McMASTER UNIVERSITY by FgAD7k

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 6

									          McMASTER UNIVERSITY

CYCLICAL UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM REVIEWS

     GUIDELINES FOR THE REVIEW TEAM
                                                             CONTENTS

  MEETING INFORMATION ....................................................................................................... 1


  ROLES AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE REVIEW TEAM ........................................................ 1


  REVIEW TEAM REPORT ........................................................................................................... 1


  GUIDELINES FOR THE REVIEW TEAM REPORT ................................................................. 1

          1. Program .......................................................................................................................... 2
               Extent to which program’s goals and priorities match the academic plan of the
                 University

          2. Admission Requirements ............................................................................................... 2
               Alignment of admission requirements with program learning outcomes

          3. Curriculum...................................................................................................................... 2
               How curriculum reflects the current state of the discipline or area of study
               Evidence of significant innovation or creativity in content and/or delivery of
                  program
               Appropriateness and effectiveness of modes of delivery at meeting learning
                  outcomes

          4. Teaching and Assessment............................................................................................... 2
               Appropriateness and effectiveness of the means of assessment in demonstrating
                 achievement of learning objectives and Degree Level Expectations
               Appropriateness and effectiveness of methods of assessing student achievement
                 of defined learning outcomes and Degree Level Expectations

          5. Resources........................................................................................................................ 2
               Use of program’s use of existing human, physical and financial resources

          6. Quality Indicators ........................................................................................................... 2

          7. Quality Enhancement ..................................................................................................... 2
               Initiatives that have been undertaken to enhance the quality of the program and
                 the sustainability of the initiatives

          8. System of Governance.................................................................................................... 2
               Evidence of a consultative and inclusive governance system used to assess the
                  program and implement changes

          9. Previous Concerns and Recommendations .................................................................... 3
               Previous concerns and recommendations that should be addressed

          10. Areas for Improvement ................................................................................................ 3

Guidelines for the Review Team                                        ii
Cyclical Reviews
Undergraduate Programs
                     Areas for improvement that should be addressed as priorities

          11. Areas for Enhancement ................................................................................................ 3
               Areas that hold promise for enhancement

          12. Academic Services ....................................................................................................... 3
               Academic services that directly contribute to the academic quality of the program

          13. Confidential .................................................................................................................. 3
               Commentary or recommendations on confidential issues, e.g. personnel

          14. Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 3




Guidelines for the Review Team                                       iii
Cyclical Reviews
Undergraduate Programs
CYCLICAL PROGRAM REVIEWS

MEETING INFORMATION


It is required that all reviewers visit at the same time, normally for two days. As appropriate, the
review team shall meet with the following:

    Chair or Director;
    Full-time faculty members (in groups);
    Part-time faculty members (in groups);
    Program students (units should encourage a broad cross section of students to participate in a
     meeting with the review team);
    Associate Dean;
    Dean;
    Associate Vice-President (Academic);
    Provost and Vice-President (Academic), if available;
    Additional meetings may be scheduled at the request of the external review team, Chair of the
     department or individuals.


ROLES AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE REVIEW TEAM

The roles and obligations of the review team include:

    to identify and comment on the program’s notably strong and creative attributes;
    to describe the program’s respective strengths, areas for improvement, and opportunities for
     enhancement;
    to recommend specific steps to be taken to improve the program, distinguishing between
     those the program can itself take with existing resources and those that require external
     action;
    to recognize the University’s autonomy to determine priorities for funding, space, and faculty
     allocation; and,
    to respect the confidentiality required for all aspects of the review process.


REVIEW TEAM REPORT

The review team will submit, to the Office of the Associate Vice-President (Academic), a joint
report, including an Executive Summary, for the program(s) under review, normally within four
weeks of the visit. The report will normally be written primarily by the external reviewer(s), with
input from the internal reviewer. The review team’s report should address the substance of both
the self-study report and the evaluation criteria set out in the self study. The intent of these
reports is to be formative and constructive. The reports are intended to provide counsel rather
than prescriptive courses of action.


The Office of the Associate Vice-President (Academic) will circulate the report to the appropriate
Chair(s) and Dean(s).

Guidelines for the Review Team                   1
Cyclical Reviews
Undergraduate Programs
                                 GUIDELINES FOR THE REVIEW TEAM

Based on information gained from the on-site review, the self study, consultation with members
of the program and the University, independent assessments and all material submitted as part of
the program review, the review team is expected to report on, but is not restricted to the following
issues/questions:

1. Program

    To what extent do the program’s goals and priorities match the academic plan of the
     University?

2. Admission Requirements

    Are the admission requirements appropriately aligned with the learning outcomes of the
     program?

3. Curriculum

    How does the curriculum reflect the current state of the discipline or area of study?
    Is there evidence of significant innovation or creativity in the content and/or delivery of the
     program?
    Are the modes of delivery at meeting learning outcomes appropriate and effective?

4. Teaching and Assessment

    Are the means of assessment in clearly demonstrating achievement of the program learning
     objectives and statement of Degree Level Expectations appropriate and effective?
    Are the methods of assessing student achievement of defined learning Outcomes and Degree
     Level Expectations appropriate and effective?

5. Resources

    Is the program’s use of existing human, physical and financial resources appropriate and
     effective?
    Are there opportunities for more efficient use of existing resources?

6. Quality Indicators

    Please provide context and commentary on the data provided.

7. Quality Enhancement

    Are the initiatives that have been undertaken to enhance the quality of the program (teaching,
     learning and/or research environments) sustainable?

8. System of Governance


Guidelines for the Review Team                     2
Cyclical Reviews
Undergraduate Programs
    Is the governance system used to assess the program and implement changes consultative and
     inclusive?


9. Previous Concerns and Recommendations

    Are there any previous concerns and recommendations related to the program that, in the
     review team’s opinion should be addressed?


10. Areas for Improvement

    Are there areas for improvement related to the program that, in the review team’s opinion,
     should be addressed as priorities?


11. Areas for Enhancement

    Are there areas related to the program that, the review team’s opinion, hold promise for
     enhancement?


12. Academic Services

    Are there academic services that directly contribute to the academic quality of the program?


13. Confidential Section

    Provide any commentary or recommendations on confidential areas.


14. An Executive Summary must be submitted as part of the Report




Guidelines for the Review Team                   3
Cyclical Reviews
Undergraduate Programs

								
To top