Cyclical Program Reviews

Reviews are conducted on a regular basis, frequent enough to ensure that Chairs, Deans, Vice-Provosts and the Provost are kept informed of developments in all academic units, but at sufficiently long intervals that the effects of actions deriving from Implementation Plans can be assessed and that the system is not over-burdened by the logistical demands of the process. The schedule of Cyclical Program Reviews ensures that the period between reviews does not exceed eight years. New Programs must equally be reviewed no more than eight years after the date of the program’s first enrolment. The schedule is designed to allow the undergraduate and graduate programs within an academic unit to be reviewed concurrently; however, although the reviews may occur concurrently, they will normally undergo separate review processes with different external reviewers. Where multiple programs are reviewed together, the quality of each academic program and the learning environment of the students in each program must be addressed distinctly.

Western’s cyclical reviews may not be waived because an externally commissioned review, such as an accreditation, has recently been, or will be conducted. While reviews of academic programs for professional accreditation bodies are intended to ensure that mutually agreed-upon standards of quality are maintained in new and existing programs, such reviews may serve different purposes than those outlined by Western’s IQAP. In some cases, however, the cyclical review process may be streamlined if the mandates of both sets of reviews are closely aligned and any gaps can be addressed via the provision of supplementary documentation as necessary.

The scope of the cyclical review includes multiple degree options, including the varied honours specialization, specialization, and major modules within a program. Therefore, the evaluation criteria to be considered in the self-study, as well as the external reviewer recommendations, will apply to the suite of modules related to a program. Any programs, or related modules, that have been closed or for which admission has been suspended are outside the scope of the review process.

The review schedule also includes all joint, interdisciplinary and multi-disciplinary programs, as well as those offered at multiple sites and using all modes of delivery. In addition, the programs offered by Western’s affiliated University Colleges are included in the schedule. Joint programs that involve more than one institution will identify a lead institution to prepare the self-study report and any subsequent follow-up or Monitoring Reports, consulting and obtaining relevant input from all participating institutions. In reviewing a joint program and other inter-institutional programs, the IQAPs of the participating universities granting the degree should be considered. See guidance provided by the Quality Council on the Review of Joint Programs. 

The Provost and Vice-President (Academic) is responsible for Cyclical Program Reviews and for reporting their outcomes to the QC. The Provost initiates the scheduled review, identifying the specific programs that will be reviewed. The review process is administered by the OAQE and supported by the VP (AP) for undergraduate programs and the VP (SGPS) for graduate programs. The University Secretariat monitors and supports all related approval processes.  

OAQE - Office of Academic Quality and Enhancement

SGPS - School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies

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

OOR - Office of the Registrar

IPB - Office of Institutional Planning and Budgeting  

1. The self-study report is developed by the program with support from Institutional Planning & Budgeting and the Office of the Registrar (for undergraduate programs) and from the SGPS (for graduate programs).  

2. The report 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 self-study report and conduct a site visit. The external reviewers submit a written report of the review.  

3. The external reviewers’ report is shared with the academic unit/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. On the basis of the external reviewers’ report, the academic unit/program and Faculty-level responses to the report, and the Final Assessment Report, SUPR-U/ SUPR-G submits the Final Assessment Report to ACA along with a recommendation regarding approval.  

4. ACA reviews the report of SUPR-U/SUPR-G and makes a determination. ACA submits report to Senate.  

5. Senate receives report for information.  

6. The OAQE includes the outcome of the cyclical review in an annual report to the QC, and ensures that recommendations for improving the program, and a plan for their implementation, are shared with the Dean of the program’s Faculty.  

7. Implementation of the recommended improvements is monitored via an Ongoing Improvement Progress Report to be submitted to the OAQE approximately 3-4 years following the review.  

The self-study will comprise a broad, reflective, critical and forward-looking analysis of the program based on pertinent qualitative and quantitative data. It will reflect the involvement and consultation of faculty members, staff and students of the program being reviewed, and it will include data on University-recognized indicators. In large part, these data will be provided by, or corroborated by, Institutional Planning & Budgeting (IPB) and the Office of the Registrar (OOR) (for undergraduate programs) and the SGPS (for graduate programs). Where multiple programs within an academic unit are reviewed at the same time (e.g., undergraduate and graduate programs, programs at different locations), the preparation of separate self-study reports for each discrete program is required. The self-study report will address:

• Objectives of the program;

• Program regulations;

• Consistency of the program’s learning outcomes with the University’s mission and with the Western Degree Outcomes or graduate degree level expectations;

• Assessment methods and instructional strategies used to support student achievement of the program’s learning outcomes;

• Engagement with Equity, Diversity, Inclusion (EDI), decolonization and Indigenization; Fields of specialization (for graduate programs with fields);

• Unique curricular and/or program innovations, creative components and/or significant high impact practices, where appropriate;

• Concerns and recommendations raised in the previous review of the program and how these have been addressed, especially those detailed in the Final Assessment Report, implementation Plan, and subsequent monitoring reports from the previous Cyclical Review of the program;

• For the first Cyclical Review of a new program, steps taken to address any issues flagged in the Monitoring Report and/or any items identified for follow-up by the QC.

• Enrolments, graduations, and withdrawals;

• Program-related data and measures of performance, where applicable and available;

• Indicators relevant to the evaluation criteria (as identified in Section 5.2.3);

• Academic services and resources that contribute to the academic quality of the program, including library resources and support;

• Employment or subsequent academic pursuits of graduates;

• How the self-study was written, including how the perspectives of faculty, staff and students were obtained and included;

• Financial support for students (as applicable for graduate programs);

• Publications of current students and recent graduates (for graduate programs);

• The integrity of the data included;

• Areas that the program’s faculty, staff and/or students have identified as requiring improvement, or as holding promise for enhancement and/or opportunities for curricular change; and

• A discussion of the results of the self-study that summarizes key points from the analysis, and recommends actions that the program can undertake to maintain and/or enhance quality.

The self-study requires a participatory and transparent approach, involving program faculty staff, and students, documentation of how their views were obtained, and how they were taken into account in the development of the report. Where appropriate, input of others deemed to be relevant may be included in the self‐study brief. For example, input from graduates of the program, professionals, industry representatives, and employers may be included. In the case of professional programs, soliciting and reporting on the views of employers and professional associations is a necessary inclusion.

It is expected that academic units will plan in advance to gather stakeholder data from multiple sources. Support may be procured through the OAQE and/or the Centre for Teaching and Learning.

The VP (AP), or their delegate, will review and approve the self-study report for undergraduate programs undergoing cyclical reviews. The VP (SGPS), or their delegate, will review and approve the self-study report for graduate programs undergoing cyclical review.

Program Objectives

a) 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 the program-level learning outcomes;

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

c) Appropriateness and effectiveness of the 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 time required (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, clear indication of the nature and suitability of   the major research requirements for degree completion.

Assessment of Teaching and Learning

a) Appropriateness and effectiveness 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 and effectiveness of the plans to monitor and assess:
     i. the overall quality of the program;     
     ii. whether the program continues to achieve in practice its objectives;
    iii. whether its students are achieving the program-level learning outcomes and the Western Degree Outcomes or graduate degree level expectations; 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 gaduate, 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 class sizes and cohorts as well as its program-level learning outcomes:

a) Participation of a sufficient number of qualified core faculty members 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 academic unit’s utilization of existing human, physical, technology, and financial resources to support the program; and

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.

Resources Specific to Graduate Programs

Given the program’s 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 foster an appropriate intellectual climate, sustain the program, and promote innovation;

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

c) Evidence of how supervisory loads are 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);

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

c) For students: grade-level for admission, scholarly output, success rates in provincial and national scholarships, competitions, awards and commitment to professional and transferable skills, and times-to-completion and retention rates.

The cyclical review process for each program will include internal and external reviewers. The review team will normally include:

a) one faculty member internal to Western (normally a member of SUPR-U/SUPR-G), but not a member of the academic unit under review;

b) one undergraduate or graduate student who is not from the program being reviewed; and 

c) two faculty members external to Western with expertise in the discipline.

The faculty member internal to Western and the student comprise the internal reviewers. The Chair(s) of SUPR-U or SUPR-G may invite additional members of the Review Team if circumstances warrant (such as appropriately qualified and experienced individuals selected from industry or the professions).

All members of the review team will be at “arm’s length” from the program under review. Internal reviewers will not be from the program being reviewed. Additional conflicts of interest may include family ties, partnership ties, supervisory relations or other types of relationships with individuals in the program being reviewed. Any such relationships must be declared to determine the potential for conflict of interest. The Chair(s) of SUPR-U/SUPR-G, in consultation with the Provost, will evaluate the potential for conflict of interest.

External reviewers will normally be associate or full professors with suitable disciplinary expertise, qualifications and program administration experience, 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. External reviewers will be chosen from a list supplied via the academic unit by the Chair(s) of SUPR-U/SUPR-G. Following the template provided, the list of prospective external reviewers shall normally consist of ten candidates.

The Chair(s) of SUPR-U/SUPR-G will appoint the internal reviewers. The faculty member internal reviewer will be selected by SUPR-U/SUPR-G. Student members of the review teams will be selected from a list of student volunteers provided by varied student councils/societies and/or student members of SUPR-U/SUPR-G. The Chair(s) of SUPR-U /SUPR-G, will select the external reviewers from the list of potential reviewers provided by the program.

All members of the Review Team will receive the program’s self-study report, a volume containing the CVs of all of the full-time faculty members in the program under review, as well as written instructions about the review process and a template for the resulting report. The Chair(s) of SUPR-U/SUPR-G has the responsibility to ensure that the Review Team will:

g) understand its role and obligations;

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

i) describe the program’s strengths, areas for improvement, and opportunities for enhancement;

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

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

l) 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.

For undergraduate programs, the site visit will be arranged by the Office of the VP (AP) in collaboration with the academic unit(s). The internal reviewers will participate with the external reviewers in all aspects of the site visit. External review of undergraduate programs will normally be conducted on-site, but the VP (AP) may propose that the review be conducted by desk review, virtual site visit, or an equivalent method if a clear justification for the alternative format is provided and if the external reviewers are satisfied that the off-site option is acceptable. The visit will include meetings with:

• the Director of Academic Quality and Enhancement at the beginning of the site visit optional);

• the Vice-Provost (Academic Programs);

• the Vice-Provost (Academic Planning, Policy and Faculty);

• the University Librarian and/or Assistant/Associate University Librarian;

• the Dean and/or Associate Dean of the program undergoing review;

• the Undergraduate Chair of the program undergoing review;

• the Department/School Chair or Director of the program undergoing review;

• faculty members of the program undergoing review (including limited duties faculty);

• undergraduate students of the program undergoing review; and

• support staff of the program undergoing review.

For graduate programs, the site visit will be arranged by the Office of the VP (SGPS) in collaboration with the program. The internal reviewers will participate with the external reviewers in all aspects of the site visit. While an on-site visit for doctoral programs is required, certain master’s programs and graduate diplomas (e.g., professional master’s programs, fully online programs, etc.) may be conducted by desk review, virtual site visit or an equivalent method if there is a clear justification for the alternative format and if both the VP (SGPS) and external reviewers are satisfied that the off-site option is acceptable. The visit will include meetings with:

• the Director of Academic Quality and Enhancement at the beginning of the site visit  (optional);

• the Vice-Provost (Graduate & Postdoctoral Studies) and/or an Associate Vice-Provost (Graduate & Postdoctoral Studies);

• the Vice-Provost (Academic Planning, Policy and Faculty);

• the University Librarian and/or Assistant/Associate University Librarian;

• the Dean and/or Associate Dean of the program undergoing review;

• the Graduate Chair of the program undergoing review;

• the Department/School/Centre Chair or Director of the program undergoing review;

• faculty members of the program undergoing review (including limited duties faculty);

• graduate students of the program undergoing review; and

• support staff of the program undergoing review.

Site visits normally take place over one or two days but may be longer if appropriate to the size and complexity of the program(s) being reviewed. For both undergraduate and graduate reviews, the review team will be free to seek information from other sources and to suggest other individuals and groups with whom to meet during the site visit.

The external reviewers will normally provide a joint report that appraises the standards and quality of the program by:

a) addressing the substance of the self-study report, with particular focus on responding to the evaluation criteria detailed therein (Section 5.2.3);

b) identifying and commending the program’s notably strong and creative attributes;

c) describing the program’s respective strengths, areas for improvement, and opportunities for enhancement;

d) commenting on proposed changes to the program emerging from the review process, if applicable;

e) making at least three recommendations for specific steps to be taken that will lead to the continuous improvement of the program, distinguishing between those the program can itself take and those that require support external to the program; and

f) identifying the distinctive attributes of each discrete program documented in the self-study in those cases where the University chooses to simultaneously review more than one program/program level (for example, graduate and undergraduate), program modes, and/or programs offered at different locations.

g) Tying any recommendations that are within the purview of the University’s budgetary decision-making processes (e.g., faculty complement, space requirements) directly to issues of program quality and/or sustainability.

While the authors of the report are the external reviewers, internal reviewers may be invited to provide comment, in particular to institution specific information, terms and/or structures. The external reviewers will be instructed to submit their joint report to the OAQE within two weeks of the site visit. A template will be provided by the OAQE to ensure that all elements of the program review are addressed. Should the reviewers’ report not adequately address all of the above, revisions will be requested of the reviewers by the OAQE.

The report of the external reviewers will be shared with the relevant Dean(s), or designate, and unit/program Chair(s) or Director(s). Separate Faculty-level and program-level responses to the report will be requested. In addition, the report will be shared with the VP (AP) or the VP (SGPS), who may also provide a written response. The academic unit(s) and Faculty-level responses will comment on:

a) the plans proposed in the self-study report;

b) the recommendations advanced in the report of the external reviewers; and

c) the academic unit’s response to the report of the external reviewers (in the case of the Faculty-level response). and will describe:

d) any changes in organization, policy or governance that would be necessary to meet the recommendations;

e) the resources, financial and otherwise, that would be provided in supporting the implementation of selected recommendations; and

f) a proposed timeline for the implementation of any of those recommendations.

Once the report of the external reviewers and the responses to the report are received, the OAQE will draft a Final Assessment Report with the support of the internal reviewers. The Final Assessment Report provides the institutional synthesis of the external evaluation of the program and strategies for continuous improvement, and:

a) identifies significant strengths of the program;

b) identifies opportunities for further program improvement and enhancement with a view towards continuous improvement;

c) lists all recommendations of the external reviewers and the associated separate internal responses and assessments from the academic unit(s) and from the Faculty(ies);

d) explains why any external reviewers’ recommendations not selected for further action in the Implementation Plan have not been prioritized;

e) includes any additional recommendations that the unit, the Dean(s) and/or the University may have identified as requiring action as a result of the program’s review;

f) identifies who will be responsible for approving and implementing the recommendations set out in the Final Assessment Report; provides a timeline for implementing recommendations; 

h) provides a strategy for monitoring the implementation of recommendations, which will include a brief report from the academic unit(s) to the OAQE midway between the year of the last and next cyclical reviews;

i) may include a confidential section (for example, where personnel issues need to be addressed); and

j) includes an Executive Summary without reference to any confidential information.

The Final Assessment Report, excluding any confidential information, will be published on Western's IQAP website. This report will include an Implementation Plan that will:

a) set out and prioritize those recommendations that are selected for implementation;

b) identify the group or individual responsible for providing resources needed to address recommendations from the external reviewers or action items identified by the University;

c) identify who will be responsible for acting on those recommendations; and

d) provide specific timelines for acting on and monitoring the implementation of those recommendations.

SUPR-U/SUPR-G will review the Final Assessment Report along with the report of the external reviewers and the responses to the report. SUPR-U/SUPR-G may consult with the VP (AP), the VP (SGPS), or the Provost in its evaluation of a program’s review. SUPR-U/SUPR-G will forward its final recommendation to ACA.

ACA will review the Final Assessment Report from SUPR-U/SUPR-G. ACA may seek clarification or additional information from SUPR-U/SUPR-G prior to acceptance of the report. The Final Assessment Report, exclusive of any confidential information, will be provided to the program and to the Dean(s) responsible for the program. ACA will submit the report to Senate for information.

Following Senate’s receipt of the Final Assessment Report, the University will post a copy (including the Implementation Plan of the review) on Western’s IQAP webpage. These documents are the academic unit’s to “own” and act on, as appropriate. It is strongly recommended that academic units post a copy of the Final Assessment Report on the program’s website as well. Implementation of the recommendations resulting from the review will be monitored via an Ongoing Improvement Progress Report to be submitted to the OAQE approximately 3-4 years following the review. As received, Progress Reports will equally be posted on Western’s IQAP webpage.

As needed, the VP (AP) and VP (SGPS), in consultation with the University Secretariat, will determine the extent of public access to:

• information made available for the self-study;

• the self-study report;

• the report of the external reviewers; and 

• the responses to the report of the external reviewers.

It is expected that the report from the Review Committee will be afforded an appropriate level of confidentiality.

To facilitate the continuous improvement of academic programs between review cycles, in connection with the Final Assessment Report and Implementation Plan, a monitoring process will include an Ongoing Improvement Progress Report. At a time designated by SUPR-U/SUPR-G (approximately 3-4 years following each cyclical review), an Ongoing Improvement Progress Report shall be prepared by the academic unit(s) to follow up on the implementation of recommended improvements approved during the last cyclical review and be submitted to the OAQE. The Ongoing Improvement Progress Report applies to all academic programs and is not to be confused with specific reports requested as part of program review decisions (e.g., Good Quality with report). Should any issues emerge from the monitoring process, the OAQE will report these to SUPR-U or SUPR-G for consideration.  

Cyclical Program Reviews may be scheduled to coincide with accreditation reviews. The normal period between reviews may be shortened to allow a program’s cyclical review to coincide with an accreditation review; however, synchronization of the cyclical review and accreditation review will only be permitted in cases where the maximum period between cyclical reviews does not exceed eight years.

Although Cyclical Program Reviews may be scheduled to coincide with accreditation reviews, accreditation reviews will not take the place of cyclical reviews. In consultation with the OAQE and the relevant Vice-Provost, the combined reviews may allow for the substitution or addition of some documentation or specific processes associated with the accreditation of a program. While some stages of the review process may be substituted or augmented by an accreditation review, the evaluation criteria detailed in section 5.2.3 must be addressed in the self-study and by the external reviewers. Where a synchronized review takes place, a Record of Substitution or Addition, and the grounds on which decisions were made, will be drafted by the OAQE.