NEW GRADUATE PROGRAM REVIEW
External Reviewers’ Report Form
External Reviewers are asked to submit a joint report which addresses the following criteria that appraises the
standards and quality of the proposed new Graduate Program at the conclusion of the site visit or within one
month. The completed report should be submitted to: Office of the Provost and Vice-Principal (Academic),
Suite 353 Richardson Hall, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Attention Claire O’Brien, or email
quqap@queensu.ca
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:
External Reviewer No. 1:
Surname
Given Name
Middle
Initial(s)
Title
Dr.
Ms.
Institution
Mr.
Prof.
Mrs.
Mailing Address
Current Position
Tel.
E-mail
URL (if available)
External Reviewer No. 2:
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 (if available)
Page 1 of 9
External Reviewer No. 3: (if applicable)
Surname
Middle
Initial(s)
Given Name
Title
Dr.
Ms.
Institution
Mr.
Prof.
Mrs.
Mailing Address
Current Position
Tel
E-mail
URL (if available)
Outline of the Review
A description of the Site Visit should be provided below.
Provide the names of individual and/or groups who were interviewed.(may attach itinerary)
Indicate which facilities were visited.
Describe any other activities relevant to the appraisal.
Last Revised: July 28, 2016
Page 2 of 9
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) and Academic
Unit(s).
Provide comments on the clarity, appropriateness and alignment of the program objectives, requirements and
learning outcomes with the Graduate Degree Level Expectations (GDLEs). [refer to appendix 1 of QUQAP]
Comment on the appropriateness of the proposed degree nomenclature (e.g. MA, MSc, MEng).
2.
Admission Requirements
Comment on whether the admission requirements are appropriately aligned with the learning outcomes
established for completion of the new Program. If applicable, indicate if there is sufficient explanation about
alternative requirements, if any, above those set by the School of Graduate Studies (SGS) such as minimum
grade point average, additional languages or portfolios, recognition of prior work or learning experience, etc. If
applicable, comment on any language requirements that exceed the minimum set by the SGS.
Last Revised: July 28, 2016
Page 3 of 9
3.
Program Requirements and Structure
Comment on the appropriateness of the Program’s requirements and structure to meet specified program
learning outcomes and degree level expectations.
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.
For a research-focused Program, comment on the nature and suitability of the major research requirements for
degree completion and access to appropriate mentorship.
Comment on the evidence that students in the new Graduate Program are required to pass a minimum of twothirds of their course requirements from among graduate-only level courses.
Last Revised: July 28, 2016
Page 4 of 9
4.
Program Content and Delivery
As appropriate, provide comments on (i) how the curriculum addresses the current state of the discipline or area
of study; (ii) any special matters, innovations and/or creative components of the Program; (iii) appropriateness
of modes of delivery to meet identified learning outcomes;(iv) other issues considered relevant to the proposed
Program content and delivery.
Comment on how the Program will educate students on matters of academic integrity and intellectual property.
Last Revised: July 28, 2016
Page 5 of 9
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
Comment on the appropriateness and effectiveness of the methods proposed to assess student achievement of the
intended learning outcomes and Degree Level Expectations (refer to appendix 1 of QUQAP).
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 6 of 9
6.
Resources
Provide comments on the 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
including course delivery, student supervision and research and (ii) staff to support the Program
Support Services - Comment on the appropriateness and adequacy of other academic support services (e.g.
Library, Information Technology, School of Graduate Studies, etc.) to support the Program.
Physical Resources - Comment on the appropriateness and adequacy of the physical resources (e.g. space,
laboratory access, equipment, offices, etc.) to support the new Program (as applicable).
Institutional Commitment - Comment on the appropriateness and adequacy of institutional commitment for the
Program.
Last Revised: July 28, 2016
Page 7 of 9
Research Funding – Comment on evidence of adequate research funding to sustain the research activities of
faculty and graduate 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.
7.
Quality Indicators
Comment 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
and continuing adjunct) faculty, qualifications of participating term adjunct faculty, commitment to professional
and transferable skills, etc). Comment on the overall quality and availability of graduate supervision and
mentorship in the program(s). If applicable, comment on how supervisory responsibilities (‘loads’) will be
distributed.
Note: Reviewers are urged 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.
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). 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 8 of 9
Summary and Recommendations
Provide a summary of your evaluation and list recommendations that addresses the quality of the Program and
identify any matters of concern
Authorization
External Reviewer No. 1
Signature
Date
Signature
Date
External Reviewer No. 2
External Reviewer No. 3
(if applicable)
Last Revised: July 28, 2016
Signature
Date
Page 9 of 9