New Program Approvals

MCU - Ministry of Colleges and Universities

SGPS - School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies

OAQE - Office of Academic Quality and Enhancement

GEC - Graduate Education Council

ACA - Senate Committee on Academic Curriculum and Awards

SUPR-G - ACA Subcommittee on Program Review – Graduate

SUPR-U - ACA Subcommittee on Program Review – Undergraduate

1. The proposal is developed by the academic unit(s).

2. Proposals are subject to Faculty-level internal review and approval processes. For graduate programs, the SGPS conducts a review prior to submission.

3. The proposal for a new program is received by SUPR-U/SUPR-G. The Chair(s) of SUPR-U/ SUPR-G appoint(s) internal reviewers and external reviewers to review the proposal and conduct a site visit. The external reviewers submit a written report of the review.

4. The external reviewers’ report is shared with the academic unit(s)/program and the Faculty for the provision of separate written responses. The internal reviewer (faculty member), in collaboration with the OAQE, will prepare a Final Assessment Report of the review for SUPR-U/SUPR-G.

5. On the basis of the external reviewers’ report, the academic unit(s)/program and the Faculty-level responses to the report, and the Final Assessment Report, SUPR-U /SUPR-G makes a recommendation to ACA.

6. ACA reviews the report of SUPR-U/SUPR-G and, if approved, forwards to Senate.

7. Senate approves the new program.

8. The OAQE submits the proposal to the QC for approval.

9. The proposal is submitted to the Ministry of Colleges and Universities for funding purposes, where applicable.

10. The new program is monitored via the continuous improvement plan outlined in the program proposal and by an Ongoing Improvement Progress Report submitted to the OAQE.

11. The first cyclical review occurs within eight years of the first enrolment into the program.

For proposed new undergraduate programs/modules, academic units must submit a letter of intent to the Office of the Vice-Provost, Academic Programs (Chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Program Review – Undergraduate [SUPR-U]) in order to determine the submission form to use in preparation for review by SUPR-U. Please see the “Undergraduate Program/Module Proposal Submission Process” at the following link for a description of the steps and copies of the submission form templates.

For proposed new graduate programs, academic units must meet with relevant SGPS members to initiate discussion. Following discussion of the proposed program with the VP (SGPS) or designate, the unit must prepare a New Program Proposal Brief for review conducted by SUPR-G.

New Program Proposal Briefs must describe unique curriculum or program innovations, creative components, and/or significant high impact practices, and are required to address the evaluation criteria as set out by the QAF. To facilitate this process, new Program Proposal Briefs must follow templates provided by the OAQE.

Program Objectives

Proposals for new undergraduate or graduate degree programs are evaluated against the following criteria.

a) Clarity of the program’s objectives;

b) Appropriateness of the degree nomenclature given the program’s objectives; and

c) Consistency of the program’s objectives with Western’s mission, values, strategic priorities, and academic plans.

Program Requirements

a) Appropriateness of the program's structure and the requirements to meet its objectives and program-level learning outcomes;

b) Appropriateness of the program’s structure, requirements and program learning outcomes in relation to the Western Degree Outcomes or the graduate degree level expectations;

c) Appropriateness of the proposed mode(s) of delivery (e.g., classroom format, online,  blended, community-engaged learning, problem-based, compressed part-time, multi-campus,  inter-institutional) to facilitate students’ successful completion of the program-level learning  outcomes;

d) Ways in which the curriculum addresses the current state of the discipline or area of study;  and

e) Ways in which the program actions Western’s commitment to Equity, Diversity, Inclusion (EDI), decolonization and Indigenization.

Program Requirements Specific to Graduate Programs

a) Clear rationale for program length that ensures that students can complete the program-level learning outcomes and requirements within the proposed time (with a maximum of 6 terms for master’s programs and 12 terms for doctoral programs);

b) Evidence that each graduate student in the program is required to take a minimum of two- thirds of the course requirements from among graduate-level courses; and

c) For research-focused graduate programs, indication of the nature and suitability of the major research requirements for degree completion.

Assessment of Teaching and Learning

a) Appropriateness of the methods for assessing student achievement of the program-level learning outcomes and the Western Degree Outcomes or the graduate degree level expectations; and

b) Appropriateness of the plans to monitor and assess:
     i. the overall quality of the program;
     ii. whether the program is achieving in practice its proposed objectives;
     iii. whether its students are achieving the program-level learning outcomes; and

iv. how the resulting information will be documented and subsequently used to inform continuous program improvement.

Admission Requirements

a) Appropriateness of the program’s admission requirements given the program’s objectives and program-level learning outcomes; and

b) Sufficient explanation of alternative requirements, if applicable, for admission into a graduate, second-entry, or undergraduate program, e.g., minimum grade point average, additional languages or portfolios, and how the program recognizes prior work or learning experience.

Resources

Given the program’s planned/anticipated class sizes and cohorts as well as its program-level learning outcomes:

a) Participation of a sufficient number and quality of core faculty who are competent to teach and/or supervise in and achieve the goals of the program and foster the appropriate academic environment;

b) If applicable, discussion/explanation of the role and approximate percentage of adjunct and part-time faculty/limited term appointments used in the delivery of the program and the associated plans to ensure the sustainability of the program and quality of the student experience;

c) If required, provision of supervision of experiential learning opportunities; d) adequacy of the administrative unit’s planned utilization of existing human, physical and financial resources, including implications for the impact on other existing programs at the University;

e) Evidence that there are adequate resources to sustain the quality of scholarship and research activities produced by students, including library support, information technology support, and laboratory access; and

f) If necessary, additional institutional resource commitments to support the program in step with its ongoing implementation. 

Resources Specific to Graduate Programs

Given the program’s planned/anticipated class sizes and cohorts as well as its program-level learning outcomes:

a) Evidence that faculty have the recent research or professional/clinical expertise needed to sustain the program, promote innovation, and foster an appropriate intellectual climate;

b) Where appropriate to the program, evidence that financial assistance for students will be sufficient to ensure adequate quality and numbers of students; and

c) Evidence of how supervisory loads will be distributed, in light of qualifications and appointment status of the faculty.

Quality and Other Indicators

a) Evidence of the quality of the faculty (e.g., qualifications, funding, honours, awards, research, innovation, and scholarly record; appropriateness of collective faculty expertise to contribute substantively to the program and commitment to student mentoring); and

b) Any other evidence that the program and faculty will ensure the intellectual quality of the student experience.

All proposals for new programs will be subject to review by external reviewers. For new undergraduate programs, two external reviewers will be chosen from a list supplied via the academic unit (or proposed program) by the Chair(s) of SUPR-U. In addition to reviewing the program brief, the reviewers receive all relevant faculty CVs and will conduct an on-site review, accompanied by two internal reviewers selected by SUPR-U (normally one member of SUPR-U and one student). A desk review or virtual site visit may be undertaken if both the VP (AP) and external reviewers are satisfied that the off-site option is acceptable, and if a clear justification for the alternative format is provided.

For new graduate programs, two external reviewers will be chosen from a list supplied via the academic unit (or proposed program) by the Chair(s) of SUPR-G. In addition to reviewing the program brief, the reviewers receive all relevant faculty CVs and will conduct an on-site review, accompanied by two internal reviewers selected by SUPR-G (normally one member of SUPR-G and one graduate student). While an on-site visit for a new master’s or doctoral program is normally required, certain new master’s program’s (e.g., professional master’s programs) may be conducted by desk review, virtual site visit, or equivalent method if both the VP (SGPS) and external reviewers are satisfied that the off-site option is acceptable. This may be the case for programs that are predominantly taught online and/or that do not make use of specialized on-site facilities.

Reviewers will normally be associate or full professors with suitable disciplinary expertise, qualifications and program administration experience, including an appreciation of pedagogy and learning outcomes, and must be at “arms length” from the program under review. “Arms length” reviewers have no family ties, partnership links, supervisory relationships or other relationships with anyone in the program being reviewed. A conflict of interest would exist in cases where the proposed reviewer has collaborated or published with a member of the program within the past seven years, has an administrative or family link with a member of the program being reviewed, has been a supervisor or supervisee (graduate or postdoctoral) of a member of the program being reviewed within the past seven years, is a former member of the program being reviewed, is a friend of a member of the program being reviewed, or has been a recent (within the past five years) visiting professor in the program being reviewed.

The Chair(s) of SUPR-U/SUPR-G has the responsibility to ensure that the Review Team will:

a) understand its role and obligations; 

b) identify and commend the proposed program’s notably strong and creative attributes;

c) describe opportunities for improvement and further enhancement;

d) recommend specific steps to be taken to improve the proposed program, distinguishing between those that the program can itself take and those that require action or support from outside of the academic unit;

e) recognize the University’s autonomy to determine priorities for funding, space, and Faculty allocation; and

f) respect the confidentiality required for all aspects of the review process.

These expectations will be shared with the Review Team in the form of written instructions and
through face-to-face meetings.