NEW UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM
External Reviewers’ Report Form
External reviewers are asked to submit a report which addresses the following criteria that appraises the
standards and quality of the proposed new undergraduate program at the conclusion of the site visit or within
two weeks of the site visit or off-site review. The completed report should be submitted to the teaching and
learning co-ordinator Claire O’Brien by email to quqap@queensu.ca or by mail to: Office of the Provost and
Vice-Principal (Academic), Suite 353 Richardson Hall, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6.
Electronic signatures are sufficient.
Reviewers are reminded that under the Ontario Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA),
Queen’s University is obliged to disclose, upon request, sections of the report that contain observations, facts
and conclusions. The only sections that are exempt from FIPPA are those which contain advice and
recommendations.
NOTE: this a “fillable” template and each textbox will expand as needed
Name of Proposed Program(s):
Faculty(ies)/School(s):
Date(s) of Site Visit:*
*Or other off-site option if previously approved by the provost
External Reviewer:
Surname
Given Name
Middle
Initial(s)
Title
Dr.
Ms.
Institution
Mr.
Prof.
Mrs.
Mailing Address
Current Position
Tel.
Last Revised: July 28, 2016
E-mail
URL (optional)
Page 1 of 12
Outline of the Site Visit and Review
A description of the site visit (or other off-site option) should be provided below.
Provide the names of individual and/or groups who were interviewed (may attach itinerary)
If a site visit has taken place, indicate which facilities were visited.
Describe any other activities relevant to the appraisal.
Last Revised: July 28, 2016
Page 2 of 12
Evaluation Criteria
Provide a brief analysis of the proposed program against the evaluation criteria outlined below
1.
Program Objectives
Comment on the consistency of the proposed program with the academic goals of the faculty(ies),
academic unit(s), and the four pillars of Queen’s University’s Academic Plan. Also describe the
program’s fit with Queen’s Strategic Framework and Strategic Mandate Agreement. The four pillars of
the academic plan are:
 The student learning experience
 Disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity
 Globalism, diversity, and inclusion
 Health, wellness, and community.
Please assess the appropriateness and effectiveness of the proposed program in how it will meet all
four pillars, or the rationale for emphasizing a select number of the pillars.
Describe the extent to which the program’s objectives, requirements and learning outcomes are clear,
appropriate and in alignment with the university’s statement of undergraduate Degree Level
Expectations (DLEs) (for DLEs, refer to QUQAP appendix 1). Please provide examples.
Comment on the appropriateness of the proposed degree nomenclature (e.g. BAH, BScH, etc).
Last Revised: July 28, 2016
Page 3 of 12
2.
Admission Requirements
To what extent are the admission requirements appropriately aligned with the learning outcomes
established for completion of the program(s)? Please discuss how the admission requirements ensure
that prospective students have the appropriate background skills to perform successfully in the
program. If applicable, indicate if there is sufficient explanation of any alternative admission
requirements, such as minimum grade point average, additional languages or portfolios, recognition of
prior work or learning experience, etc.
3.
Program Requirements and Structure
a)
Comment on the appropriateness of the program’s requirements and structure (including monitoring of
student progress) to meet specified program learning outcomes and DLEs.
b)
Comment on the appropriateness of the program length, the stated milestones, plans to monitor student
achievement of milestones and progress and whether the program requirements can be reasonably
completed within the proposed time period.
Last Revised: July 28, 2016
Page 4 of 12
c)
If a research project is required for program completion, comment on its nature and appropriateness,
and access to appropriate mentorship.
4.
Program Content and Delivery
a)
To what extent does the curriculum reflect the current state of the discipline or area of study? Please
comment on the ways in which the curriculum explores some of the key concepts, basic methodologies,
current advances, theoretical approaches and assumptions in the discipline or area of study. Also
consider the ways in which the curriculum explores specialized areas in the discipline.
Last Revised: July 28, 2016
Page 5 of 12
b)
Comment on any special matters, innovation and/or creative features of the program(s).
By way of example, innovative and creative features of a program may be integrated in ways which
encourage heightened student engagement, renewed approaches to traditional aspects of pedagogy, or
the introduction of entirely new areas of investigation. Reviewers should comment on how these
innovative or distinctive features of the program are integrated into the curriculum, offer new
opportunities for the area of study, and ultimately enhance student learning.
c)
Comment on how appropriate and effective the proposed modes of delivery will be in meeting the
articulated learning outcomes of the program(s). A mode of delivery includes the means or medium
used in delivering a program, including lecture format, distance, on-line, problem-based, compressed
part-time, different campus inter institutional collaboration or other non-standard form of delivery.
Please comment on the appropriate and effective use of varying formats such as large lecture, medium
classroom, seminar or tutorial. In addition, the use of on-line and problem-based learning may be
considered in light of the learning outcomes sought by the program. Finally, (if applicable) comment
on how compressed, part-time, and multiple campus structures might impact learning outcomes.
d)
Comment on how the program will educate students on the importance and role of academic integrity.
Last Revised: July 28, 2016
Page 6 of 12
e)
Comment on evidence that the program will address the university’s equity and accessibility goal.
Refer to: Senate Educational Equity Policy; Employment Equity Policy; Federal Contractor’s
Program; Accessibility for Ontarians with Disability Act (2005).
5.
Assessment of Teaching and Learning
How appropriate and effective are the proposed methods used to assess student achievement of the
defined learning outcomes and DLEs? [For DLEs, please see Appendix 1 of QUQAP]. Do the means of
assessment appropriately and effectively demonstrate achievement of the program-level learning
outcomes and DLEs?
Comment on the plans for documenting and demonstrating the level of performance of students, their
progress toward degree completion and achievement of Degree Level Expectations.
Last Revised: July 28, 2016
Page 7 of 12
6.
Resources
Please provide comments on evidence of, and planning for, adequate numbers and quality of;
(a) faculty and staff
(b) resources for implementation.
Also comment on planned/anticipated class sizes, supervision of experiential learning opportunities,
and the role of adjunct and part-time faculty (as applicable).
Human - Comment on the adequacy and appropriateness of (i) faculty to deliver the proposed
program, and (ii) staff to support the program. Address the role(s) of term adjunct and part-time
faculty, staff and other instructors.
Support Services - Comment on the appropriateness and adequacy of other academic support services
(e.g. library, information technology, etc.) to support the program.
Last Revised: July 28, 2016
Page 8 of 12
Physical Resources - Comment on the appropriateness and adequacy of the physical resources (e.g.
space, laboratory access, offices, etc) to support the new program (as applicable).
Institutional Commitment - Comment on the appropriateness and adequacy of institutional
commitment for the program.
Research Funding – Comment on evidence of adequate research funding to sustain the quality of
research and scholarship produced by undergraduate students (as applicable).
Student Funding – If appropriate to the program, comment on evidence that financial support for
students will be sufficient to ensure quality and numbers of students.
Last Revised: July 28, 2016
Page 9 of 12
7.
Quality Indicators
Note: Reviewers are requested to avoid using references to individuals. Rather, they are asked to
assess the ability of the faculty as a whole to deliver the program and to comment on the
appropriateness of the expertise and scholarly productivity of the faculty.
Please provide comments on:
 the qualifications of the faculty (e.g., their recent research, innovation, and scholarly records
and/or professional/clinical expertise
 proportion of program delivered by core (tenured, tenure-track, emeriti, continuing adjunct)
faculty
 qualifications of participating term adjunct faculty
 commitment to professional and transferable skills
 the overall quality and availability of supervision of experiential learning opportunities in the
program, as applicable.
Last Revised: July 28, 2016
Page 10 of 12
Comment on the aspects of the program’s structure and faculty research that contribute to the
intellectual quality of the student experience (e.g. program symposia, conferences, seminars, etc.).
Refer to evidence that faculty have the recent research or professional/clinical expertise needed to
sustain the program, promote innovation and foster an appropriate intellectual environment.
Last Revised: July 28, 2016
Page 11 of 12
Summary and Recommendations
Please provide a summary of your evaluation and list recommendations that address the quality of the
program and identify any matters of concern.
Signatures
External Reviewer
Signature
Last Revised: July 28, 2016
Date
Page 12 of 12