2002 program review undergraduate programs committee 2015-10-22 01:19 undergraduate programs review...
TRANSCRIPT
2002 Program reviewUndergraduate programs committee23-04-20 02:38
Undergraduate programs reviewUndergraduate programs review(1995-2002)(1995-2002)
Department of Biology
2002 Program reviewUndergraduate programs committee23-04-20 02:38
Time lineTime line
• June 15: Auto-evaluation, suggestion of external examiners
• July-October: Internal review, resubmission of edited report
• Nov02-Feb03: External review (visit)• Spring 2003: Senate judgment, reception of
external reports
2002 Program reviewUndergraduate programs committee23-04-20 02:38
EnrollmentsEnrollments
• Enrollments in Biology programs relatively stable (Figure 1 on page 5)
• Enrollments in Biology courses increase (Figure 2 on page 6)
• Acute pressure on our laboratories:
between 1996 and 2001, the number of students hours in labs increased by 25% (Table 2 on page 7). Projections for 2002-2003 suggest a further 30% increase, and that before the arrival of the double cohort
2002 Program reviewUndergraduate programs committee23-04-20 02:38
Program registrations Student-hours in BIO courses
2002 Program reviewUndergraduate programs committee23-04-20 02:38
2002 Program reviewUndergraduate programs committee23-04-20 02:38
Student-hours in BIO labs
2002 Program reviewUndergraduate programs committee23-04-20 02:38
2002 Program reviewUndergraduate programs committee23-04-20 02:38
Excellent Good Fair Poor Fail
Excellent Good Fair Poor Fail
Writing skills
Speaking skills
Study and learning skills
Thinking logically and analytically
Working independently
Ability to co-operate and work in groups
Research skills
Skills for planning and completing
projects
Identifying and solving problems
Academic preparation for employment
Leadership skills
How would you grade the University for its contribution to your personal growth and development in each of the following?
FacultyDepartment
2002 Program reviewUndergraduate programs committee23-04-20 02:38
Recommendation 1: Articulation of Recommendation 1: Articulation of objectives (skills)objectives (skills)
• Individuals involved in the delivery of BIO programs participate in a retreat to – 1) evaluate the extent to which the program
objectives are attained within each stream and – 2) identify remedial actions necessary to improve
our programs.
2002 Program reviewUndergraduate programs committee23-04-20 02:38
Recommendation 2: Language skillsRecommendation 2: Language skills
• That we develop a mechanism to improve student’s mastery of their main language.
Such a mechanism will probably involve formal training beyond the framework already provided in laboratories, and incorporation of more write-rewrite exercices
2002 Program reviewUndergraduate programs committee23-04-20 02:38
Recommendation 3: ContentsRecommendation 3: Contents
• That we reexamine both the content and the articulation of this content among courses.
2002 Program reviewUndergraduate programs committee23-04-20 02:38
Instruction hours for Honours in EcologyInstruction hours for Honours in Ecology
2002 Program reviewUndergraduate programs committee23-04-20 02:38
Recommendations 4, 13: LabsRecommendations 4, 13: Labs
• That we reassess the role and effectiveness of laboratories in the context of the development of general skills and that we consider the introduction of tutorials focusing on these skills.
• That needs for teaching laboratory space be reassessed taking into account the desirable increase in laboratory/tutorial hours in BIO programs.
2002 Program reviewUndergraduate programs committee23-04-20 02:38
Recommendation 5: BilingualismRecommendation 5: Bilingualism
• That the Honours degree be designed for students whose career plans aim at continued studies and research in Biology, while the Concentration degree is designed for those with other career paths. – All courses required for the Concentration degree
could be offered in both languages, and advanced courses for the Honours degree would be offered only in English.
– This would recognize both the linguistic mandate of the University, and the reality of research in Biology
2002 Program reviewUndergraduate programs committee23-04-20 02:38
Recommendations 6, 7: Seminars, Recommendations 6, 7: Seminars, sessionalssessionals
• That speakers selection and scheduling for seminars take more into consideration the needs and interests of undergraduate students, and that we explore the possibilities to link undergraduate courses to seminars.
• That we explore arrangements with scientists in the region to better tap their expertise and thus enrich our program.
2002 Program reviewUndergraduate programs committee23-04-20 02:38
Recommendations 8-11: Student advisingRecommendations 8-11: Student advising
• That all errors in the data used by the online system be corrected immediately, and that obsolete information be removed from the University web.
• That we examine avenues to better communicate the structure and goals of our program to students as soon as they enter the university, maybe by having a workshop during orientation week.
• That advising documents be prepared, minimally for each of the 3 major streams, and that they be published on the department web site.
• That information about BIO course outlines be included in the redesign of the departmental web page to occur in 2002-2003.
2002 Program reviewUndergraduate programs committee23-04-20 02:38
Very satisfied
Satisfied Dissatisfied Verydissatisfied
Very satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied
Verydissatisfied
Quality of teaching
Intellectually stimulation
Overall quality of education received from department
Quality of courses offered
Number of students in your classes
Instructional facilities (classrooms, labs, equipment, etc.)
Registration process
Process for changing courses
Process for choosing course sections
Course or program advising from your department
Tutoring servicesFacultyDepartment
How satisfied are you with each of the following aspects of the University?
2002 Program reviewUndergraduate programs committee23-04-20 02:38
Recommendation 12: Class sizeRecommendation 12: Class size
• That class sizes for at least some 3000 and 4000 level courses in each stream be reduced, for example by creating multiple sections, in order to facilitate discussions and oral presentations.
2002 Program reviewUndergraduate programs committee23-04-20 02:38
English,1995-1998
0 100 200 300 400 500Class size
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Fre
qu
en
cy
English,1999-2001
0 100 200 300 400 500Class size
0
1
2
3
4
Fre
qu
en
cy
Français,1995-1998
0 100 200 300 400 500Class size
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Fre
qu
en
cy
Français,1999-2001
0 100 200 300 400 500Class size
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Fre
qu
en
cy
1000
2002 Program reviewUndergraduate programs committee23-04-20 02:38
English,1995-1998
0 100 200 300Class size
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Fre
qu
en
cy
English,1999-2001
0 100 200 300Class size
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Fre
qu
en
cy
Français,1995-1998
0 100 200 300Class size
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Fre
qu
en
cy
Français,1999-2001
0 100 200 300Class size
0
5
10
15
Fre
qu
en
cy
2000
2002 Program reviewUndergraduate programs committee23-04-20 02:38
English,1995-1998
0 50 100 150Class size
0
5
10
15
20
Fre
qu
en
cy
English,1999-2001
0 50 100 150Class size
0
5
10
15
20
Fre
qu
en
cy
Français,1995-1998
0 50 100 150Class size
0
4
8
12
16
Fre
qu
en
cy
Français,1999-2001
0 50 100 150Class size
0
5
10
15
20
Fre
qu
en
cy
3000
2002 Program reviewUndergraduate programs committee23-04-20 02:38
English,1995-1998
0 20 40 60 80 100 120Class size
0
5
10
15
20
25
Fre
qu
en
cy
English,1999-2001
0 20 40 60 80 100 120Class size
0
5
10
15
20
Fre
qu
en
cy
Français,1995-1998
0 20 40 60 80 100 120Class size
0
1
2
3
Fre
qu
en
cy
Français,1999-2001
0 20 40 60 80 100 120Class size
0
1
2
3
4
Fre
qu
en
cy
4000
2002 Program reviewUndergraduate programs committee23-04-20 02:38
0 100 200 300 400 500Number of students
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Pro
port
ion
o f c
ours
e s
1000
3000 4000
2000
French
English
0 100 200 300Number of students
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Pro
p ort
ion
o f c
o urs
es
0 50 100 150Number of students
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Pro
port
ion
o f c
ours
e s
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Number of students
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f co
urs
es