Quality Assurance & Formal Program Review Procedure
Quality Assurance & Formal Program Review Procedure
|Department||Academic/Centre for Academic Quality|
|Creation Date||July 17, 2020|
|Approval Date||July 20, 2020|
|Effective Date||September 8, 2020|
The Policy applies to all full-time and part-time programs offered in The Michener Institute of Education at UHN (“Michener”).
This procedure accompanies the Quality Assurance and Formal Program Review Policy to ensure the content and delivery of programs for which a credential is awarded within Michener are responsive, current and relevant in meeting employer, community, student and government needs.
The procedure identifies the process and expectations by which the Quality Assurance and Formal Program Reviews will be conducted.
Quality Assurance Review
The Academic Chair of the program/program cluster will complete the quality assurance review, consisting of a self-assessment, with input from faculty as required. The Applied Educational Research (AER) department will provide the Academic Chair with qualitative and quantitative data (including program-specific and institution- and system-wide indicators) on an annual basis for analysis and reflection. The program will disseminate the information to stakeholders, including faculty, staff, students and Program Advisory Committees. The quality assurance review will inform program quality improvements and revisions and is considered a natural part of the continuous quality improvement (CQI) process. The Academic Chair will document these revisions and receive approval from the Senior Director, Academic Programs. The programs will collaborate with AER to fully realize CQI support requirements across the academic support departments. The quality assurance review may prompt an advancement of a formal program review when program indicators suggest that a deeper review and analysis are required to maintain the quality of the program. All formal program reviews will be approved and signed by the Senior Director, Academic Programs.
Digitized copies of annual quality assurance reviews and reports will be kept on file by the Academic Chair and Centre for Academic Quality (CAQ) for the purposes of accreditation, Postsecondary Education Quality Assessment Board (PEQAB) and University of Toronto Quality Assurance Process (UTQAP) processes where applicable.
Michener’s approach to program quality assurance and improvement involves the program team (faculty and Chair) meeting to discuss and reflect on evidence about the quality of individual courses and program, making plans to improve quality, and following through on those plans. Michener support departments, such as AER, may be invited to join these meetings to support data analysis and interpretation and promote the operationalization of identified CQI priorities. Systematic documentation supports the entire process.
Formal Program Review
The Formal Program Review will examine education outcomes to ensure the effective management and continuous improvement of the program and its delivery. The Formal Program Review will include a self-study supported by an internal Program Review team that includes at least one external member to the program (e.g., a faculty member from another program, school or faculty). The review will provide an in-depth analysis, including quantitative and qualitative data, and be informed by the quality review process. Additional data from stakeholders will be collected and analysed to contribute to recommendations arising from the review process. The input of key stakeholders, including students and graduates of the program and representatives of industry, the professions, employers and Program Advisory Councils (PAC) will be included.
Academic and student support services (e.g., libraries, learning centres, career services, student advising, counselling services, technological infrastructure and applied research) are included in each review.
The Program Review team is responsible for completing the self-study and preparing a final report on the findings, including recommendations, in collaboration with the program. The Academic Chair, in consultation with faculty and staff, will present the final recommendations for approval and resource allocation to the Senior Director, Academic Programs. The Academic Chair will disseminate the final report with approved recommendations and implementation plan to stakeholders. Digitized copies of the report will be kept on file by the Academic Chair and CAQ.
The Academic Chair is responsible for providing regular reports on the progress of the implementation of the approved program review action plan to the Senior Director, Academic Programs as well as relevant stakeholders.
The Senior Director, Academic Quality and Operations will submit an annual report of program review activities to the Board of Governors.
The self-study and report will be provided to the Program External Evaluation Review (PEER) Committee. The Committee will assess the self-study and report to ensure it is a broad-based, reflective and forward-looking report that includes critical self-analysis. The report also includes an assessment of the strengths and challenges facing the program(s), the range of its activities and the nature of its future plans.
The self-study should address the terms of reference and program evaluation objectives, including the PEQAB’s standards for degree offerings, as these will be provided to the external reviewers and will form the basis of their assessment.
Documentation preparation for the Formal Program Review (self-study) and PEER Committee:
The documents submitted to the PEER Committee will include the following elements:
- Formal Program Review self-study Terms of Reference;
- Previous review reports including the administrative response(s); and,
- Any non-institutional required reviews (for example, for professional accreditation, PEQAB or UTQAP) completed since the last review of the program(s).
External reviewers are provided with access to all course outlines and faculty resumes.
The Senior Director, Academic Programs provides the site visit schedule to the PEER Committee. Committee members should visit together. During their visit, provision must be made for the Committee to meet with faculty, students, administrative staff and senior program administrators. The views of employers and professional associates should also be made available to the reviewers.
PEER Committee Report
The PEER Committee submits a report to the Senior Director, Academic Programs, Principal and Executive Vice-President, Education normally within thirty days of the site visit. The PEER Committee’s report should address the substance of both the self-study and the evaluation criteria.
The PEER Committee report is a public document (exclusive of any confidential information) and should be circulated within the program reviewed along with the administrative response and implementation plan from the Academic Chair. Digitized copies of the report will be kept on file by the Academic Chair and CAQ.
|July 17, 2020||Sydney Redpath, Fiona Cherryman, Ann Russell||New procedure introduced to complement Quality Assurance and Formal Program Review Policy.|