university of guelph senate committee on quality assurance ......university of guelph senate...

University of Guelph Senate Committee on Quality Assurance Annual Report 2015-16

Page | 1

Overview of Reporting Principles

The most recent update to the University of Guelph’s Institutional Quality Assurance Process (IQAP)1 was approved by Senate on April 6, 2015, and ratified by the Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance (Quality Council) on October 30, 2015. The IQAP is available on-line from the University Secretariat website2.

The Senate Committee on Quality Assurance (SCQA) is vested with responsibility for institutional quality assurance insofar as it:

[…] Recommends to Senate, for its approval, institutional policies and procedures related to quality assurance. The Committee receives and reviews the Final Assessment Report to ensure that it is complete and complies with the Quality Council’s protocols, as outlined in the Quality Assurance Framework approved by the Council of Ontario Universities. SCQA presents the Final Assessment Reports to Senate as items of information […]3

Additionally, SCQA’s Bylaws stipulate that in fulfilment of its role, it shall prepare an annual report:

2d) Provide an annual report to Senate that includes: i. A presentation of the general principles, guidelines, and methodology used by the

committee in the review of the university’s programs, departments and schools. ii. A status report on the reviews performed during the year in question.

iii. A summary of the key outcomes of the reviews, highlighting trends, issues, or recommendations.

iv. A list of academic programs, departments and schools scheduled for review in the upcoming year.

Subsequently, this report will be provided to the Board of Governors for information.4

Quality Reviews Received in 2015-16

It is important to note that reviews received by the Committee in 2015-16 were conducted in the previous cycle (i.e., the 2014-15 review cycle, in accordance with the Quality Assurance Review Schedule5). The Committee provides regular reports to Senate on the outcome of reviews received throughout the year, as well as one-year follow-up reports from past reviews.

1 Original IQAP document was approved in 2011 (ratified by Quality Council June 3, 2011). 2 Web link: http://bit.ly/1Yj0A8h 3 University of Guelph Institutional Quality Assurance Process V.2 (2015). 4 Senate Committee on Quality Assurance Bylaws (approved by Senate February 22, 2010). 5 Web link: http://bit.ly/20eewlD

https://www.uoguelph.ca/secretariat/office-services-senate-senate-boards-and-standing-committees-committee-quality-assurance/quality-0

http://bit.ly/20eewlD

http://bit.ly/1Yj0A8h

http://bit.ly/20eewlD


Page | 2

2014-15 Quality Review Cycle

During the 2014-2015 cycle, the Committee received and reviewed six (6) of seven (7) quality review reports. One review remains outstanding (at the time of writing this report) and its omission is beyond the control of the SCQA. The Office of Quality Assurance6 continues consultation and support to units and programs whose reviews remain outstanding.

2014-15 Scheduled Reviews Status Presentation to SCQA

Presentation to Senate7

One-Year Follow-Up Report Due

Department of Biomedical Sciences

Pending

Department of Family Relations & Applied Nutrition

Complete May 2, 2016 May 30, 2016 June 1, 2017

Department of Mathematics and Statistics

Complete October 13, 2015 February 8, 2016 February 1, 2017 [Four-year interim report requested for February 1, 2019]

School of Languages and Literatures

Complete October 13, 2015 February 8, 2016 February 1, 2017

School of Hospitality, Food and Tourism Management

Complete November 11, 2015 February 8, 2016 February 1, 2017

Department of Sociology and Anthropology

Complete February 29, 2016 April 4, 2016 April 1, 2017

Bachelor of Science Program Complete November 11, 2015 February 8, 2016 Review of Biological Science major due February 1, 20198

The current quality review process and cycle effectively runs from September to June, and according to the following timeline expectations:

• September 1: Draft self-study report submitted to Internal Review Committee (IRC) Chair and College Dean.

• December – February: Site visit conducted. • February – March: Assessment report forwarded to Dean and Chair; then to Provost. • April – May: Final Assessment Report and Executive Summary submitted for review by SCQA and

provided for information to Senate.

6 As of August 1, 2016 operational changes have shifted responsibility for the IQAP to the Associate Vice-President (Academic) and a new Office of Quality Assurance under the direction of the Director, Academic Programs and Policy. 7 Completed Quality Review Reports (including Final Assessment Report and Executive Summary) are posted on the University Secretariat website: http://bit.ly/1XlGhXw 8 Due to change to IQAP, BSc program will no longer be reviewed independently from specific majors that comprise the degree; one-year follow-up report not required.

http://bit.ly/1XlGhXw


Page | 3

• April – May (one year later): Follow-up report submitted to the Committee and Senate.

Senate and standing committees do not meet between June and August; therefore, reports submitted after the last meeting of the Committee and Senate are brought forward to the next Session of Senate, and reviewed by SCQA during the fall semester.

One-Year Follow-Up Reporting

Overall, all one-year follow-up reports from 2013-14 review cycle were comprehensive and to the satisfaction of SCQA.

2013-14 Review Cycle

Review Report Received by Senate

Follow-Up Report Due

Follow-Up Report Received by SCQA

Follow-Up Report Received by Senate

Department of Management February 9, 2015 February 1, 2016 February 29, 2016

April 4, 2016

Department of Economics and Finance

December 1, 2014

December 1, 2015

September 16, 2015

October 26, 2015

School of Computer Science February 9, 2015 December 1, 2015

Pending

School of Fine Art and Music December 1, 2014

December 1, 2015

February 29, 2016

April 4, 2016

Department of Geography May 21, 2014 June 1, 2015 September 16, 2015

October 26, 2015

Department of History December 1, 2014

December 1, 2015

April 25, 2016 May 30, 2016

Bioinformatics (MSc, MBNF) December 1, 2014

December 1, 2015

Pending

Committee Principles, Guidelines and Methodology for Review of Reports

Although the IQAP was amended in 2015, review reports received by SCQA in 2015-16 were conducted under the former IQAP document. As such, the general principles and methodology used in assessing these reviews were guided by the former IQAP document and related appendices VI and VIII (appended to this report).

SCQA undertook an approach this year whereby a “first reader” and “second reader” were assigned for each review report. The first reader was responsible for providing a comprehensive report to the Committee on the review report in its entirety, including the self-study. The second reader supported this effort and offered additional information to supplement the first reader’s report. The remaining Committee members were responsible for reviewing the review report in its entirety, but not necessarily the self-study. As a result of this approach SCQA was able to engage in more fulsome discussions when considering reports; and, subsequently


Page | 4

allowed for more in-depth feedback and recommendations to be provided within SCQA’s response letters to reviews (letters issued in 2015-16 are appended to this report).

Quality Review Outcomes, Issues and Trends

Delays in the Committee receiving quality review reports continue. While some reporting was delayed due to transition and changes in leadership within the unit, it remains to be determined whether the review cycle and timing expectations should be revisited in order to reflect the emerging trend of reports being received between June and August and subsequently reviewed by SCQA during the Fall semester. This approach would also allow greater time for reports to be received and considered by the deans and the Office of the Provost.

Overall, reports were well-done. SCQA accepted all reports, however, two requests for “interim” reports (i.e., to be received at the mid-point between regular cyclical reviews) represent our attempts at addressing issues and enhancing quality.

The following represents a summary of key issues identified by SCQA in its responses to review reports:

• Learning outcomes and curriculum mapping with an emphasis on program sustainability were key areas of focus and were highlighted in each of the response letters, with emphasis on leveraging the expertise of the Office of Open Learning and Educational Support.

• In some cases, attention to learning outcomes at the graduate level was less advanced than for undergraduate programs.

• In one case, the review report raised questions as to whether departmental graduate policies and requirements conflicted with those of the University (e.g. with respect to times to completion).

• Improvements in access to data in order to support strategic enrolment planning was highlighted as an area of concern and for improvement in several reviews.

• In some cases, the external review went outside the scope of the IQAP (e.g. with respect to resource allocation). SCQA observes the IQAP is intended to focus on curricular quality and sustainability within the parameters of existing resource allocations.

• Review reports from Hospitality, Food and Tourism Management, and Family Relations and Applied Nutrition were particularly comprehensive and well done, in particular with respect to on-going review of curricula.

General Recommendations on the Quality Review Process

The review reports suggest the University continues to address concerns related to learning outcomes and curriculum mapping. It still seems apparent that many units do not fully leverage this process (i.e. curriculum mapping), and its value with a view to enhance quality. SCQA will look to enhance communication with the Board of Undergraduate Studies and Board of Graduate Studies with a view to emphasizing this area of continuing focus.


Page | 5

More efforts need to be engaged across campus to reaffirm the importance of curriculum renewal, learning outcomes and curriculum mapping.

Timely completion of reviews and one-year follow-up reports needs to be monitored continuously. As noted earlier in this report, reassessment of the current review cycle timeframe and related expectations is recommended, particularly given the recent operational changes in the administration of the IQAP.

SCQA will continue to monitor the institutional uses of the current IQAP document to assess its function as a guide for self-studies and quality assurance processes.

Schedule for 2015-16 Review Cycle

Reviews scheduled to be conducted in 2015-16 are listed below:

Department/School Program for Review Degree Designation Animal Biosciences Animal Biology BSc Animal Biosciences Animal Science BSc (Agr) Animal Biosciences Equine Management BBRM Animal Biosciences Animal Biosciences MSc, PhD OVC Doctor of Veterinary Medicine9 DVM SEDRD Landscape Architecture10 BLA SEDRD Landscape Architecture MLA SEDRD Capacity Development & Extension MSc SEDRD Rural Planning & Development MPlan, MSc (Planning) SEDRD Rural Studies PhD Math and Stats Biophysics Interdepartmental Group MSc, PhD OAC Dean's Office Agriculture BSc (Agr) Plant Agriculture Crop, Horticulture and Turfgrass Sciences BSc (Agr) Plant Agriculture Organic Agriculture BSc (Agr) Plant Agriculture Plant Science BSc Plant Agriculture Plant Agriculture MSc, PhD Psychology Psychology BA Psychology Psychology: Brain and Cognition BSc Psychology Psychology MA, MSc, PhD

Extensions to the published schedule are to be granted only under extraordinary circumstances. In such circumstances, the unit must apply to the Provost with the rationale for the request. Extensions are reported to the SCQA so that the official review schedule may be amended, with subsequent notification to Senate and the Quality Council.

9 Accredited program; accreditation review will be accepted for IQAP review 10 Accredited program; accreditation review will be accepted for IQAP review


Page | 6

New Program Submissions

The following new programs were approved by Senate during the 2015-16 session:

Degree Level Program Undergraduate Area of Emphasis in Dietetics (Applied Human Nutrition) Undergraduate Area of Concentration in Psychology Undergraduate Major in Hospitality and Tourism Management11 Graduate Field in Public Heath (PhD Population Medicine) Graduate Field in Mechanical Engineering (MASc/MEng/PhD) Graduate Master of Food, Agricultural and Resources Economics (MFARE) Graduate Master of Biotechnology

Annual Report to the Quality Council on Major Modifications to Programs

Enclosed is the University’s Annual Report to the Quality Council on Major Modifications for Programs for 2015-16, also required as part of the IQAP reporting obligations. The Major Modifications Annual Report is submitted on a standard template received each year from the Quality Council. The major modification categories are defined in the University’s IQAP, based on the Quality Assurance Framework (QAF).

N:\Senate\Standing Committees and Boards\7. Senate Committee on Quality Assurance (SCQA)\Annual Reporting\2015-16\SCQA Annual Report 2015-16_Final.docx

11 Merger of the former majors in Hotel and Food Administration, and Tourism Management

57

Appendix VIObjectives of the Internal Review of Departments/Schools

It is the responsibility of the facilitator of the IRS, in consultation with the Chair of the IRC, toensure that all relevant units have an opportunity to comment on the unit and programs underreview, including relevant program committees, and to ensure that there is sufficient opportunityfor student input. The objectives of the review include, but are not restricted to, an assessment ofthe following as they pertain to each of the undergraduate and graduate programs managed by theunit:

(a) Consonance of the unit's undergraduate and graduate offerings within the general frameworkof the University's mission and strategic directions and with the University’s LearningObjectives, which are consistent with OCAV's Degree Level Expectations.;

(b) The appropriateness of the unit's academic objectives and degree level outcomes expectations,and its ability to meet them;

• Admission requirements are appropriately aligned with the learning outcomesestablished for completion of the program.

• The curriculum reflects the current state of the discipline or area of study.

• Evidence of any significant innovation or creativity in the content and/or deliveryof the program relative to other such programs.

• Mode(s) of delivery to meet the program’s identified learning outcomes areappropriate and effective.

(c) The appropriateness of the pedagogical and evaluation strategies and methods applied to eachof the programs;

• Methods for assessing student achievement of the defined learning outcomes anddegree learning expectations are appropriate and effective.

• Appropriateness and effectiveness of the means of assessment, especially in thestudents' final year of the program, in clearly demonstrating achievement of theprogram learning objectives and the institution's (or the Program’s own) statementof Degree Level Expectations.

(d) The adequacy of the available human, physical, and financial resources to support the unit'sprograms;

• Appropriateness and effectiveness of the unit's use of existing human, physical andfinancial resources in delivering its programs. In making this assessment,reviewers must recognize the institution's autonomy to determine priorities forfunding, space, and faculty allocation.

(e) The unit's definition and application, where possible, of indicators to determine the learningoutcomes of the programs, including applicable provincial, national, and professionalstandards;

• Outcome measures of student performance and achievement are of particularinterest, but there are also important input and process measures which are knownto have a strong association with quality outcomes. It is expected that many of thefollowing listed examples will be widely used.

i) Faculty: qualifications, research and scholarly record; class sizes; percentage ofclasses taught by permanent or non-permanent (contractual) faculty; numbers,assignments and qualifications of part-time or temporary faculty;

ii) Students: applications and registrations; attrition rates; time-to-completion;final-year academic achievement; graduation rates; academic awards; student in-course reports on teaching; and

iii) Graduates: rates of graduation, employment six months and two years aftergraduation, post-graduate study, "skills match" and alumni reports on programquality when available and when permitted by the Freedom of Information andProtection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). Auditors will be instructed that these itemsmay not be available and applicable to all programs.

(f) The management of graduate programs, the quality of supervision, and the quality and level ofscholarly output of graduate students;

• Evidence that students' time-to-completion is both monitored and managed inrelation to the program's defined length and program requirements.

• Quality and availability of graduate supervision.

• Definition and application of indicators that provide evidence of faculty, studentand program quality, for example:

•i) Faculty: funding, honours and awards, and commitment to student mentoring;

ii) Students: grade-level for admission, scholarly output, success rates in provincialand national scholarships, competitions, awards and commitment to professionaland transferable skills;

iii) Program: evidence of a program structure and faculty research that will ensurethe intellectual quality of the student experience; iv) Sufficient graduate level courses that students will be able to meet therequirement that two-thirds of their course requirements be met through courses atthis level.

Appendix VIIIObjectives of the Internal Review of Undergraduate Degree Programs

It is the responsibility of the facilitator of the IRS, in consultation with the Chair of the IRC, toensure that all relevant units have an opportunity to comment on the degree program underreview, including relevant program committees, and to ensure that there is sufficient opportunityfor student input. The objectives of the review include, but are not restricted to, an assessment ofthe following as they pertain to the undergraduate degree program:

(a) Consonance of the undergraduate program within the general framework of the University'smission and strategic directions and with the University’s Learning Objectives, which areconsistent with OCAV's Degree Level Expectations.;

(b) The appropriateness of the program's academic objectives and its ability to meet them;

• Admission requirements are appropriately aligned with the learning outcomesestablished for completion of the program.

• The curricula reflect the current state of the disciplines and areas of study.

• Evidence of any significant innovation or creativity in the content and/or deliveryof the program relative to other such programs.

• Mode(s) of delivery to meet the program’s identified learning outcomes areappropriate and effective.

(c) The appropriateness of the pedagogical and evaluation strategies and methods applied to theprogram;

• Methods for assessing student achievement of the defined learning outcomes anddegree learning expectations are appropriate and effective.

• Appropriateness and effectiveness of the means of assessment, especially in thestudents' final year of the program, in clearly demonstrating achievement of theprogram learning objectives and the institution's (or the Program’s own) statementof Degree Level Expectations.

(d) The adequacy of the available human, physical, and financial resources to support theprogram;

• Appropriateness and effectiveness of the program’s use of existing human,physical and financial resources in delivering it. In making this assessment,reviewers must recognize the institution's autonomy to determine priorities forfunding, space, and faculty allocation.

(e) The definition and application, where possible, of indicators to determine the learningoutcomes of the program, including applicable provincial, national, and professionalstandards;

• Outcome measures of student performance and achievement are of particularinterest, but there are also important input and process measures which are knownto have a strong association with quality outcomes. It is expected that many of thefollowing listed examples will be widely used.

i) Faculty: qualifications, research and scholarly record; class sizes; percentage ofclasses taught by permanent or non-permanent (contractual) faculty; numbers,assignments and qualifications of part-time or temporary faculty;

ii) Students: applications and registrations; attrition rates; time-to-completion;final-year academic achievement; graduation rates; academic awards; student in-course reports on teaching; and

iii) Graduates: rates of graduation, employment six months and two years aftergraduation, post-graduate study, "skills match" and alumni reports on programquality when available and when permitted by the Freedom of Information andProtection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). Auditors will be instructed that these itemsmay not be available and applicable to all programs.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON QUALITY ASSURANCE

GUELPH ▪ ONTARIO ▪ CANADA ▪ N1G 2W1 ▪ 519 824-4120 x 56761 ▪ www.uoguelph.ca/secretariat/senate

January 28, 2016

Professor Statia Elliot Director, School of Hospitality, Food and Tourism Management College of Business and Economics

Dear Professor Elliot:

At its meeting on November 11, 2015 the Senate Committee on Quality Assurance reviewed the School of Hospitality, Food, and Tourism Management’s (HFTM) periodic Quality Review Report, including the Executive Summary and responses from the department, the Dean, and the Provost.

I am pleased to advise the Committee found the report and its recommendations satisfactory, and accepts the report. In fact, Committee members remarked that this review was one of the most comprehensive they have seen as part of the quality assurance process. Well done!

The Committee did offer some comment with respect to curricular renewal, and expressed that while they were pleased with the stage of curriculum revision and renewal within HTFM, there appeared to be some disconnect between the outcomes of curriculum mapping, and some outcomes of the self-study and evaluators’ response (i.e. particularly in the areas of ethics, writing, and critical thinking). The Committee suggests these be considered as curriculum renewal continues to be advanced within HTFM programs.

The Committee highlights the importance of curriculum mapping across programs, and encourages leveraging the ongoing expertise of the Office of Open Learning to help ensure program curricula continue to move forward in sustainable ways.

The Executive Summary of the Internal Review Report for the School of Hospitality, Food, and Tourism Management will be presented to Senate for information on February 8, 2016. The Committee thanks the faculty, staff, and students of HFTM and the College of Business and Economics, as well as the members of the Internal Review Committee and Subcommittee, including the external examiners, for their work on the review.

The Committee looks forward to receiving the School of Hospitality, Food and Tourism Management’s one-year follow up report, which is due on February 1, 2017.

Yours truly,

Mark Lipton Chair, Senate Committee on Quality Assurance

Cc: Dr. Charlotte Yates, Provost and Vice-President (Academic) Dr. Anthony Clarke, Assistant Vice-President, Graduate Studies and Program Quality Assurance Dr. Julia Christensen-Hughes, Dean, College of Business and Economics

N:\Senate\Standing Committees and Boards\7. Senate Committee on Quality Assurance (SCQA)\Quality Review Reports\Responses to Review Reports\2015-16\SCQA Response Letter_School of HFTM_2016 January.docx


GUELPH ▪ ONTARIO ▪ CANADA ▪ N1G 2W1 ▪ 519 824-4120 ▪ www.uoguelph.ca/secretariat/senate

January 28, 2016 Professor Julie Horrocks Chair, Department of Mathematics and Statistics College of Physical and Engineering Science

Dear Professor Horrocks,

At its meeting on October 13, 2015 the Senate Committee on Quality Assurance reviewed the Department of Mathematics and Statistics’ periodic Quality Review Report, including the Executive Summary and responses from the department, the Dean, and the Provost. We acknowledge a job well done and commend the department on its commitment to renewal and growth.

The Committee has accepted the report, with a proviso that a “mid-term” interim report. The Committee appreciates that the internal review process occurred during a period of transition in leadership, which may have hampered adequate reflection. Given the report outlines a number of recommendations related to the department’s new undergraduate programs (BA and BSc), the Committee will look forward to a detailed one-year follow-up report that addresses the concerns raised in the review, as well as the comments offered below.

In addition, because the evaluation was unable to review the BA and BSc programs due to the suspension of the undergraduate majors at the time of review, the Committee requests a “mid-term” interim internal review report, including an abbreviated self-study on the new BA and BSc programs, to be submitted February 1st, 2019 (i.e. the mid-point before the next scheduled periodic review is due). This review should focus specifically on (1) the department’s progress, (2) attention to reviewers’ recommendations, (3) commitment to renewal, (4) program development, and (5) integration of learning outcomes and curriculum mapping. Inclusion of detailed data is not required at this time unless appropriate.

In particular, the Committee offers the following comments:

• The Committee observed that while learning outcomes and curriculum mapping werereferenced with respect to the undergraduate curriculum review, this exercise had not beenundertaken at the graduate level. The Committee requests that an integrated strategy forlearning outcomes within undergraduate and graduate level programs, be addressed in theone-year review report.

• The Committee highlights the importance of curriculum mapping across programs, andsuggests that leveraging the expertise in the Office of Open Learning may be of benefit inthis regard and to help ensure program curricula move forward in sustainable ways.

• The one-year follow-up report should provide information on how the recommendationsrelated to graduate programming are being addressed.

• The Committee requests that the one-year follow-up report provide verified data anddescriptive clarification of information related to times to completion (i.e., Figure 7 and 8within the Self-Study Report).

• The Committee requests that the response and subsequent reports attend to issues ofprogram/s sustainability; the recommendation regarding class offerings (recommendation“g”), in particular, requires further reflection in relation to sustainability of the programs.

• The Committee observed that some recommendations of the external reviewers (i.e. withrespect to resource allocation) are outside the purview of the IQAP, which focuses oncurricular quality and sustainability within the parameters of existing resource allocations.

The Committee commends the department, particularly during a time of transition, for its positive developments, and approach to rejuvenation and continuous improvement of programs. We look forward to learning how the revitalized program has progressed, in the mid-term report.

The Executive Summary of the Internal Review Report for the Department of Mathematics and Statistics will be presented to Senate for information on February 8, 2016. The Committee thanks the faculty, staff, and students of the department and the College of Physical and Engineering Sciences, as well as the members of the Internal Review Committee and Subcommittee, including the external examiners, for their work on the review.

The Committee looks forward to receiving the Department of Mathematics and Statistics’ one-year follow up report, which is due on February 1, 2017, and the four-year interim review report on February 1, 2019.

Yours truly,

Mark Lipton Chair, Senate Committee on Quality Assurance

Cc: Dr. Charlotte Yates, Provost and Vice-President (Academic) Dr. Anthony Clarke, Assistant Vice-President, Graduate Studies and Program Quality Assurance Dr. Anthony Vannelli, Dean, College of Physical and Engineering Science



January 28, 2016

Professor Brian Husband Associate Dean Academic, College of Biological Science Co-Chair, B.Sc. Program Committee

Dear Professor Husband:

At its meeting on November 11, 2015 the Senate Committee on Quality Assurance reviewed the Bachelor of Science Degree Program’s periodic Quality Review Report, including the Executive Summary and responses from the B.Sc. Program Committee, the Dean, and the Provost. We acknowledge a job well done and commend the B.Sc. Program Committee on its commitment to continued growth and curricular review.

The Senate Committee on Quality Assurance has accepted the report, and offers the following comments:

• The Committee observed that significant work has occurred with respect to learningoutcomes and curriculum mapping, and commends the B.Sc. Program for this continuingwork and learner-centered approach.

• The Committee highlights the importance of curriculum mapping across programs, andencourages leveraging the ongoing expertise of the Office of Open Learning to help ensureprogram curricula move forward in sustainable ways.

• The Committee applauds the B.Sc. Program’s innovative approaches to providing effectivestudent support within a large program, in particular the employment of the Student SuccessSystem; and, also supports the recommendation to re-examine the advisory structure for theBiological Science Major and Physical Science Major.

• The Committee supports the reviewers’ recommendations with respect to improving accessto data, to support strategic planning around admissions.

• Further to the reviewers’ recommendation and the significance of the Biological SciencesMajor to the B.Sc. program, the Committee requests that a focused review be conducted forthe Major in Biological Sciences, after a period of three years (2019).

The Executive Summary of the Internal Review Report for the Bachelor of Science Degree Program will be presented to Senate for information on February 8, 2016. The Committee thanks the faculty, staff, and students of the B.Sc. Program and the five deans responsible for the B.Sc. program, as well as the members of the Internal Review Committee and Subcommittee, including the external examiners, for their work on the review. Due to recent changes in the IQAP, the Bachelor of Science Degree Program will no longer be reviewed independently from the specific majors that make up the degree. As a result, the Bachelor of Science Degree Program Committee is not required to submit a one year follow-up report. However, as noted above, the Biological Science Major is requested to submit a focused review, after a period of three-years. The Committee looks forward to receiving the review report on the Biological Science Major, which is due on February 1, 2019. Yours truly,

Mark Lipton Chair, Senate Committee on Quality Assurance Cc: Dr. Charlotte Yates, Provost and Vice-President (Academic)

Dr. Anthony Clarke, Assistant Vice-President, Graduate Studies and Program Quality Assurance Dr. Jonathan Newman, Dean, College of Biological Science Dr. Anthony Vannelli, Dean, College of Physical and Engineering Sciences Dr. Belinda Leach, Acting Dean, College of Social & Applied Human Sciences Dr. Wayne Caldwell, Interim Dean, Ontario Agricultural College Dr. Jeff Witchel, Dean, Ontario Veterinary College

N:\Senate\Standing Committees and Boards\7. Senate Committee on Quality Assurance (SCQA)\Quality Review Reports\Responses to Review Reports\2015-16\SCQA Response Letter_BSc Program_2016 January (FINAL).docx



January 28, 2016 Professor Ruediger Mueller Director, School of Languages and Literatures College of Arts Dear Professor Mueller: At its meeting on October 13, 2015 the Senate Committee on Quality Assurance reviewed the School of Languages and Literatures’ periodic Quality Review Report, including the Executive Summary and responses from the department, the Dean, and the Provost. We acknowledge a job well done and commend the School of Languages and Literatures on its commitment to renewal and growth. The Committee has accepted the report, and offers the following comments:

• The Committee observed that curriculum mapping was inconsistent across programs, and

suggests that leveraging the expertise in the Office of Open Learning may be of benefit in this regard and to help ensure program curricula move forward in sustainable ways.

• With respect to the MA in French Studies, the Committee noted that no students were admitted to the program in 2014-15, and recommends the One-year Follow-up Report elaborate on the sustainability of the program and how this will be addressed (including plans for recruitment).

• With respect to the two programs deemed to meet “most expectations” (i.e. MA in French Studies, Hispanic Studies – BA Major and Minor), the Committee requests that the issues raised by the reviewers be addressed in the One-year Follow-up Report.

The Executive Summary of the Internal Review Report for the School of Languages and Literatures will be presented to Senate for information on February 8, 2016. The Committee thanks the faculty, staff, and students of the School of Languages and Literatures and the College of Arts, as well as the members of the Internal Review Committee and Subcommittee, including the external examiners, for their work on the review.

The Committee looks forward to receiving the School of Languages and Literatures’ one-year follow up report, which is due on February 1, 2017. Yours truly,


Dr. Anthony Clarke, Assistant Vice-President, Graduate Studies and Program Quality Assurance Dr. Donald Bruce, Dean, College of Arts

N:\Senate\Standing Committees and Boards\7. Senate Committee on Quality Assurance (SCQA)\Quality Review Reports\Responses to Review Reports\2015-16\SCQA Response Letter_School of Languages and Literatures_2016 January.docx



March 23, 2016 Professor Joseph Tindale Interim Chair, Department of Sociology and Anthropology College of Social and Applied Human Sciences Dear Professor Tindale: At its meeting on February 29, 2016 the Senate Committee on Quality Assurance reviewed the Department of Sociology and Anthropology’s (SOAN) periodic Quality Review Report, including the Executive Summary and responses from the department, the Dean, and the Provost. I am pleased to advise the Committee found the report and its recommendations satisfactory, and accepts the report. The Committee offers some comment with respect to ongoing revisions of curricula and is pleased to see strong attention to learning outcomes, particularly at the undergraduate level. However, curriculum review needs to proceed in a timely manner with attention to the recommendations that can be operationalized with a view to ongoing renewal. The Committee urges the department to address the challenges resulting from disproportionate enrolments among its undergraduate programs. The principle of cross-disciplinary integration deserves serious exploration and attention. This attention is also required at the graduate level, and the department is encouraged to leverage the ongoing expertise of the Office of Open Learning to help ensure graduate program curricula move forward in sustainable ways. In your review of graduate programs, please ensure department graduate policies and requirements do not conflict with those of the University. Resources are available through the Office of Graduate Studies, should additional support be required. The Committee looks forward to learning about progress in this regard in your one-year follow-up report. The Committee agrees with the reviewers’ recommendations regarding assurance that all upper year students have at least one class with a full-time faculty member, and emphasizes the importance of such. In addition, it is suggested the department map out and establish clear ways of assigning service commitments to ensure equitable workloads and opportunities for participation amongst all faculty.

It is hoped that the new stability in leadership will address and resolve these and other past systemic challenges. The Executive Summary of the Internal Review Report for the Department of Sociology and Anthropology will be presented to Senate for information on April 4, 2016. The Committee thanks the faculty, staff, and students of SOAN and the College of Social and Applied Human Sciences, as well as the members of the Internal Review Committee and Subcommittee, including the external examiners, for their work on the review. The Committee looks forward to receiving the Department of Sociology and Anthropology one-year follow up report, which is due on April 1, 2017. Yours truly,


Dr. Anthony Clarke, Assistant Vice-President, Graduate Studies and Program Quality Assurance Dr. Gwen Chapman, Dean, College of Social and Applied Human Sciences

N:\Senate\Standing Committees and Boards\7. Senate Committee on Quality Assurance (SCQA)\Quality Review Reports\Responses to Review Reports\2015-16\SCQA Response Letter_SOAN_2016 March.docx



May 20, 2016

Professor Michael Nightingale Interim Chair, Department of Family Relations and Applied Nutrition College of Social and Applied Human Sciences Dear Professor Nightingale: At its meeting on May 2, 2016 the Senate Committee on Quality Assurance reviewed the periodic Quality Review Report of the Department of Family Relations and Applied Nutrition (FRAN), including the Executive Summary and responses from the department, the Dean, and the Provost. I am pleased to advise the Committee found the report and its recommendations satisfactory; the report is accepted. Committee members remarked on the incredibly positive feedback offered by the reviewers. I highlight the committee’s appreciative response to the alignment of the department’s programs with the University and College’s goals and priorities. The Committee applauds the department’s ongoing work with regard to learning outcomes. FRAN’s undergraduate programs and requisite learning outcomes are clear and thoughtfully applied. The Committee is pleased to learn that an assessment of graduate programs with a view to development of learning outcomes is planned and highlights the importance of mapping curricula across programs, as well as leveraging the expertise of the Office of Open Learning. The Committee offers some comment with respect to the ADEV program; concerns were raised with respect to enrolment echoing the reviewers’ recommendation to consider ways to enhance information and support for future career paths. In addition, the committee suggests further consideration be paid to teaching allocations and formal research experiences as part of on-going curricular review. The Executive Summary of the Internal Review Report for the Department of Sociology and Anthropology will be presented to Senate for information on May 30, 2016. The Committee thanks the faculty, staff, and students of FRAN and the College of Social and Applied Human Sciences, as well as the members of the Internal Review Committee and Subcommittee, including the external examiners, for their work on the review.

The Committee looks forward to receiving the Department of Family Relations and Applied Nutrition one-year follow up report, which is due on June 1, 2017. Yours truly,


Dr. Anthony Clarke, Assistant Vice-President, Graduate Studies and Program Quality Assurance Dr. Gwen Chapman, Dean, College of Social and Applied Human Sciences

N:\Senate\Standing Committees and Boards\7. Senate Committee on Quality Assurance (SCQA)\Quality Review Reports\Responses to Review Reports\2015-16\SCQA Response Letter_FRAN_2016 May.docx

University:Reporting Year:Date Submitted:Institutional Contact:Telephone Number:Email Address:

Name of Program Modified Degree Designation Classification of Major Modification Type of Major Modification Brief Description of the Major ModificationDate of Internal

Approval (MM/DD/YYYY)

Date the Major Modification becomes Effective (MM/DD/YYYY)

Sociology and Anthropology MA.SOC Graduate Add new field, concentration, stream Addition of new field - Diversity and Social Inequality 10-26-2015 10-26-2015Sociology and Anthropology PHD.SOC Graduate Add new field, concentration, stream Addition of new field - Diversity and Social Inequality 10-26-2015 10-26-2015Molecular and Cellular Biology PHD.MCB Graduate Change course/exam requirements Change to structure of qualifying exam 10-26-2015 9-29-2015

Animal Biosciences PHD.ABSC Graduate Change program nameProgram name change from Animal and Poultry Science to Animal Biosciences

2-2-2016 5-1-2016

Animal Biosciences MSC.ABSC Graduate Change program nameProgram name change from Animal and Poultry Science to Animal Biosciences

2-2-2016 5-1-2016

Philosophy MA.PHIL Graduate Change course/exam requirements Course requirements changed in order to complete program in 1 year 2-2-2016 9-1-2016Food, Agriculture and Resource Economics MFARE.FARE Graduate New degree designation Change degree designation from MSC.FARE to MFARE 2-8-2016 9-1-2016Food, Agriculture and Resource Economics MFARE.FARE Graduate Add course based option addition of course based option to MFARE 2-8-2016 9-1-2016Management PHD.MGMT Graduate Change course/exam requirements Degree requirement change for PhD in Management 4-4-2016 9-1-2016Management GDIP.ACCT Graduate Add Graduate diploma Add Type 3 graduate diploma in Accounting 2-8-2016 5-1-2017Environmental Sciences GDIP.ENVS Graduate Closure of a field, option Deletion of graduate diploma (Type 3) in Environmental Sciences 4-4-2016 5-1-2017

International Development (Collaborative) PHD.IDEV Graduate Change course/exam requirementsMinimum grade requirement increased to 75% for Ph.D. course requirements

5-9-2016 9-1-2016

International Development (Collaborative) MPH.PHLT:L+IDEV Graduate Add new unit to collaborative programMaster of Public Health aded to International Development collaborative program

4-27-2016 9-1-2016

International Development (Collaborative) MSC.POPM:L+IDEV Graduate Add new unit to collaborative programCourse work Masters in Population Medicine added to International Development collaborative program

4-27-2016 9-1-2016

International Development (Collaborative) PhD.PHIL+IDEV Graduate Add new unit to collaborative programCourse work Masters in Philosophy added to International Development collaborative program

11-3-2015 1-1-2016

Population Medicine PHD.POPM Graduate Add new field, concentration, stream Add new field, Public Health in the PhD program in Population Medicine 5-30-2016 9-1-2016

Engineering PHD.ENGG Graduate Add new field, concentration, stream Addition of new field, Mechanical Engineering in the PhD program 5-30-2016 9-1-2016

Engineering MASC.ENGG Graduate Add new field, concentration, streamAddition of new field, Mechanical Engineering in the Masters research based program

5-30-2016 9-1-2016

Engineering MENG.ENGG Graduate Add new field, concentration, streamAddition of new field, Mechanical Engineering in the Masters course based program

5-30-2016 9-1-2016

Rural Planning and Development MSC.RPD Graduate Add course based optionAdd course work option for MSc(Planning) in Rural Planning and Development

5-30-2016 9-1-2016

Media and Cinema Studies B.A. Undergraduate Add new minor New minor in Media and Cinema Studies 10-26-2015 5-1-2016

Kinesiology B.A.Sc. Undergraduate Revision to admission requirementsAdmission changes required as a result of Ministry of Education modificiations in Health and Physical Education curriculum 11-30-2015 11-30-2015

Arts, Culture and Heritage Management B.A. Undergraduate Add new minor New minor in Arts, Culture and Heritage Management 4-4-2016 5-1-2017Studio Art B.A. Undergraduate Add new minor Reinstatement of minor in Studio Art (SART) 4-4-2016 5-1-2017

Hotel and Food Administration B.Comm. Undergraduate Revision to admission requirements Remove background information sheet as part of the admission process 4-4-2016 5-1-2016

Tourism Management B.Comm. Undergraduate Revision to admission requirements Remove background information sheet as part of the admission process 4-4-2016 5-1-2016

Hospitality and Tourism Management B.Comm. Undergraduate Merge two or more programs

Merged Tourism Management and Hotel and Food Administration to create a combined major, in Hospitality and Tourism Management, with Areas of Emphasis and with Co-op Option 4-4-2016 5-1-2017

Guelph2015-2016

Patricia Tersigni, Director, Academic Programs and Policy519-824-4120 [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Tourism Management B.Comm. Undergraduate Closure of a programDeletion of program to create a combined major, Hospitality and Tourism Management 4-4-2016 9-1-2017

Hotel and Food Administration B.Comm. Undergraduate Closure of a programDeletion of program and coop option to create a combined major, Hospitality and Tourism Management 4-4-2016 5-1-2017

Marketing Management B.Comm. Undergraduate Revision of admission requirements

remove the recommendation that high school applicants interested in pursuing the Bachelor of Commerce, Marketing Management program take Economics and/or Administrative or Organizational Studies and/or Accounting at the secondary school level to reflect current practice 4-4-2016 5-1-2016

Leadership and Organizational Management B.Comm. Undergraduate Revision to admission requirements Remove one additional 4U Mathematics course requirment 5-30-2016 6-1-2016

Applied Human Nutrition B.A.Sc. UndergraduateAdd specialization, honours, option, concentration, stream

New Area of emphasis in Dietetics and allow students within the major to declare a minor 5-30-2016 6-1-2017

Family and Community Social Services B.A.Sc. Undergraduate Revision to admission requirementsRemove OCSWSSW requirement which is not required for a Family & Community Social Services Degree 5-30-2016 6-1-2016

Justice and Public Safety B.A.A. Undergraduate Change program nameName change of Specialization in Justice Studies to Specialization in Justice and Public Safety to reflect curriculum and area of focus 5-30-2016 5-1-2017

Psychology B.A.G UndergraduateAdd specialization, honours, option, concentration, stream New area of concentration in Psychology, 3 Year General Program 5-30-2016 5-1-2017

Psychology B.A. Undergraduate Change course/program requirementsChanges to the program requirements as a result of IQAP cyclical review, the BA in Psychology 5-30-2016 5-1-2017

Creative Writing B.A. Undergraduate Add new minor New minor in Creative Writing 5-30-2016 5-1-2017

Adult Development B.A.Sc. Undergraduate Add new pathway for college students Amendment to the Articulation Agreement with Conestoga College ITAL 5-30-2016 6-1-2016

Child, Youth and Family B.A.Sc. Undergraduate Add new pathway for college students Amendment to the Articulation Agreement with Conestoga College ITAL 5-30-2016 6-1-2016Philosophy B.A. Undergraduate Change course/program requirements Updated and simplified undergraduate curriculum 5-30-2016 5-1-2017

university of guelph senate committee on quality assurance ......university of guelph senate...

Documents