CYCLICAL PROGRAM REVIEW
Review Team Report Form
This form is for use by the review team to prepare its joint report. The report should be written
collaboratively by all review team members, including the internal/additional reviewer. The report should
address the following criteria that appraise the standards and quality of the program(s) under review. If
more than one program is being evaluated, the review team is asked to address all the following evaluation
criteria for each program under consideration. The completed form, site visit schedule, and any other
accompanying documents should be submitted within 2 weeks of the site visit. Please ensure that the report
is signed by the external and internal reviewers. Electronic signatures are sufficient.
The report should be submitted via e-mail to Claire O’Brien at 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, Attention Claire O’Brien, Teaching and Learning Coordinator.
When preparing its joint report, the review team is 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.
Please note: the textboxes in this form will expand as needed
Name of Program(s):
Department(s)/School/Faculty(s):
Date(s) of Site Visit:
External Reviewer No. 1:
Surname
Given Name
Institution
Title
Mailing Address
Current Position
Tel.
E-mail
Last Revised: February 08, 2016
URL (if available)
page 1 of 13
External Reviewer No. 2: (required if GRAD Program and/or concurrent review of UG and GRAD
Programs)
Surname
Given Name
Institution
Title
Mailing Address
Current Position
Tel
E-mail
URL (if available)
Additional Reviewer No. 3: (as required; may be external)
Surname
Given Name
Institution
Title
Mailing Address
Current Position
Tel
E-mail
URL (if available)
Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are asked to provide comments on the each of the evaluation criteria below. If more than one
program is being evaluated, you are expected to address all the evaluation criteria for each program under
consideration.
Last Revised: February 08, 2016
page 2 of 13
1.
Program Objectives
Comment on how effectively the undergraduate curriculum addresses 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.
Different programs may emphasize different aspects of the four pillars. Please assess the
appropriateness and effectiveness of the program in how it meets all four pillars or the rationale for
emphasizing a select number of the pillars.
Describe the extent to which the program(s) requirements and learning outcomes are clear,
appropriate and in alignment with the university’s statement of undergraduate and/or graduate
Degree Level Expectations (DLEs) (refer to QUQAP appendix 1). Please provide examples.
2.
Program Admission Requirements
To what extent are the admission requirements (GPA) 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.
3.
Curriculum
a)
To what extent does the curriculum (curricula) 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: February 08, 2016
page 3 of 13
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 modes of delivery are 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 parttime, 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 are impacting learning outcomes.
4.
Assessment of Teaching and Learning
How appropriate and effective are the methods used to assess student achievement of the defined
learning outcomes and DLEs? Do the means of assessment appropriately and effectively demonstrate
achievement of the program-level learning outcomes and DLEs?
Analysis of grades and grading practices, surveys, and focus groups are some possible methods that
may be used to assess student achievement of learning outcomes and DLEs. Please comment on the
methods used to assess the program under review and the appropriateness of such methods.
Last Revised: February 08, 2016
page 4 of 13
5.
Program Resources
a)
Comment on the program (s)’ use of existing library services and resources. The library offers services
that go beyond book and article circulation. Please comment on additional support services the library
provides, such as web pages related to program needs, direct advising of students by library
administrative staff, and access to other research and study resources.
b)
Comment on the appropriateness and effectiveness of other academic services (e.g. Centre for
Teaching and Learning, Information Technology Services, Writing Centre, etc.) that support the
program(s) being evaluated. Please comment on the number of services directly involved in support of
the program or the reasons some services are used more extensively than others.
c)
Comment on the appropriateness and effectiveness of the program(s)’ use of existing human (faculty
and staff), physical, and financial resources.
6.
Equity and Diversity
.
Comment on evidence that the program(s) addresses the University’s equity and accessibility goals.
Last Revised: February 08, 2016
page 5 of 13
7.
Academic Integrity
Comment on evidence that the program(s) informs faculty, students and staff on the role and
importance of academic integrity.
Programs are, at the very least, expected to include the official Senate statement on academic integrity
on their course materials. Please note whether or not this practice is being followed. In addition,
programs may develop their own materials and have defined program elements within courses or in
addition to them which reinforce the importance of adhering to the principles of academic integrity.
Quality Indicators
8.
Quality Indicators – Faculty Complement and Activities
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(s) and to comment on the
appropriateness of the expertise and scholarly productivity.
a)
Comment on the proportion of courses/classes taught by core faculty. Core faculty is defined here as
tenured, tenure-track, emeriti and continuing adjunct professors.
b)
Comment on the number, qualifications and assignments of adjunct faculty (if applicable).
Last Revised: February 08, 2016
page 6 of 13
c)
Comment on the faculty’s qualifications, records of research and scholarship, etc.
9.
Quality Indicators – Students Attributes and Satisfaction
Provide comments on the following:
 Outcome measures of student performance and achievement for the program(s);
 Quality and quantity of applications and registrations;
 Rates and timing of attrition;
 Times-to-completion
Provide comments under separate headings if more than one program is being evaluated.
For all undergraduate programs, comment on:
 Final year academic achievement;
 Graduation rates;
 Academic awards;
 Teaching evaluations.
For all graduate programs, comment on;
 National and provincial scholarships;
 Competitions and awards, etc.;
 Graduation rates;
 Student evaluation of teaching and thesis supervision (as applicable).
Refer to Section 11 below as needed.
Last Revised: February 08, 2016
page 7 of 13
10.
Quality Indicators – Program Graduates
For undergraduate students, comment on employment 6 months and 2 years after graduation; postgraduate study; skills match; alumni reports on program(s) quality; etc.
For graduate students, comment on initial employment or status of students graduating over the past 8
years.
Last Revised: February 08, 2016
page 8 of 13
11.
Additional Criteria for Graduate Program Review
a)
Please provide comments on the following:
 Overall quality and availability of graduate student supervision and mentorship in the
program(s);
 Aspects of the program(s) structure and faculty research that contribute to the intellectual
quality of the student experience (e.g. symposia, conferences, seminars);
 Graduate student scholarly output (e.g. publications and research presentations), and
 Development of professional and transferable skills.
b)
Comment on the availability and adequacy of graduate student financial support. If applicable,
comment on international graduate student participation and funding.
c)
Comment on the monitoring and management of students’ time-to-completion in relation to the
program’s identified length and requirements.
Last Revised: February 08, 2016
page 9 of 13
12.
Post-Doctoral Fellows [if applicable]
Comment on the value added to program(s) by postdoctoral fellows. Delete this section if not
applicable.
13.
Quality Enhancement
Comment on initiatives taken to enhance the quality of the program(s) and the associated learning and
teaching environment.
Last Revised: February 08, 2016
page 10 of 13
14.
Final comments
This space is provided for any comments you would like to share regarding program quality, that have
not been addressed elsewhere in the report. Leave blank if this does not apply.
Last Revised: February 08, 2016
page 11 of 13
15.
Summary and Recommendations
Please provide a summary and recommendations that address:
 The quality of the program(s)
 Identified areas that hold promise for enhancement
 Areas that require improvement.
Last Revised: February 08, 2016
page 12 of 13
Signatures
NB 1 This report must be signed by the internal/additional reviewer
NB 2 Electronic signatures are acceptable for all reviewers
External Reviewer No. 1
Signature
Date
Signature
Date
Signature
Date
External Reviewer No. 2
Internal/Additional
Reviewer No. 3
Last Revised: February 08, 2016
page 13 of 13