Institutional Quality Assurance Process

Definitions and Levels of Approval


Certificate Program

Graduate

Undergraduate


Collaborative/Joint Program

Graduate

Undergraduate


Diploma Program

Graduate

Undergraduate


Field

Graduate

Undergraduate


Major Modification

Graduate

Undergraduate


Minor Revision

Graduate

Undergraduate


Module

Graduate

Undergraduate


New Program

Graduate

Undergraduate

Program Evaluations

The Internal Reviewers will submit the Draft Final Assessment / Executive Summary to the Chair of SUPR-G, along with one of the following preliminary recommendations regarding the evaluation of the program.  SUPR-G will then determine how the program will be recommended to SCAPA. At this stage, SUPR-G may make changes and recommendations to the Executive Summary. 

Good Quality

These programs have achieved a level of good quality and are expected to retain that level of quality over the next seven-year period. Such programs are approved to continue. Periodic appraisals lead to a classification of Good Quality if the program’s objectives are appropriate and are being met; the core faculty provide intellectual leadership in the disciplinary area(s) of the program through active engagement in research and scholarship; the faculty complement is appropriate for the level and scope of the program and its identifiable fields, and there are appropriate provisions and/or plans for its continuing vitality; the curriculum design is appropriate; the resources, such as laboratories, libraries, computer facilities, and research support, are appropriate; enrolments are commensurate with the resources available; students complete the program in a timely fashion; there is evidence of appropriate financial support for students; and there is demonstration of the quality of the educational experience of students, including intellectual development, the acquisition of relevant skills, and the attainment of the appropriate degree level expectations. 

Good Quality with Report

 These programs have achieved a level of good quality (see above) at the time of the appraisal; however, factors that could have an impact on the future quality of the program require monitoring in the succeeding seven-year cycle. Retirements of senior faculty or newly introduced developments in curriculum are examples of such factors. Programs in this category are approved to continue with a report called for by a specific date (usually 2 or 3 years).  

Conditionally Approved

These programs require improvements to meet the quality standard. They receive conditional approval at the time of the appraisal and full approval when the SUPR-G is satisfied that the improvements have been made. Normally, a report is required after 2 or 3 years.   In some cases, the committee may recommend that the university cease admitting new students to the program until certain specified conditions are met. 

Not Approved

These programs fail to meet the quality standard and admissions must be suspended. They require major improvements, such as the addition of a number of new faculty or significant new library or laboratory resources, to achieve the quality standard.  A successful standard appraisal is mandatory for the reinstatement of the program.