outcomes (changes to grade profiles, voluntary withdrawal
numbers).
1.5.5 Additional information on faculty and academic staff (e.g. information on teaching
and supervision at the graduate level, research/administrative duties that may impact
teaching loads of faculty and a demographic overview of academic appointments
within the unit).
If there are any questions regarding the above or any other material you would like to
incorporate into the Self-Evaluation Report, please contact the Undergraduate Program
Analyst for further information.
NOTE: Units undergoing a program review are reminded that historical course data is required for a
maximum of five years. Data on course enrolments and grade distributions (including VW’s) for that
period can be requested from the Registrar’s Office. As well, student statistics targeted for use in the
program review process are available (in PDF and Excel spreadsheet format) within the Office of
Institutional Analysis website: see http://umanitoba.ca/admin/oia/program_reviews/2064.htm.
2.
Nomination of External Reviewers
A review committee is required for every academic program review. The review committee shall consist
of:
(i)
(ii)
Two external examiners, and
An internal review from a cognate discipline within the University of Manitoba.
The review committee shall be chosen by the relevant Dean/Director from a list of nominations submitted
by the unit head.
Page | 24
The unit head, after consultation with members of the unit, will provide the Dean/Director with a list of
five (5) potential external reviewers and three (3) potential internal (to the University of Manitoba)
reviewers from an area not connected to the unit. Please be advised that the unit head is not to approach
potential reviewers. The relevant Dean/Director will select and contact the reviewers from the list
provided by the unit.
The following information should be supplied to the Dean/Director for each nominee, taken from
personal knowledge or biographical sources – see also Reviewer Nomination Form (Appendix C):
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
Name of Proposed Advisor
Academic Rank
University Affiliation (include contact numbers)
Year of Conferral University Discipline Degree
Area (s) of specialization within discipline
Experience/expertise relevant to service as a program reviewer (e.g. external reviewer of
other academic programs, academic administrative experience, etc.)
2.7 Recent scholarly activity (e.g. recent publications, research grants, etc.)
2.8 Previous affiliation with the University of Manitoba, if any (e.g. as a student, employee,
extensive collaboration with current academic staff, visiting professor, etc.)
Page | 25
D. External Review, Stage 2
Self-Evaluation
Report
Submitted
Site Visit
External
Review
Received
Stage 2:
External Review
12 weeks
▪ Approximately 4 months.
▪ Identify review committee
▪ Arrange Site Visit
▪ Meet with Review Committee
▪ Prepare Review Report
1.
Appointment of External Reviewers
From the list of nominees provided by the unit head (see C.2), the Dean/Director shall identify the
external review committee and invite them to participate in the review and corresponding site visit. The
committee shall consist of two (2) external reviewers and one (1) internal reviewer (University of
Manitoba) from a cognate discipline, not connected to the unit under review.
Once the external review team has been identified, the unit head, in collaboration with the relevant
Dean/Director, will be responsible for organizing a two (2) day site visit4 of the unit under review – see
section D.2 for more information on the visit.
At the same time, the relevant Dean/Director shall provide the members of the Review Committee and the
Vice-Provost (Academic Programs and Planning) electronic copies of the Self-Evaluation Report.
2.
Site Visit
The unit head, in collaboration with the relevant Dean/Director, will be responsible for organizing a twoday site visit of the program. This includes aiding in the following:
2.1 Booking airfare and accommodations.
2.2 Providing additional information as requested by the reviewers prior to, during, or following
the site visit.
4
Normally, an adequate amount of time for the site visit is one and a half days; therefore, a return flight may be
scheduled during the evening of the second day.
Page | 26
2.3 Co-ordinating an appropriate itinerary for the site visit, including an exit interview with the
Vice-President (Academic) and Provost or delegate, at the end of the site visit (please refer to
Appendix D for a sample itinerary).
2.4 Arrange discussions with faculty members and students in the program.
2.5 Arrange for an opportunity to consider the matter of program resources, particularly those
associated with the library and study space for students.
The budget for each site visit will be approximately $6,000.00. The Dean of the Faculty will be
responsible for arranging reviews and ensuring costs are reasonable. Each external reviewer will receive
an honorarium of $1,000.00, which will be paid for by the faculty and reimbursed by the Vice-Provost
(Academic Planning & Programs). The Faculty will be reimbursed by the Vice-Provost (Academic
Planning & Programs) reasonable costs associated with the review; for airfare, accommodations and
meals.
Once the review has been completed the faculty will submit copies of invoices to the Budget Officer in
the Provost’s Office for reimbursement. Budget adjustment will be done to reimburse faculty for related
expenditures once they appear on the revenue and expenditures statement. Should expenditures be
deemed to be unreasonable by the Vice-Provost (Academic Planning & Programs) they will not be
reimbursed and will become the responsibility of the faculty.
3.
Expectations of the Review Committee
3.1 Site visits shall take place within twelve (12) weeks of the unit head’s submission of the SelfEvaluation report to the relevant Dean/Director.
3.2 The Review Committee shall meet as a committee to conduct the site visit.
3.3 The site visit shall be conducted over no less than one full day and no more than two full
days.
3.4 The Review Committee shall assess the program in accordance with section D.4 (External
Review Report) below.
3.5 The Review Committee shall meet with the relevant Dean/Director, the unit head, academic
and support staff associated with the program, and students of the program. The Review
committee will also meet with the Vice-President (Academic) and Provost, or delegate.
3.6 The Review Committee shall submit the External Review Report to the relevant
Dean/Director within four (4) weeks of the site visit.
3.7 Site visit expenses (travel, meals, lodging) paid by the Review Committee shall be
reimbursed as soon as possible following completion of the site visit, and an agreed upon
honorarium will be paid upon receipt of the External Report by the relevant Dean/Director.
Page | 27
4.
External Review Report
Upon consideration of the Self-Evaluation Report and following the site visit, the Review Committee
shall submit a report to the relevant Dean/Director that contains an overall assessment of the program(s)
under review, and provides recommendations for program improvement.
The Review Committee is to assess the quality of the academic program and to comment on the program
in relation to the stated strategic direction of the unit and the relevant Faculty/School. In writing the
External Review Report, the Review Committee may be guided by the following headings although not
be restricted to them. It is requested that the committee conclude its report by classifying the program
into one of the categories stated below, and to provide justification for the category allocated. The
Review Committee must articulate clear recommendations and/or priorities of choice where appropriate
to do so. In addition to consideration of the below, please complete and attach the External Review
Summary Form (Appendix E) along with report.
4.1 Recommended Headings for External Review Report
4.1.1
Strategic importance of the program(s) in relation to the strategic directions of the
relevant Faculty/School and the University as a whole.
4.1.2 Comparisons with related programs with which the review committee is familiar.
4.1.3 Quality of undergraduate student advising.
4.1.4 Quality of students.
4.1.5 Critical mass and appropriate mix of students by origin
(local/regional/national/international), gender balance of students, etc.
4.1.6 Times(s) to completion of degree program by students, where possible.
4.1.7 Excellence of academic staff and breadth of experience. Is the workload appropriate?
4.1.8 Adequacy of facilities, space and other resources.
4.1.9 Strengths and weaknesses of the program(s). Are there areas of weakness which if
corrected could improve the contribution of the department to the University and the
discipline? What strategies might be adopted to improve the Department’s
effectiveness in its various roles?
4.1.10 Extent to which program(s) objectives are met. Is the curriculum appropriate at the
various levels? Are the courses appropriate and is the delivery satisfactory? Are
there changes to programs or courses that should be entertained?
4.1.11 Suggestions and recommendations for improvements in the program(s).
In the external report, the Review Committee shall classify the program in one of the following
categories:
1. Adequate, continue as is.
2. Adequate, with minor revisions.
3. Inadequate, requiring major revisions or restructuring.
Note: Upon receipt of the External Review Report to the relevant Dean/Director, electronic copies should
be forwarded to the unit head and the Vice-Provost (Academic Programs and Planning).
Page | 28
E. Responses to Review, Stage 3
External
Review
Received
Unit Head
Response
Responses
Submitted to
Vice-Provost
Stage 3:
Responses
12 weeks
▪ Approximately 4 months
▪ Prepare responses from unit head
▪ Prepare responses from Dean/Director
1.
Response from Unit Head
Upon receipt of the External Review Report, the relevant Dean/Director shall request the unit head, in
consultation with the unit, to prepare a response addressing any/all recommendations arising from the
review. The report should include a plan for revising/restructuring the program, as needed, along with a
timeline for implementation and completion, and any budgetary implications. Please refer to the Unit
Response Summary Form (Appendix F) for an example on how to address the recommendations of the
external review report.
The unit’s response should be submitted to the Dean within three (3) months of receipt of the External
Review Report, with a view to implementation of any recommendations within six (6) months.
2.
Response from Dean/Director’s Office
Within one (1) month of receipt of the unit’s response, the Dean/Director shall submit to the VicePresident (Academic) and Provost, via the Vice-Provost (Academic Planning and Programs), copies of
the unit’s response, along with a review of the unit’s plan.
Page | 29
A. Assessment by Office of the Vice-President
(Academic) and Provost, Stage 4
Responses
Submitted to
Vice-Provost
Stage 4:
Assessment by Vice-President (Academic) and Provost
▪ Assessment by VP (Academic) & Provost
▪ Summary report to SCAR
▪ Follow-up
1.
Assessment of Review
Following receipt of the reports, the Vice-Provost (Academic Programs and Planning) may invite the
relevant Dean/Director, and the unit head, to discuss the review prior to preparing a report to the Provost,
and the Senate Committee on Academic Review (SCAR).
The Vice-President (Academic) and Provost shall provide a written assessment of each academic review
to SCAR.
2.
Senate Committee on Academic Review (SCAR)5
Following completion of an academic review, SCAR may comment or recommend to the Vice-President
(Academic) and Provost, on:
(a) how well the academic unit’s mission statement and its teaching, research and community
service relate to the University’s mission, emerging knowledge areas in related disciplines
and societal needs;
(b) the progress that the academic unit has made since the previous review of the academic unit
or relevant academic program; and
(c) the overall quality and plans on the academic unit for academic programs.
SCAR shall report annually to Senate on the program of academic reviews.
5
For governing documents for SCAR, please visit
http://umanitoba.ca/admin/governance/governing_documents/governance/sen_committees/489.html
Page | 30
3.
Follow-up
Within one year of receipt of the responses from the relevant Dean/Director, the Vice-President
(Academic) and Provost may contact the unit and request a report outlining the unit’s progress on
implementing its plan. If the plan has not been fully implemented, further reports of the unit may be
required.
Page | 31