|
|
|
Ph.D. Committee - Graduate Program Review Sub-Committee |
Revised Sept. 17, 1998 |
Introduction
This document is intended to describe the Graduate Program Review Process in use at the University of Saskatchewan. The document is quite comprehensive and is, in fact, five separate guides for use in different aspects of the review process. The review is coordinated with a systematic university level review of both graduate and undergraduate programs. Specifically, the documents contained are:
Graduate Review Process.
This section of the document contains a general outline of the objectives, terms of reference, procedure, process timetable and outcome of the Graduate Program Review Process. A description of graduate program review is also included.
Graduate Program Review Committee Guide.
This section of the document describes the Graduate Program Review Process for members of the Graduate Program Review Committee. Since a committee will be made up for each review, it is necessary to outline the criteria and measures to be used in evaluating the Department under review. This ensures consistency among committees.
Graduate Program Review Self-Study Document Guide.
The section of the document outlines the expected form and content of the Department under review Self-Study document. Due to the nature of the Graduate Program Review process, the required information is described in considerable detail. It is imperative that the Department's goals, objectives, and future plans be discussed in the Self-Study document.
Graduate Program Review External Reviewer Guide.
This section describes, for the external reviewer, the information expected to be included in the External Reviewer's report. The suggested content is outlined, however the external reviewer should not feel constrained to the specific topics discussed and should be allowed considerable latitude in preparation of supplemental material in evaluating the Department under review.
Graduate Program Review College of Graduate Studies and Research Report
Guide.
This section of the document outlines, for the College of Graduate Studies and Research, the necessary information to be provided to the Department under review, the Graduate Program Review Committee and the External Reviewer(s). This information is crucial to the Department, since it contains details of the graduate students (past and present) and other administrative information needed in the preparation of the Self-Study document.
It should be noted that the Graduate Program Review Process at the University of Saskatchewan itself is quite new and ongoing and as a result it will be reviewed and updated based upon experience obtained in conducting graduate program review.
This revision of the Graduate Program Review Process document is dated September 17, 1998.
Table of Contents
(all hyperlinks are to the corresponding section on this page)Graduate Program Review Process
Objective
Motivation
Terms of Reference
Procedure
Process
Table
1: Graduate Program Review Procedure.
Figure
1. Graduate Program Review Procedure.
Timetable
Table
2: Graduate Program Review Process Timetable.
Outcome
Table
3: Graduate Program Review Process Outcome Matrix.
Committee
Guide
Objectives
Introduction
College of Graduate Studies and Research Report
College of Graduate Studies and Research Exit
Survey
Statement from Dean or other Departments
Library Report
INTERNAL STUDENT SURVEYS
Self-Study Document Information
A. General/Mission/Objectives
B. Curriculum
C. Faculty
D. Learning Environment
E. Infrastructure
F. Outcome
G. Student Demand, Market Demand, and/or Societal
Need
H. Resource Usage
I. Unique
J. Relevant to the province
EXTERNAL
REVIEWER’S REPORT
Self-Study
Document Guide
Introduction
College of Graduate Studies and Research Report
College of Graduate Studies and Research Exit
Survey
Statement from Dean or other Departments
Library Report
Internal Student Surveys
Self-Study Document Content Guidelines
A. Introduction/Mission/Objectives
B. Curriculum
C. Faculty
D. Learning Environment
E. Infrastructure
F. Outcome
G. Student Demand, Market Demand, and/or Societal
Need
H. Efficiency/Resources Usage
I. Unique
J. Relevant to the province
Appendices:
containing supporting data and other documents
External
Reviewer Guide
Objectives
Criteria
A.
Graduate Program Mission/Objectives
B. Curriculum
C.
Faculty
D.
Learning Environment
E.
Infrastructure
F.
Outcome
G.
Demand
H.
Resource Usage
I.
Unique
J. Relevance
College
of Graduate Studies and Research Guide
Objectives
Information
1. Curriculum
2.
Faculty
3.
Graduate Students
4.
Learning Environment
5.
Administration
6.
Student Exit Survey Summary
Graduate Program Review Process
Objective
The primary purpose of Graduate Program Review is to assess the current quality of graduate programs. The process is intended to ensure the quality of the graduate program and to recognize excellence while providing a basis for change and future planning.
Motivation
Departments are accountable to society for their activities and for the quality of their programs. The information gathered in the review process, and the assessment of program strengths and needs, provide strong and compelling evidence of the quality of the graduate programs, the areas of greatest need and the foundation on which future improvements should be built. In view of the many external and internal pressures on the university, the stronger and more careful the program review process, the more persuasive the results.
The Graduate Program Review Process at the University of Saskatchewan is based upon concepts discussed in “A Policy Statement: Academic Review of Graduate Programs” by the Council of Graduate Schools Task Force on Academic Review of Graduate Programs (Summer, 1990). As well Graduate program material from the following Canadian universities was used:
University of Victoria
University of British Columbia
Simon Fraser University
University of Alberta
University of Calgary
University of Regina
University of Manitoba
Some characteristics of the Graduate Program Review are as follows:
Graduate Program Review is evaluative as well as descriptive. It requires
academic judgements and is based upon the concept of peer review. It views
the program under review as being connected both to other programs in the
university and to intellectual issues of the discipline at large.
Graduate programs are reviewed carefully when established. Subsequent graduate
program review ensures that the program has lived up to its original goals.
While constant scrutiny is unhealthy, periodic thorough review is desirable.
Graduate programs are dynamic. Faculty membership changes, technology changes,
student availability changes. Graduate Program Review is directed toward
improvement of the program. It seeks to define questions whose answers will
increase the understanding of the program. Specific recommendations are
made to improve the program.
Departments are reviewed using academic criteria, not financial or political
ones.
Graduate Program Review is an objective process. Self-Study documents and
questionnaires are crucial in this process.
Graduate Program Review is an independent process, separate from other reviews.
While the Graduate Program Review Process may share common data with other
review processes, it must be a unique identifiable process and the interpretation
of the data must be done with respect to graduate program quality indicators.
Graduate Program Review must result in an outcome decision; otherwise large
amounts of time and money are wasted. Good Departments should be recognized
and encouraged to excel. One way of accomplishing this is to require fewer
reviews.
While Graduate Program Review is concerned only with graduate programs in Departments, the Colleges and Deans associated with the Department in question must be informed and participate in certain aspects of the review process. In addition, the Graduate Program Review is coordinated with the University Systematic Program Review Process, which also reviews undergraduate programs.
Graduate Program Review is also a mechanism for change. Examples at various levels of processes that are affected by Graduate Program Review are:
University:
Long-range planning.
Setting institutional priorities.
Information on size and stability.
College of Graduate Studies and Research:
Scholarship budget allocations.
College priorities.
Faculty membership.
Administrative decisions.
Departmental College:
College priorities.
Resource priorities.
Hiring priorities.
Departmental:
Scholarship allocations.
Hiring Priorities.
Departmental research priorities.
Student admissions.
Terms of Reference
All aspects of the Graduate Program Review will conform to principles contained in the University of Saskatchewan Mission Statement (May 1993).
Specifically (from “A Framework for the Evaluation of Academic Programs”, April 29, 1996):
“In continuing its commitment to a rich array of challenging liberal, scientific, professional and artistic educational programs, the University of Saskatchewan wants to ensure that its undergraduate, graduate and certificate programs are of high quality. To maintain quality, the University, as well as its Colleges and Departments, must make choices to change, combine, or delete existing programs and specializations, and to introduce new initiatives.”
Evaluation of the Graduate Program uses criteria and measures contained in “A Background Paper and Proposal for a Systematic Programme Review Process at the University of Saskatchewan” (March 9, 1994) and “A Framework for the Evaluation of Academic Programs” (April 29, 1996). The criteria to be evaluated in the context of the goals and objectives of the Graduate Program are:
Curriculum.
Faculty.
Learning Environment.
Infrastructure.
Outcome.
Student Demand, Market Demand, and/or Societal Need.
Resource Usage.
Unique.
Relevance.
It should be noted that graduate programs have different goals and values than undergraduate programs and that the measures indicated in the “A Framework for the Evaluation of Academic Programs” (April 29, 1996) document have to be interpreted with this in mind. Appropriate measures may include the quality of the faculty, the students, available resources, curriculum, facilities and academic reputation of the program. Additional information may have to be reviewed to do this properly. For example, while some graduate programs will exhibit uniqueness or relevance this is considered as a positive to these programs. More mainstream Graduate Programs would not be assessed deficient because of their inability to evaluate highly in these areas. The Graduate Program Review will be coordinated with the University Systematic Review of all programs (undergraduate and graduate).
Procedure
The Graduate Program Review will be carried out on a nominal 5-7 year cycle. This means that 10-12 programs must be reviewed yearly (exact schedule still to be determined). Depending on the results of the reviews it may be possible to standardize the review cycle on 5 years. Where possible graduate programs will be coordinated and integrated with undergraduate program review and/or review in discipline related departments. This procedure should be encouraged since it will lead to a substantial reduction in the work necessary to produce the required information (due to common information that must be prepared for the different reviews).
Administration of the Graduate Program Review Process will be the responsibility of the Vice-President (Academic).
Coordination of the Graduate Program Review process will be the responsibility of the Dean, College of Graduate Studies and Research.
Graduate Program Review will be, in the first instance, by an internal Graduate Program Review Committee. This Graduate Program Review Committee will report to the M.Sc. and Ph.D. committees of the College of Graduate Studies and Research as well as the V.P. Academic. Graduate Program Review will be, in the second instance, by Graduate Program Review external reviewer(s). Information required on the Graduate Program under review will be the responsibility of the individual Department(s) and, where possible, be derived from historical data obtained from the College of Graduate Studies and Research and/or the University Studies Group. Based upon the experiences obtained in the Graduate Program Review Process, the guidelines for subsequent Graduate Program Reviews will be updated as required. It may be necessary, in exceptional circumstances and where appropriate, to conduct special Graduate Program Reviews. These review(s) must be made by special request to the M.Sc. and/or Ph.D. committees of the College of Graduate Studies and Research. The request must be approved by the Dean of the College of Graduate Studies and Research.
Process
The review process will follow the sequence defined for the University-wide Systematic Program Review Process. The Graduate Program Review at the College level will be based upon the following process, which is coordinated with the University-wide review sequence.
1. The Head of the Department under review will be informed by the Graduate Program Review Committee that the Graduate Program is to be reviewed. This will be the formal request for information since, due to the cyclic nature of the Graduate Program Review Process, the Department will know in advance that it is scheduled for a review.
2. The Department will prepare a Self-Study document to be submitted to the Dean of the College of Graduate Studies and Research.
3. The Department will submit a list of up to three possible external reviewers to the Graduate Program Review Committee.
4. Two external reviewers will be chosen by the Dean of the College of Graduate Studies and Research.
5. The Dean of the College of Graduate Studies will forward the Department Self-Study document to the external reviewers.
6. The external reviewers will come to the university for a two-day on-site visit. A coordinated visit will be encouraged in order to minimize the disruption to the Department under review. The two external reviewers may make independent visits however.
The Department under review will prepare the itinerary. The external reviewers will need to see the following:
Head of the Department under review.
Faculty of the Department under review.
Graduate/Research Committee of the Department under review.
Graduate students in the Department under review.
Dean of the College containing the Department under review.
Dean of the College of Graduate Studies and Research.
The Graduate Program Review Committee.
7. The external reviewers will submit a coordinated report to the Graduate Program Review Committee and to the Dean of the College of Graduate Studies and Research. The use of a combined report will be encouraged, however the external reviewers may choose to submit independent reports.
8. The Dean of the College of Graduate Studies and Research will forward a summary copy of the External Reviewer's Report to the Department under review. This will allow the Department to review the document and, if appropriate, to correct any factual errors and to respond directly to the Dean of the College of Graduate Studies and Research with regard to specific criticisms or conclusions.
9. The Graduate Program Review Committee will discuss its recommendation with the Ph.D./Academic Committees.
10. The Dean of the College of Graduate Studies and Research will discuss the Ph.D./Academic Committees' recommendation with the Dean of the College containing the Department under review and the Head of the Department under review. A decision will be forwarded to the Vice-President (Academic).
11. The outcome of the discussions and recommendations will be conveyed to the Department under review by the Vice-President (Academic).
A summary of the Graduate Review Process in tabular form is shown in Table 1. A graphical representation is shown in Figure 1.
Table 1: Graduate Program Review Procedure.
|
|
Information Sources |
Deliverable |
|
Vice-President (Academic) |
Dean, CGSR, Decision Self-Study Document CGSR Report Faculty CV’s External Reviewer's Report |
Outcome |
|
Dean, College of Graduate Studies and Research |
Ph.D./Academic Recommendation Self-Study Document CGSR Report Faculty CV’s External Reviewer's Report Discussion, Department under review |
Dean, CGSR, Decision |
|
Ph.D./Academic Committees |
GPRC Recommendation |
Ph.D./Academic Recommendation |
|
Graduate Program Review Committee |
Self-Study Document CGSR Report Faculty CV’s External Reviewer's Report |
GPRC Recommendation |
|
Department under Graduate Program Review |
Department Information Internal Survey(s) Supplementary Documentation CGSR Report Faculty CV’s |
Self-Study Document |
|
External Reviewer |
Self-Study Document CGSR Report Faculty CV’s External Reviewer's Visit |
External Reviewer's Report |
Figure 1. Graduate Program Review Procedure.
Timetable
The timetable for the Graduate Program Review process is shown in Table 2. The timetable has not been finalized at this time and should be used as a guide only.
The timetable corresponds to the following schedule for the Graduate Program Review Process (a number of the processes are to occur in parallel):
Vice-President (Academic): Start week 0
Dean, College of Graduate Studies: Start week 1 - end week 3
Ph.D./Academic Committee: Start week 2 - end week 4
Graduate Program Review Committee: Start week 2 - end week 5
Department under review Self-Study document preparation: Start week 1 –
end week 12
External Reviewer Preliminary Review: Start week 12 – end week 16
External Reviewer Site Visit: Start week 16 – end week 17
External Reviewers’ Reports: Start week 17 – end week 21
Graduate Program Review Committee: Start week 12 - end week 23
Ph.D./Academic Committee: Start week 12 - end week 24
Dean, College of Graduate Studies: Start week 12 - end week 26
Vice-President (Academic): Start week 12 – end week 28
It should be noted that the elapsed time from initiation of the Graduate Program Review Process is shown. Thus the Graduate Program Review Process could be initiated at any time during the year. It is intended, however, to be done in parallel with other review processes (i.e., College reviews, undergraduate reviews, professional accreditation reviews, etc.) and as such would normally start at or near the start of these other review processes.
Table 2: Graduate Program
Review Process Timetable.
Here is a PDF version
of table 2.
Outcome
The Graduate Program Review Committee will make a recommendation to the Ph.D./Academic Committees. The Ph.D./Academic Committees will decide on the recommendation. The recommendation of the Graduate Program Review Process will be delivered to the Head of the Department under review, the Dean of the College containing the Department under review, the Dean of the College of Graduate Studies and to the Associate Vice-President (Academic).
The Dean of the College of Graduate Studies and Research will reach a decision based upon the recommendation of the Ph.D./Academic Committees. This decision will be conveyed to the Vice-President (Academic) for a determination of the outcome of the Graduate Program Review Process.
Consequences of the Graduate Program Review Process will be:
|
University Category |
Graduate Program Subcategory |
|
|
Category 1. |
(A): |
Graduate Program receives superior rating. Graduate Program will be allowed considerable autonomy with respect to all aspects of graduate degree programs. Next review: 7-10 years. |
|
Category 2. |
(B): |
Graduate Program receives acceptable rating. No changes (or minor changes) are necessary. Next Review: 5-7 years (cycle dependant). |
|
Category 3. |
(C): |
Graduate Program put on probation (Level II). Required to address deficiency within 3 years. Subsequent re-evaluation review will be held in 2 years from probation date. Next review: 2 years (intermediate). When successful, the next review will be in 5 years. |
|
Category 3. |
(D): |
Graduate Program put on probation (Level I). Required to address deficiencies within 1 year. If appropriate, graduate student admissions may be put on hold. Unless Graduate Program is restructured within 1 year, Graduate Program will be terminated. Next review: 1 year. |
|
Category 4. |
(E): |
Graduate Program terminated. Graduate student admissions stopped immediately. Once a program has been terminated, a new application to the appropriate College of Graduate Studies committee must be made before consideration for re-instatement. Next review: Application dependant. |
In order to be assessed and rated into the above categories, the following considerations will be used:
1. The individual criteria as outlined in the “A Framework for the Evaluation of Academic Programs” (April 29, 1996) will be ranked into the following two types:
Type I Criteria
B: Curriculum
C: Faculty
D: Learning Environment
E: Infrastructure
F: Outcome
Type II Criteria
G: Student Demand, Market Demand, and/or Societal Need
H: Uses Resources Efficiently
I: Unique
J: Relevance to the Province
2. Individual criteria will be measured and evaluated and ranked on the following scale:
Superior
Adequate
Deficient
3. The following table will be used in applying the evaluations of the Graduate Program obtained above (requirements shown are minimums):
Table 3: Graduate Program Review Process Outcome Matrix.
|
Review Outcome |
Type I |
Type II |
|
Superior Rating |
3 superior No deficiencies |
No deficiencies |
|
Acceptable Rating |
No deficiencies |
No deficiencies |
|
Probation (Level II) |
1 deficient |
1 deficient |
|
Probation (Level I) |
2 deficient |
1 deficient |
|
Terminated |
3 deficient |
1 deficient |
Note with respect to Type II Criteria, I. Unique:
While some graduate programs will exhibit uniqueness, this is considered as a positive to these programs. More mainstream graduate programs would not be assessed deficient because of their inability to evaluate highly in this area.
Note with respect to Type II Criteria, J. Relevance to the Province:
While some graduate programs will exhibit relevance to the province, this is considered as a positive to these programs. More mainstream graduate programs would not be assessed deficient because of their inability to evaluate highly in this area.
Graduate Program Review Committee Guide
Objectives
To review and report on the following aspects of the Graduate Program that
relate to the quality of the education provided.
To provide an assessment of the health and vitality of the Graduate Program.
To make recommendations on the Graduate Program.
Introduction
In order to assess the factors required for a high quality graduate program, the Graduate Program Review Committee has identified criteria summarized in the following questions. You are asked to comment on the adequacy of the Graduate Program and the appropriateness of evidence available from other sources such as the College of Graduate Studies and Research Report, internal evaluation survey(s), Student Exit Surveys and the External Reviewers’ Reports. In making these comments please keep in mind the Graduate Program is to be evaluated in the context of the goals and objectives of program objectives. Information on all aspects of the information available is detailed below.
College of Graduate Studies and Research Report
The College of Graduate Studies and Research will prepare a summary report on each program’s management procedures and student demographics. The summary will be based on an analysis of the student files and procedural problems identified by College of Graduate Studies and Research staff. The report will be made available to the Department as part of the Self-Study process. Possible areas to be addressed are outlined in the College of Graduate Studies and Research Report Guide.
College of Graduate Studies and Research Exit Survey
The College of Graduate Studies and Research will prepare a summary of comments and data from the Student Exit Survey that it conducts related to the Graduate Program. This will be provided to the Department as part of the Self-Study process.
Statement from Dean or other Departments
The Dean of the College responsible for the program will be given the Self-Study document and the external reviewer's report. The Dean will be asked to comment on the College’s perception of the program and how the program is currently supported relative to other programs in the College. The Dean may also be asked to address long-term changes in College support to address identified issues. This could involve faculty positions, facilities, equipment, support staff, etc. If a program is supported by a number of academic units then each unit head may be asked to comment on that unit’s future involvement.
Library Report
The library will prepare an analysis of the current holdings and any bench marks for graduate programs. The Dean of the College of Graduate Studies may request the library to respond with respect to all graduate programs. Where appropriate, the Department under review may require a more specific statement. This would include:
serials,
monographs,
interlibrary loan demand,
information retrieval potential,
World Wide Web
INTERNAL STUDENT SURVEYS
The Department under review should prepare a summary of comments and data from any Student Survey that it conducts related to the Graduate Program. This will be provided by the Department as part of the Self-Study process.
Self-Study Document Information
A. General/Mission/Objectives
G-Q1- What are the objectives of the Department's graduate program?
Evidence: Self-Study
G-Q2 - Do the Department's objectives meet the needs of the discipline?
Evidence: Self-Study and External Reviewer’s Report.
G-Q3 - How does the graduate curriculum compare to that of similar Departments in Canada?
Evidence: Self-Study and External Reviewer’s Report.
G-Q4 - Does the faculty provide intellectual leadership, atmosphere and challenge?
Evidence: Self-Study, Internal Student Survey, College of Graduate Studies and Research Report and External Reviewers’ Report.
G-Q5 - How does the research completed in the Department meet the mission and objectives of the program?
Evidence: Self-Study and External Reviewer’s Report.
B. Curriculum
The criteria listed under Learning Environment in the Framework for the Evaluation of Academic Programmes are:
Curriculum is designed to meet the objectives for the program (e.g. array
and sequence of courses, modes of instruction and evaluation, development
of skills, acquisition of knowledge, synthesis of information).
Programme provide students with the elements of a liberal education by encouraging
the development of broadly informed, reflective and literate minds capable
of independent and critical thinking.
Programme includes opportunities for synthesis, application and integration
of knowledge within and between disciplines.
Programme is current, both in content and modes of instructional delivery,
and reflects responsiveness to changes in the discipline.
Curriculum reflects the goals of education equity.
Curriculum provides sufficient flexibility to individual students to choose
courses according to their own interests within and outside their major
discipline (e.g. electives).
Programme meets or exceeds accreditation and/or national standards (if they
exist).
In order to assess the Curriculum required for a quality graduate program, the Graduate Program Review Committee is asked to evaluate the identified criteria as summarized in the following questions.
C-Q1 - Does the stated Department curriculum match the delivered curriculum? If not, is the justification adequate?
Evidence: Self-Study.
C-Q2 - What seminars have been given over the review period? Do they cover the breadth of areas that the student should be exposed to?
Evidence: Self-Study.
C-Q3 - What opportunities are provided for students to do interdisciplinary work?
Evidence: Self-Study.
C-Q4 - How have the graduate program, course offerings and general curriculum changed over time in order to reflect changes in the discipline? Are faculty kept up to date on recent developments?
Evidence: Self-Study and External Reviewer’s Report.
C-Q5 - How have the course reading lists and modes of instructional delivery changed?
Evidence: Self-Study.
C-Q6 - How frequently do visiting scholars come to the Department to talk about recent developments in the discipline and interact with members of the Department? Is this adequate?
Evidence: Self-Study and External Reviewer's Report.
C-Q7 - What changes have been incorporated into the program to allow it to respond to changes in the area?
Evidence: Self-Study and External Reviewer’s Report.
C-Q8 - How has the Department addressed the issue of education equity in its curriculum, research and course content?
Evidence: Self-Study.
C-Q9 - What opportunities does the program provide for students to take courses and pursue interests outside their area of specialization?
Evidence: Self-Study.
C-Q10 - Is the program accredited by a national organization and/or does it meet any national standards that exist for the discipline?
Evidence: Self-Study and External Reviewer’s Report.
C. Faculty
The criteria listed under Learning Environment in the Framework for the Evaluation of Academic Programmes are:
Faculty responsible for/involved in the programme are well qualified; i.e.,
have the appropriate academic and/or professional qualifications to support
and develop the programme. In the case of graduate programs, this includes
active involvement in scholarly work.
Faculty maintain and update the skills and knowledge appropriate to their
discipline through involvement with academic, professional and/or scientific
organizations.
Faculty are nationally/internationally recognized for their scholarly and/or
professional work; e.g., have obtained awards and/or local/national/international
invitations to present their work to colleagues in their discipline.
Scholarly work of faculty has made a significant contribution to the discipline.
Faculty are committed to developing their teaching skills.
Faculty are successful in obtaining external research support.
In order to assess the Faculty required for a quality graduate program, the Graduate Program Review Committee is asked to evaluate the identified criteria as summarized in the following questions.
F-Q1 - Does the faculty have the appropriate academic and/or professional qualifications to support and development the program?
Evidence: Faculty CV’s and External Reviewer’s Report.
F-Q2 - Are the qualifications of the faculty teaching the courses appropriate? Does their research/scholarship get transferred to the learning environment?
Evidence: Faculty CV’s, Self-Study and External Reviewer’s Report.
F-Q3 - Are faculty adequately involved with academic, professional and scientific organizations?
Evidence: Faculty CV’s, Self-Study and External Reviewer’s Report
F-Q4 - To what extent have faculty been recognized for their scholarly and/or professional work?
Evidence: Faculty CV’s, Self-Study and External Reviewer’s Report
F-Q5 - Are faculty adequately involved in scholarly activities?
Evidence: Faculty CV’s, Self-Study and Office of Research Services.
F-Q6 - In what way has the scholarly work of faculty made a significant contribution to the discipline?
Evidence: Faculty CV’s, Self-Study and External Reviewer’s Report
F-Q7 - What is the quantity and quality of the research done in the Department?
Evidence: Faculty CV’s, Self-Study and External Reviewer’s Report.
F-Q8 - Are the faculty competent in the conduct of research and the advancement and dissemination of knowledge?
Evidence: Faculty CV’s, Self-Study and External Reviewer’s Report.
F-Q9 - Are the teaching skills of faculty current and adequate?
Evidence: Surveys-Self-Study, College of Graduate Studies and Research Exit Survey.
F-Q10 - To what extent have faculty been successful in obtaining external research support?
Evidence: Faculty CV’s, Self-Study, Office of Research Services and University Systems Studies Group
F-Q11 - Who are the adjuncts, associates and what are their affiliations?
Evidence: Faculty CV’s, Self-Study and External Reviewer’s Report.
F-Q12 - Do the adjuncts and associates add to the Department's graduate program?
Evidence: Faculty CV’s, Self-Study and External Reviewer’s Report.
D. Learning Environment
The criteria listed under Learning Environment in the Framework for the Evaluation of Academic Programmes are:
Students are involved in evaluating instruction and perceive instruction
as effective.
Program incorporates a variety of modes of instruction, accommodates different
learning styles and, where possible, allows flexibility in scheduling.
Teaching within the program demonstrates responsiveness to new developments
in the field, including incorporating practical (professional) experience,
where appropriate.
Program integrates teaching and scholarship.
Approaches to instruction and students reflect a commitment to the goals
of educational equity.
Instructional methods are consistent with program objectives.
Do students know what the objectives are?
Scholarly work of faculty enhances the learning environment.
How many full-time equivalent faculty members are in the Department?
How many of them are involved with graduate studies?
What opportunities do graduate students have to take part in contract research?
In order to assess the Learning Environment required for a high quality graduate program, the Graduate Program Review Committee is asked to evaluate the identified criteria as summarized in the following questions.
LE Q1 - What opportunity do the graduate students have in evaluating the learning environment associated with their program?
Evidence: Self-Study, Faculty CV’s, College of Graduate Studies and Research Exit Survey, internal evaluation survey(s) and External Reviewer’s Report.
LE Q2 - What opportunities do the graduate students have for participation in the learning environment (i.e., projects, seminars, reports, discussions, etc.)? Are mechanisms available for students to participate in external forums (i.e., conferences, workshops and invited speakers)?
Evidence: Dean’s Statement, Self-Study, College of Graduate Studies and Research Report, College of Graduate Studies and Research Exit Survey, post-graduation follow-up evaluation survey(s) and External Reviewer’ Report.
LE-Q3 - How do faculty include their research/scholarship into the learning environment? Is there evidence of substantial scholarship?
Evidence: Self-Study, Faculty CV’s and External Reviewer’s Report.
LE Q4 - Is there a strong connection to faculty expertise?
Evidence: Self-Study, College of Graduate Studies and Research Exit Survey and College of Graduate Studies and Research Report.
LE-Q5 - What efforts have been made towards promoting education equity in terms of attracting students, registered students and scholarship distribution?
Evidence: Self-Study and College of Graduate Studies and Research Report.
E. Infrastructure
The criteria listed under Infrastructure in the Framework for the Evaluation of Academic Programmes are:
adequate numbers of appropriately trained staff available to support the
program.
necessary facilities and equipment are provided.
appropriate library resources are available.
the organization and administration of the program and the academic unit(s)
delivering the program are effective and supportive of the program?
Are graduate students involved in contract research projects? Are contract
research funds used to pay personal stipends to graduate students (as opposed
to paying research costs)?
In order to assess the Learning Environment required for a high quality graduate program, the Graduate Program Review Committee is asked to evaluate the identified criteria as summarized in the following questions.
IS-Q1 - Are there adequate numbers of appropriately trained staff available?
Evidence: Self-Study and External Reviewer's Report.
IS-Q2 - Are the necessary facilities and equipment provided?
Evidence: Self-Study, College of Graduate Studies and Research Exit Survey and External Reviewer’s Report.
IS-Q3 - Are the computing and other information technology resources adequate?
Evidence: Self-Study, College of Graduate Studies and Research Report, Faculty CV’s and External Reviewer’s Report.
IS-Q4 - Are appropriate library resources available?
Evidence: Library Report, Self-Study, College of Graduate Studies and Research Exit Survey and External Reviewer’s Report.
IS-Q5 - Is there adequate funding for graduate students?
Evidence: Self-Study, College of Graduate Studies and Research Exit Survey and External Reviewer’s Report.
IS-Q6 - Is the organization and administration of the graduate program effective?
Evidence: Self-Study, College of Graduate Studies and Research Report and External Reviewer’s Report.
IS-Q7 - What is the procedure for a student to set up her/his graduate program?
Evidence: Self-Study and College of Graduate Studies and Research Report.
IS-Q8 - Is the academic unit delivering the program supportive of the students?
Evidence: Self-Study, Dean’s Statement and External Reviewer’s Report.
IS-Q9 - What was the graduate program offered by the Department over the review period? Note that this includes the program and course requirements, courses offered, course descriptions and outlines, modes of instruction and methods of evaluation.
Evidence: Self-Study
IS-Q10 How often are courses offered/taken? How many of the course are doubled-numbered (i.e., taught as undergraduate/graduate courses)? If such classes are given what are the differing requirements for the different students? How often are special topic courses given?
Evidence: Self-Study, enrolments, College of Graduate Studies and Research Report and External Reviewers’ Report.
IS-Q11 What is the nature of the qualifying examination? comprehensive examination?
Evidence: Self-Study.
IS-Q12 Is the make-up of supervisory/advisory committees appropriate?
Evidence: Self-Study, College of Graduate Studies and Research Report and External Reviewer’s Report.
IS-Q13 How are Advisory Committees set up and what is the role of the advisory committee in the student’s learning environment?
Evidence: Self-Study, College of Graduate Studies and Research Report and internal evaluation survey(s).
F. Outcome
The criteria listed under Infrastructure in the Framework for the Evaluation of Academic Programmes are:
Programme achieves its educational objectives.
Students are satisfied that the programme has helped them achieve their
personal and/or professional goals.
Students completing graduate programmes are ‘successful’ in that they find
employment or pursue endeavours which utilize the advanced training in their
field of study.
The academic load does not impose undue barriers to completion such that
students can complete the programme in the regular allotted time.
Qualifications/education of students graduating from specific ‘professional’
programmes are acceptable to licensing bodies and/or employers.
Students are successful in national/international examinations or competitions.
Employers or subsequent graduate supervisors are satisfied with the performance
and academic preparation of students.
In order to assess the Outcome required for a high quality graduate program, the Graduate Program Review Committee is asked to evaluate the identified criteria as summarized in the following questions.
O-Q1 - Are students satisfied with the program in meeting their personal, intellectual, academic goals?
Evidence: Self-Study, College of Graduate Studies and Research Exit Survey.
O-Q2 - How successful are Masters graduates in entering Ph.D. programs (here/elsewhere)?
Evidence: Self-Study and College of Graduate Studies and Research Report.
O-Q3 - What is the long term perspective of graduates on the program.
Evidence: Self-Study, College of Graduate Studies and Research Exit Survey and post-graduation follow-up evaluation survey(s).
O-Q4 - Does the program properly allow the students to develop the necessary critical skills? Are the students that graduate from the program appropriately trained for their subsequent role? Are the resulting students comparable to other programs?
Evidence: Self-Study, College of Graduate Studies and Research Exit Survey, post-graduation follow-up evaluation survey(s) and External Reviewer’s Report.
O-Q5 - Describe the employment of graduates. Where are they working now or at the time of the last contact with them?
Evidence: Self-Study and post-graduation follow-up evaluation survey(s).
O-Q6 - What is the average completion time (part-time, full-time students)?
Evidence: Self-Study and College of Graduate Studies and Research Report.
O-Q7 - How many students successfully complete their programs (%)?
Evidence: Self-Study and College of Graduate Studies and Research Report.
O-Q8 - Is academic load appropriate compared to other similar programs?
Evidence: Self-Study and External Reviewer’s Report.
O-Q9 - Are students graduating from the program deemed adequate by licensing bodies?
Evidence: Self-Study and External Reviewer’s Report.
O-Q10 - What is the success rate of students with regard to SSHRC, NSERC, Commonwealth and other scholarships and postdoctoral fellowships?
Evidence: Self-Study and College of Graduate Studies and Research Report.
O-Q11 - Do the students in the program exhibit scholarship (i.e., publications, conferences, etc.) that is comparable to other programs?
Evidence: Self-Study, College of Graduate Studies and Research Exit Survey and External Reviewer’s Report.
O-Q12 - Are employers and subsequent graduate supervisors satisfied with the preparation and performance of students?
Evidence: Self-Study, College of Graduate Studies and Research Exit Survey and post-graduation follow-up evaluation survey(s).
O-Q13 - What do the students say about the graduate courses, course requirements and general graduate curricula of the program?
Evidence: Self-Study, College of Graduate Studies and Research Exit Survey, internal student survey(s) and External Reviewers’ Report.
G. Student Demand, Market Demand, and/or Societal Need
The criteria listed under Infrastructure in the Framework for the Evaluation of Academic Programmes are:
Interest by students of the Province is sufficient to establish or to maintain
a programme and to allocate resources to it.
Market demand (provincial, national) for graduates justifies the size of
the programme which is offered by the University.
The programme attracts outstanding students from within and outside the
Province, while still providing general access to other applicants.
High demand for junior ‘service’ courses is sufficient to maintain some
programmes within an academic area.
In order to assess the Demand required for a high quality graduate program, the Graduate Program Review Committee is asked to evaluate the identified criteria as summarized in the following questions.
D-Q1 - Is there sufficient interest by students to maintain this program and allocate resources to it?
Evidence: Self-Study and External Reviewer’s Report.
D-Q2 - What is the market demand for graduates from the program?
Evidence: Self-Study, College of Graduate Studies and Research Report and External Reviewer’s Report.
D-Q3 - How successful is the Department in attracting outstanding students from within the province? From outside the province? From outside Canada?
Evidence: Self-Study and College of Graduate Studies and Research Report.
D-Q4 - How successful is the Department in providing general access to other applicants?
Evidence: Self-Study and College of Graduate Studies and Research Report.
D Q5 - Is the program capable of attracting well-qualified students?
Evidence: Self-Study, Faculty CV’s and External Reviewer’s Report.
H. Resource Usage
The criteria listed under “Uses resources efficiently” in the Framework for the Evaluation of Academic Programmes are:
Program is delivered in a cost-effective manner, relative to other similar
programmes.
Where student demand for a programme is low, high demand for ‘service’ courses
justifies maintenance of the area of study.
Major areas of research, scholarly, or artistic work are associated with
opportunities for graduate education.
In order to assess the Resource Usage required for a high quality graduate program, the Graduate Program Review Committee is asked to evaluate the identified criteria as summarized in the following questions.
RU-Q1 Does the Department deliver its program in a cost-effective manner?
Evidence: Self-Study, College of Graduate Studies and Research Report and External Reviewer’s Report.
RU-Q2 What are the major areas of research, scholarly or artistic work that provide learning opportunities for the graduate students?
Evidence: Self-Study and External Reviewer’s Report.
I. Unique
The criteria listed under “Unique” in the Framework for the Evaluation of Academic Programmes are:
Program is unique in content (e.g. specialization) and/or approach – nationally,
regionally (Western Canada), provincially [in descending order of importance].
In order to assess the Uniqueness required for a high quality graduate program, the Graduate Program Review Committee is asked to evaluate the identified criteria as summarized in the following questions.
U-Q1 - In what ways is the graduate program unique in content (e.g. specialization) provincially? regionally? nationally?
Evidence: Self-Study and External Reviewer’s Report.
Note:
While some graduate programs will exhibit uniqueness, this is considered as a positive to these programs. More mainstream graduate programs would not be assessed deficient because of their inability to evaluate highly in this area.
J. Relevant to the province
The criteria listed under “Relevant to the province” in the Framework for the Evaluation of Academic Programmes are:
Program builds on and contributes to the cultural and economic strengths
of Saskatchewan.
Faculty and other personnel associated with the programme provide services
and expertise not otherwise available.
In order to assess the Relevance required for a high quality graduate program, the Graduate Program Review Committee is asked to evaluate the identified criteria as summarized in the following questions.
R-Q1 - In what ways does the graduate program contribute to the cultural, economic and/or professional strengths of Saskatchewan?
Evidence: Self-Study and College of Graduate Studies and Research Report.
R-Q2 - To what extent do faculty and other personnel associated with the graduate program provide a service and expertise to the province?
Evidence: Self-Study and College of Graduate Studies and Research Report.
Note:
While some graduate programs will exhibit relevance to the province, this is considered as a positive to these programs. More mainstream graduate programs would not be assessed deficient because of their inability to evaluate highly in this area.
EXTERNAL REVIEWER’S REPORT
The external reviewers will be given the Self-Study document, will visit the Department and will be asked to comment on all aspects of the Graduate Program. Members of the graduate Program Review Committee should consult the External Reviewer’s Guide for information of the criteria and measures used.
Graduate Program ReviewSelf-Study Document Guide
Introduction
The Graduate Program Self-Study document describes the Department under review. It allows the Department to scrutinize itself, to publicize its accomplishments and examine its flaws; it is also a chance to explain itself and demonstrate how it is viewed by its peers. The following general questions should be addressed:
What does the Department do?
Why do they do it?
How well do they do it, and who thinks so?
What difference does it make whether they do it or not?
How well does what they do relate to why they say they do it?
It is absolutely essential that the objective, procedures and future goals of the Department be accurately described in the Self-Study document. The Graduate Program Review Committee uses the Self-Study document as the main measure of the quality of the Graduate Program and as such it must contain specific information. Unless otherwise noted, data must be provided for the last 5 years.
College of Graduate Studies and Research Report
The College of Graduate Studies and Research will prepare a summary report on each program’s management procedures and student demographics. The summary will be based on an analysis of the student files and procedural problems identified by College of Graduate Studies and Research staff. The report will be made available to the Department as part of the Self-Study process. Possible areas to be addressed are outlined in the College of Graduate Studies and Research Report Guide.
College of Graduate Studies and Research Exit Survey
The College of Graduate Studies and Research will prepare a summary of comments and data from the Student Exit Survey that it conducts related to the Graduate Program. This will be provided to the Department as part of the Self-Study process.
Statement from Dean or other Departments
The Dean of the College responsible for the program will be given the Self-Study document and the external reviewer's report. The Dean will be asked to comment on the College’s perception of the program and how the program is currently supported relative to other programs in the College. The Dean may also be asked to address long-term changes in College support to address identified issues. This could involve faculty positions, facilities, equipment, support staff, etc. If a program is supported by a number of academic units then each unit head may be asked to comment on that unit’s future involvement.
Library Report
The library will prepare an analysis of the current holdings and any bench marks for graduate programs. The Dean of the College of Graduate Studies may request the library to respond with respect to all graduate programs. Where appropriate, the Department under review may require a more specific statement. This would include:
serials,
monographs,
interlibrary loan demand,
information retrieval potential,
World Wide Web
Internal Student Surveys
The Department under review should prepare a summary of comments and data from any Student Survey that it conducts related to the Graduate Program. This will be provided by the Department as part of the Self-Study process.
Self-Study Document Content Guidelines
The Department Self-Study document should conform to the following guidelines. It should be noted that the Graduate program Review is not an iterative process. The information requested by the Graduate Program Review Committee and the level of detail required is described in full in the following sections. Self-Study documents submitted by the Department under review will be evaluated as submitted. It will not be returned to the Department for revision.
The following questions may help the Department under review to address the areas of evaluation. Note that there is considerable overlap between sections and it is not the intention of the Graduate Program Review Committee to have the Department under review answer each question separately for each section. Relevant question are repeated because the criteria described previously can be interpreted from different viewpoints. It does, however, assist the Department to ensure that the required information appears in appropriate sections of the report. The format of the Self-Study document should contain summary information (tables, figures, etc.) where possible to assist the reviewers in interpreting the document. Appendices should be used for most of the requested data. Unless otherwise noted, data must be provided for the last 5 years.
Statistical data for portions of the Self-Study document can be obtained from the College of Graduate Studies and Research Report and information available from the University Systems Studies Group and the Office of Research Services.
Where possible, information should be summarized using tables, figures, charts and/or graphs in order to enhance the readability of he Self-Study document.
Indication of past and current trends and future projections must be made.
The Self-Study document prepared for this Graduate Program Review will be also used in subsequent reviews.
A. - Introduction/Mission/Objectives
Program Summary
Identification of Graduate Program, degrees offered, areas of emphasis.
Program mission, purposes and objectives including relationship to missions
of the College containing the Department under review, the College of Graduate
Studies and Research and the University of Saskatchewan
Major Instructional, Research and Service components.
Program history(brief).
G-Q1 - What are the objectives of your Department's graduate program?
G-Q2 - Do the Graduate Program's objectives meet the needs of the discipline?
B. Curriculum
The criteria listed under Learning Environment in the Framework for the Evaluation of Academic Programmes are:
Curriculum is designed to meet the objectives for the program (e.g. array
and sequence of courses, modes of instruction and evaluation, development
of skills, acquisition of knowledge, synthesis of information).
Programme provide students with the elements of a liberal education by encouraging
the development of broadly informed, reflective and literate minds capable
of independent and critical thinking.
Programme includes opportunities for synthesis, application and integration
of knowledge within and between disciplines.
Programme is current, both in content and modes of instructional delivery,
and reflects responsiveness to changes in the discipline.
Curriculum reflects the goals of education equity.
Curriculum provides sufficient flexibility to individual students to choose
courses according to their own interests within and outside their major
discipline (e.g. electives).
Programme meets or exceeds accreditation and/or national standards (if they
exist).
In order to assess the Curriculum required for a high quality graduate program, the Graduate Program Review Committee has identified criteria summarized in the following questions. Where requested please provide the information required to address these questions. For each question you are asked to comment on the adequacy of the Curriculum and the appropriateness of evidence available from other sources such as the College of Graduate Studies and Research report, internal evaluation survey(s) and Student Exit Surveys. In making these comments please keep in mind the Curriculum will be evaluated in the context of the goals and objectives of program objectives. At a minimum, this section should provide an assessment of the extent to which the curriculum is designed to meet the program objectives, is “up-to-date”, and is responsive to the need for change.
Full details of the program curriculum should be given in the Curriculum appendix. Summary information should be given in this section, or specific reference to the appendices, to assist the reviewer in evaluating the program’s curriculum.
C-Q1 - Does your stated Graduate Program curriculum match your delivered curriculum? If not, why?
C-Q2 - What seminars have been given over the review period? Do they cover the breadth of areas that you want the student to be exposed to?
C-Q3 - What opportunities are provided for students to do interdisciplinary work?
C-Q4 - How has your graduate program, course offerings and general curriculum changed over time in order to reflect changes in your discipline? Are faculty kept up to date on recent developments?
C-Q5 - How have the course reading lists and modes of instructional delivery changed?
C-Q6 - How frequently do visiting scholars come to the Department to talk about recent developments in the discipline and interact with members of the Graduate Program?
C-Q7 - Does the program provide for change and has the program responded to developments in recent years?)
C-Q8 - How has the Graduate Program addressed the issue of education equity in its curriculum, research and course content?
C-Q9 - What opportunities does your program provide for students to take courses and pursue interests outside their area of specialization?
C-Q10 - Is your program accredited by a national organization and/or does it meet any national standards that exist for the discipline?
C-Q11 - How does your graduate curriculum compare to that of similar Graduate Program's in Canada?
C-Q12 - Does your graduate curriculum meet the objectives of your graduate program? If so, how?
C-Q13 - What opportunities have there been for student evaluation of courses and the curriculum? What was the outcome of the evaluations?
C. Faculty
The criteria listed under Learning Environment in the Framework for the Evaluation of Academic Programs are:
Faculty responsible for/involved in the program are well qualified; i.e.,
have the appropriate academic and/or professional qualifications to support
and develop the program. In the case of graduate programs, this includes
active involvement in scholarly work.
Faculty maintain and update the skills and knowledge appropriate to their
discipline through involvement with academic, professional and/or scientific
organizations.
Faculty are nationally/internationally recognized for their scholarly and/or
professional work; e.g., have obtained awards and/or local/national/international
invitations to present their work to colleagues in their discipline.
Scholarly work of faculty has made a significant contribution to the discipline.
Faculty are committed to developing their teaching skills.
Faculty are successful in obtaining external research support.
In order to assess the Faculty required for a high quality graduate program, the Graduate Program Review Committee has identified criteria summarized in the following questions. This section should provide an assessment of whether the number and type of faculty available to deliver and support the program are adequate. Detailed information required to address these questions should be given in the Faculty appendix. Reference to, or summary of, information from the Faculty appendix and other appropriate sources such as the College of Graduate Studies and Research report, internal evaluation survey(s) and Student Exit Surveys should be given to assist the reviewers in evaluating this section. In making these comments please keep in mind the Faculty will be evaluated in the context of the goals and objectives of program objectives.
F-Q1 - Does the faculty delivering the graduate program have the appropriate academic and/or professional qualifications to support and deliver the program?
F-Q2 - Are the qualifications of the faculty teaching the courses appropriate? Does their research/scholarship get transferred to the learning environment?
F-Q3 - Are faculty adequately involved with academic, professional and scientific organizations?
F-Q4 - To what extent have faculty been recognized for their scholarly and/or professional work?
F-Q5 - Are faculty adequately involved in scholarly activities?
F-Q6 - In what way has the scholarly work of faculty made a significant contribution to the discipline?
F-Q7 - What is the quantity and quality of the research done by faculty? How does this compare with faculty from similar programs in Canada or other countries?
F-Q8 - Are the faculty competent in the conduct of research and the advancement and dissemination of knowledge?
F-Q9 - Are the teaching skills of faculty current and adequate?
F-Q10 - To what extent have faculty been successful in obtaining external research support? How does this compare to other faculty from similar programs in Canada?
F-Q11 - Who are the adjuncts, associates and what are their affiliations?
F-Q12 - Do the adjuncts and associates add to the Department's graduate program?
F-Q13 - Does the faculty provide intellectual leadership, atmosphere and challenge?
F-Q14 - How does the research completed by faculty meet the mission and objectives of the program?
D. Learning Environment
The criteria listed under Learning Environment in the Framework for the Evaluation of Academic Programmes are:
Students are involved in evaluating instruction and perceive instruction
is effective.
Program incorporates a variety of modes of instruction, accommodates different
learning styles and, where possible, allows flexibility in scheduling.
Teaching within the program demonstrates responsiveness to new developments
in the field, including incorporating practical (professional) experience,
where appropriate.
Program integrates teaching and scholarship.
Approaches to instruction and students reflect a commitment to the goals
of educational equity.
Instructional methods are consistent with program objectives.
Do students know what the objectives are?
Scholarly work of faculty enhances the learning environment.
How many full-time equivalent faculty members are in your Department?
How many of them are involved with graduate studies?
What opportunities do graduate students have to take part in contact research?
In order to assess the Learning Environment required for a high quality graduate program, the Graduate Program Review Committee has identified criteria summarized in the following questions. Where requested please provide the information required to address these questions. For each question you are asked to comment on the adequacy of the Learning Environment and the appropriateness of evidence available from appendices and other sources such as the College of Graduate Studies and Research report, internal evaluation survey(s) and Student Exit Surveys. In making these comments please keep in mind the Learning Environment will be evaluated in the context of the goals and objectives of program objectives.
LE Q1 - What opportunity do the graduate students have in evaluating the learning environment associated with their program?
Please describe the internal evaluation process(es) and/or survey(s) used to assess the effectiveness of the graduate program.
LE Q2 - What opportunities do the graduate students have for participation in the learning environment (i.e., projects, seminars, reports, discussions, etc.)? Are mechanisms available for students to participate in external forums (i.e., conferences, workshops and invited speakers)?
Please describe the participation of the students in the graduate program in the areas indicated. Where possible indicate specific courses and/or expectations in the program.
If the program requires practical application of critical skill in an outside forum (i.e., classroom teaching and/or sessional lecturing), please indicate how performance is evaluated.
Please describe the involvement of graduate students in Departmental committees. Indicate the level of participation and consultation.
If the program is multidisciplinary, please describe the relationship from all units participating in the program.
LE-Q3 - How do faculty include their research/scholarship into the learning environment? Is there evidence of substantial scholarship?
Please describe the mechanisms for incorporating faculty areas of interest into the student’s program and how changes in these mechanisms are being addressed.
Please comment on the quality of the current research, future research areas and long term plans with respect to Departmental areas of expertise.
LE Q4 - Is there a strong connection to faculty expertise?
Please describe the method for assigning graduate teaching in the Department. Indicate the areas of expertise in the faculty teaching these courses in the program.
LE-Q5 - What efforts have been made towards promoting education equity in terms of attracting students, registered students and scholarship distribution?
Please describe the Departmental policy for encouraging educational equity in the program and into the student demographics in the existing program and the effectiveness of these measures.
Please include the Department’s College of Graduate Studies and Research Equity Scholarship Plan and Colleges/Departments Equity Plan.
Has the Department given its students an opportunity to interact with appropriate ‘role models’?
What are the demographics of entering students, graduating students, sessional instructors and faculty members? How does this compare to the demographics for similar Departments across Canada?
Does the Department have any information from its students with regard to questions about education equity?
Are the Department's current modes of instruction, evaluation and program delivery adaptable to dealing with a student who has special needs?
E. Infrastructure
The criteria listed under Infrastructure in the Framework for the Evaluation of Academic Programmes are:
adequate numbers of appropriately trained staff available to support the
program.
necessary facilities and equipment are provided.
appropriate library resources are available.
the organization and administration of the program and the academic unit(s)
delivering the program are effective and supportive of the program?
Are graduate students involved in contract research projects? Are contract
research funds used to pay personal stipends to graduate students (as opposed
to paying research costs)?
In order to assess the Learning Environment required for a high quality graduate program, the Graduate Program Review Committee has identified criteria summarized in the following questions. Where requested please provide the information required to address these questions. For each question you are asked to comment on the adequacy of the Learning Environment and the appropriateness of evidence available from the appendices and other sources such as the College of Graduate Studies and Research report, internal evaluation survey(s) and Student Exit Surveys. In making these comments please keep in mind the Infrastructure will be evaluated in the context of the goals and objectives of program objectives.
IS-Q1 - Are there adequate numbers of appropriately trained staff available?
Please list the support staff available and utilized by the graduate program.
For each one describe their specific responsibilities and time available for support of the graduate program.
Support staff include technicians, secretaries and any other support staff the students access in completing their program
Please comment on the support staff adequacies as well as plans to deal with perceived deficiencies.
IS-Q2 - Are the necessary facilities and equipment provided?
Comment on summary comments made by graduates of the program in the Student Exit Surveys
Summarize the facilities and equipment available to the graduate program.
Space for Scholarly work: laboratories, studios, rehearsal rooms, field
plots, etc.
Office spaces for graduate students.
Scientific or other related equipment required for the program
Please comment on the suitability of the facilities and equipment; student comments as well as plans to remedy identified problems.
IS-Q3 - Are the computing and other information technology resources adequate?
Please describe the information technology requirements of students in your program and how these needs are being addressed.
Please comment on the adequacy of these resources, future needs and long term plans to address these needs.
IS-Q4 - Are appropriate library resources available?
Please comment on the review of the library resources completed by the library.
Please describe any other resources such as Departmental reading rooms, individual faculty collections or other libraries the students are using.
Please comment on the adequacy of the library resources.
IS-Q5 - Is there adequate funding for graduate students?
Please describe the funding sources used to support graduate students.
College of Graduate Studies and Research scholarships and teaching fellowships
Base budget teaching and research assistantships
Non-base budget support
Outside scholarships
Research grant support
Other sources such as applied consulting and other part time work
Other support such as small equipment grants, travel funds, Xeroxing, printing,
etc.
Please comment on the adequacy of the funding of the graduate students and possible solutions to any problems.
IS-Q6 - Is the organization and administration of the graduate program effective?
Please comment on the statement by the College of Graduate Studies and Research on management of the program under review and a list of related comments from the Student Exit Surveys.
Demographics of the students in the program.
Frequency of course offering and enrollment.
Frequency of advisory committee meetings.
Frequency of Graduate Scholarships.
Please describe the process used to manage the graduate program.
IS-Q7 - What is the procedure for a student to set up her/his graduate program?
In what year is the student's program usually defined?
What are the qualifying examination procedures? Are these ever waived and under what circumstances?
Please comment on the College of Graduate Studies and Research analysis, and the comments from the Student Exit Survey and any changes you plan to make in the future.
IS-Q8 - Is the academic unit delivering the program supportive?
Please find attached a statement (or statements) from the Dean of the College or other participating units regarding support for the program.
How is graduate course teaching assigned?
Please describe the support from the College and other related units for the program.
If the program is multidisciplinary please describe the support from all units participating in the program.
What is the procedure for advising students about course selection?
What are the teaching and class loads and how do they compare with other similar units?
IS-Q9 - What was the graduate program offered by your Department over the review period? Note that this includes the program and course requirements, courses offered, course descriptions and outlines, modes of instruction and methods of evaluation.
IS-Q10 How often are courses offered/taken? How many of the course are doubled-numbered (i.e., taught as undergraduate/graduate courses)? If such classes are given what are the differing requirements for the different students? How often are special topic courses given?
IS-Q11 What is the nature of the qualifying examination? comprehensive examination?
IS-Q12 What courses have been recently given in the Department to the students in the graduate program. Where possible indicate specific courses and/or requirements in the program.
IS-Q13 Is the make-up of supervisory/advisory committees appropriate?
IS-Q15 How are Advisory Committees set up and what is the role of the advisory committee in the student’s learning environment?
Please describe the process used to manage the graduate program.
Please comment on the College of Graduate Studies and Research Report, the comments from the College of Graduate Studies and Research Student Exit Survey and any changes that you plan to make in the future in the administration of graduate programs.
F. Outcome
The criteria listed under Infrastructure in the Framework for the Evaluation of Academic Programmes are:
Programme achieves its educational objectives.
Students are satisfied that the programme has helped them achieve their
personal and/or professional goals.
Students completing graduate programmes are ‘successful’ in that they find
employment or pursue endeavours which utilize the advanced training in their
field of study.
The academic load does not impose undue barriers to completion such that
students can complete the programme in the regular allotted time.
Qualifications/education of students graduating from specific ‘professional’
programmes are acceptable to licensing bodies and/or employers.
Students are successful in national/international examinations or competitions.
Employers or subsequent graduate supervisors are satisfied with the performance
and academic preparation of students.
In order to assess the Outcome required for a high quality graduate program, the Graduate Program Review Committee has identified criteria summarized in the following questions. Where requested please provide the information required to address these questions. For each question you are asked to comment on the adequacy of the Outcome and the appropriateness of evidence available from other sources such as the College of Graduate Studies and Research report, internal evaluation survey(s) and Student Exit Surveys. In making these comments please keep in mind the Outcome will be evaluated in the context of the goals and objectives of program objectives.
O-Q1 - Are students satisfied with the program in meeting their personal, intellectual, academic goals?
O-Q2 - How successful are Masters graduates students in entering Ph.D. programs (here/elsewhere)?
O-Q3 - What is the long term perspective of graduates on the program?
Please refer to any internal surveys used by the Department to acquire this data.
O-Q4 - Does the program properly allow the students to develop the necessary critical skills? Are the students that graduate from the program appropriately trained for their subsequent role? Are the resulting students comparable to those from other programs?
O-Q5 - Describe the employment of graduates. Where are they working now or at the time of your last contact with them?
O-Q6 - What is average completion time (part-time, full-time students)?
O-Q7 - How many students successfully complete programs (%)?
O-Q8 - Is academic load appropriate compared to other similar programs?
O-Q9 - Are students graduating from program deemed adequate by licensing bodies?
O-Q10 - What is the success rate of students with SSHRCC, NSERC, Commonwealth and other scholarships and postdoctoral fellowships?
O-Q11 - Do the students in the program exhibit scholarship (i.e., publications, conferences, etc.) that is comparable to other programs?
O-Q12 - Are employers and subsequent graduate supervisors satisfied with the preparation and performance of students?
O-Q13 - What do your students say about the graduate courses, course requirements and general graduate curricula of your program?
G. Student Demand, Market Demand, and/or Societal Need
The criteria listed under Infrastructure in the Framework for the Evaluation of Academic Programmes are:
Interest by students of the Province is sufficient to establish or to maintain
a programme and to allocate resources to it.
Market demand (provincial, national) for graduates justifies the size of
the programme which is offered by the University.
The programme attracts outstanding students from within and outside the
Province, while still providing general access to other applicants.
High demand for junior ‘service’ courses is sufficient to maintain some
programmes within an academic area.
In order to assess the Demand required for a high quality graduate program, the Graduate Program Review Committee has identified criteria summarized in the following questions. Where requested please provide the information required to address these questions. For each question you are asked to comment on the adequacy of the Demand and the appropriateness of evidence available from other sources such as the College of Graduate Studies and Research report, internal evaluation survey(s) and Student Exit Surveys. In making these comments please keep in mind the Demand will be evaluated in the context of the goals and objectives of program objectives.
D-Q1 - Is there sufficient interest by students to maintain this program and allocate resources to it?
Please provide information on the following:
What is the total enrolment in the Department? PostGraduate Diploma? Masters
(non-thesis)? Masters (thesis)? Doctoral? Other?
How many of these students are Saskatchewan students? Canadian? International?
What is the demand from students for your program? Applications? Accepted?
Graduated?
What is your Department's perspective on this mix of students from Saskatchewan,
other provinces and other countries?
D-Q2 - What is the market demand for graduates from your program?
What percent of your graduates are employed?
What percentage of the graduates are employed in Saskatchewan, in the prairies, in Canada, in North America?
Do graduates of program get jobs? Appropriate jobs?
What categories describe where your graduates are employed?
What percent of your graduates go on to further graduate programs?
What graduate schools have accepted your graduates?
Please provide a list of your graduates and their current employment or graduate school.
What is your Department's perspective on employment opportunities for your graduates?
What is your Department's perspective on the success of your graduates in being accepted for further studies?
D-Q3 - How successful is your Department in attracting outstanding students from within the province? From outside the province? From outside Canada?
How many outstanding students have you attracted (e.g. externally funded, undergraduate averages, etc.)?
What external funding have your students received?
How do demographics relate to objectives over time?
What is your Department's perspective on the quality of the graduate students in your program?
D-Q4 - How successful is your Department in providing general access to other applicants?
D Q5 - Is the program capable of attracting well-qualified students?
Please describe the approach the Department uses in attracting students into the program. In particular describe the recruitment process for undergraduate students at the university, provincial, national and international students.
H. Efficiency/Resources Usage
The criteria listed under “Uses resources efficiently” in the Framework for the Evaluation of Academic Programmes are:
Program is delivered in a cost-effective manner, relative to other similar
programmes.
Where student demand for a programme is low, high demand for ‘service’ courses
justifies maintenance of the area of study.
Major areas of research, scholarly, or artistic work are associated with
opportunities for graduate education.
In order to assess the Resource Usage required for a high quality graduate program, the Graduate Program Review Committee has identified criteria summarized in the following questions. Where requested please provide the information required to address these questions. For each question you are asked to comment on the adequacy of the Resource Usage and the appropriateness of evidence available from other sources such as the College of Graduate Studies and Research Report, internal evaluation survey(s) and Student Exit Surveys. In making these comments please keep in mind the Resource Usage will be evaluated in the context of the goals and objectives of program objectives.
RU-Q1- How efficiently does your Department use its resources?
Please provide information on the following:
What is the ratio of graduate students to faculty members? The ratio to
faculty members actually involved in graduate studies?
How many graduate students not from your Department, enroll in classes in
your Department?
In what ways are graduate students involved in the faculty research?
What is your Department's perspective on its efficiency in using Departmental
resources?
RU-Q2 - Does your Department deliver its program in a cost-effective manner?
Please provide information on the following:
What other programs in the university are accessed by students in your program?
Western Dean's Agreement? Others?
How are resources allocated in your Department?
What effort in your Department is allocated to research: percent of time,
faculty effort, Department resources?
What are the administrative costs for your graduate program?
What space and facilities are required to deliver your graduate program?
How effective are these programs?
What are class sizes in your program?
What collaborative resources help complement your program: non-university affiliates, cognate Departments?
What is the nature of graduate service courses provided by your Department?
What service is provided by students in your Department: in your Department? College? University? Other?
RU-Q3 - What are the major areas of research, scholarly or artistic work that provide learning opportunities for your graduate students?
What access do graduate students have to faculty and resources outside you Department? Adjunct and associate professors?
I. Unique
The criteria listed under “Unique” in the Framework for the Evaluation of Academic Programmes are:
Program is unique in content (e.g. specialization) and/or approach – nationally,
regionally (Western Canada), provincially [in descending order of importance].
In order to assess the Uniqueness required for a high quality graduate program, the Graduate Program Review Committee has identified criteria summarized in the following questions. Where requested please provide the information required to address these questions. For each question you are asked to comment on the adequacy of the Uniqueness and the appropriateness of evidence available from other sources such as the College of Graduate Studies and Research report, internal evaluation survey(s) and Student Exit Surveys. In making these comments please keep in mind the Uniqueness will be evaluated in the context of the goals and objectives of program objectives.
U-Q1 - In what ways is your graduate program unique in content (e.g. specialization) provincially? regionally? nationally?
In which other Canadian Universities are there programs similar to those offered by your unit? How is your program similar to, or different than, these other programs?
Note:
While some graduate programs will exhibit uniqueness, this is considered as a positive to these programs. More mainstream graduate programs would not be assessed deficient because of their inability to evaluate highly in this area.
J. Relevant to the province
The criteria listed under “Relevant to the province” in the Framework for the Evaluation of Academic Programmes are:
Program builds on and contributes to the cultural and economic strengths
of Saskatchewan.
Faculty and other personnel associated with the programme provide services
and expertise not otherwise available.
In order to assess the Relevance required for a high quality graduate program, the Graduate Program Review Committee has identified criteria summarized in the following questions. Where requested please provide the information required to address these questions. For each question you are asked to comment on the adequacy of the Relevance and the appropriateness of evidence available from other sources such as the College of Graduate Studies and Research report, internal evaluation survey(s) and Student Exit Surveys. In making these comments please keep in mind the Relevance will be evaluated in the context of the goals and objectives of program objectives.
R-Q1 - In what ways does your graduate program contribute to the cultural, economic and/or professional strengths of Saskatchewan?
Is this graduate program relevant to the needs of the aboriginal community of Saskatchewan?
To what extent do students meet the requirements for their programs outside the University (e.g., in industry, public service)? If so, has the program attracted aboriginal students in the past? Describe any previous efforts or future plans to involve aboriginal students.
Are there opportunities for students in your program to be involved in internship programs.
R-Q2 - To what extent do faculty and other personnel associated with your graduate program provide a service and expertise to the province?
Describe those opportunities.
Are persons from outside the University of Saskatchewan (e.g., from industry, government) involved on graduate student advisory committees? How are these persons recruited?
Some graduate programs may contribute in particular ways to the cultural or economic strength of Saskatchewan. If applicable, describe ways in which this is true for your program.
Note:
While some graduate programs will exhibit relevance to the province, this is considered as a positive to these programs. More mainstream graduate programs would not be assessed deficient because of their inability to evaluate highly in this area.
J. Summary/Evidence of Quality
program’s major achievements and strengths.
program’s problems and weaknesses.
programs’s priorities.
program’s objectives.
Graduating student follow-up on career success.
External (formal) evaluations of quality.
Historical data on the experiences of the graduate students.
Graduate student success in external competitions.
Critical mass of students in research areas.
Departmental funding.
Department’s plans for the future.
Appendices: containing supporting data and other documents
The Department Self-Study document should conform to the following guidelines. It should be noted that the Graduate program Review is not an iterative process. The information requested by the Graduate Program Review Committee and the level of detail required is described in full in the following sections. Self-Study documents submitted by the Department under review will be evaluated as submitted. It will not be returned to the Department for revision.
Statistical data for portions of the Self-Study document can be obtained from the College of Graduate Studies and Research Report and information available from the University System Studies Group.
A.Curriculum and examinations (past five years)
Course offered, including most recent approved GSR form 400 course proposal
.
Courses taken by students.
Double numbered courses.
Special topic courses.
Frequency of offering.
Course changes and updates.
Structure of graduate student examinations.
Qualifying examination.
Comprehensive examination.
M.Sc. oral examination.
Ph.D. oral examination.
Guidelines for student preparation for the examinations.
Historical data on the success of students in the examinations.
Procedures for assignment of supervisors and formulation of advisory committee
B.Faculty and other personel
Regular faculty ( Include CV's under G. Supporting Documents)
Visiting, sessional, adjunct, clinical and associate faculty.
Consultants and Post-Doctoral Fellows.
Professional teaching, research and administrative support personnel.
Research and teaching associates.
Graduate students.
Support staff.
Faculty Profile in Graduate Program (past five years)
Statistical data on graduate student supervision.
Scholarly efforts.
Research projects.
Graduate teaching assignments.
Course loading.
C. Graduate Students (past five years)
Admission procedures.
Entrance grade point averages
Student demographics.
Time to completion.
Degrees awarded.
Attrition rate.
Current graduate student policies and procedures.
Graduate student funding.
D. Resources (Facilities, Materials and Equipment)
Graduate teaching facilities.
Graduate research facilities.
Operating budget
Research and graduate student funding
Computer and other technical support.
Library resources.
Instructional media.
E. Procedures for Evaluation and Assessment
Of instruction
Of program
F.Administrative structure and organization of Department/College
G. Supporting Documents
Statement of the Dean of the College of the Department under review.
Report from the Library.
Faculty CV’s.
Report from the College of Graduate Studies and Research
Accreditation Summary (where applicable)
Other relevant material (i.e., surveys, reports, brochures, pamphlets, etc.).
Graduate Program ReviewExternal Reviewer Guide
In order to assess the Graduate Program under review, we are using the eight criteria listed below. In the sections that follow, these criteria are described and suitable measures are listed to evaluate the quality of the Graduate Program.
Objectives
To provide an external assessment of the Graduate Program.
To comment on the application of the criteria, measures and ranking scheme and to advise on what
is appropriate.
To review and report on the Graduate Program with reference to the quality
of the education provided.
To provide an assessment of the health and vitality of the Graduate Program
and its quality relative to other national and, where appropriate, international
programs.
To make recommendations on the Graduate Program.
Criteria
The following criteria should be addressed in the evaluation of the quality of the Graduate Program. The indicated measures should be used in the evaluation of the quality of the Graduate Program with respect to the above criteria and are considered to be appropriate in the evaluation of the quality of the Graduate Program. They are not intended to be complete and/or independent.
A. Graduate Program Mission/Objectives
Is the Graduate Program appropriate in the context of education demands and expectations?
Measures:
Comment on the adequacy and appropriateness of the Graduate Program mission.
B. Curriculum
Does the Graduate Program provide sufficient intellectual challenge to left the award of the graduate degree offered?
Measures:
Course offering breadth and depth.
Quality of teaching.
Evaluation of teaching.
Academic standards.
Effectiveness of the Graduate Program.
Questions:
Does the Department's graduate curriculum meet its program objectives?
What do you conclude from the student evaluations and comments on the Department's
curriculum?
What comments do you have on the curricula in general?
Does the stated Department curriculum match the delivered curriculum? If
not, should it?
How does this graduate curriculum compare to that of similar Departments
in Canada?
Does the Department cover the breadth of areas to which a student should
be exposed?
Are the entrance requirements appropriate?
Are sufficient opportunities provided for students to do interdisciplinary
work?
Has the Department changed appropriately in order to reflect changes in
the discipline?
How does this Department's curriculum initiative compare to those of similar
Departments across Canada?
Does the Department's curriculum provide sufficient flexibility, given the
nature of the discipline, for students to pursue interests outside their
area of specialization?
Does the Department meet or exceed any appropriate accreditation and/or
national standards?
C. Faculty
Does the faculty, as a group, provide intellectual leadership, atmosphere and challenge?
Measures:
Scholarly activity.
Competence of the faculty in the conduct of research.
Advancement and dissemination of research.
Funding level.
Supervision of graduate students.
Reputation.
Strength and Weaknesses.
Future development and plans.
Questions:
Does the Department have sufficient contact, through its faculty members
research activities, collaborations and visiting scholars, with the latest
developments in the discipline?
Does the research completed in the Graduate Program meet the missions and
objectives of the Graduate Program?
Is the selection of classes offered and the method and timing of offering
appropriate for the program and comparable to other programs?
Do the faculty have the appropriate academic and/or professional qualifications
to support and development the program?
Are faculty adequately involved in scholarly activities?
Are faculty adequately involved with academic, professional and scientific
organizations
To what extent have faculty been recognized for their scholarly and/or professional
work?
In what way has the scholarly work of faculty made a significant contribution
to the discipline?
Are the teaching skills of faculty current and adequate?
To what extent have faculty been successful in obtaining external research
support?
What is the quantity and quality of the research done in the Department?
How does the research completed in the Department meet the mission and objectives
of the program?
Are the faculty competent in the conduct of research and the advancement and dissemination
of knowledge?
Are the qualifications of the faculty teaching the courses appropriate?
Does their research/scholarship get transferred to the learning environment?
Who are the adjuncts, associates and what are their affiliations? How do
they add to the Department's graduate program?
Do the adjuncts and associates add to the Department's graduate program?
D. Learning Environment
Does the Graduate Program provide a learning environment that is supportive and hospitable for all students?
Measures:
Critical mass of graduate students.
Canadian and International graduate students.
Race.
Gender.
Age.
Other.
Questions:
Has the Department adequately addressed the issue of education equity in
its curriculum?
Is the make-up of supervisory/advisory committees appropriate?
Does the program allow the students to participate in and evaluate the learning
environment?
Are the Department's student counseling procedures with regard to course
selection appropriate?
Is the academic unit delivering the program supportive of the students?
Are the qualifying examination and comprehensive examination procedures
appropriate?
Is the nature of the qualifying examination appropriate?
Is the program set-up process for new students appropriate?
Faculty and student awareness.
Interaction between supervisor and graduate students.
Frequency of supervisory meetings.
Committee makeup.
Committee schedule.
Advisory role.
Exceptions to the rule.
E. Infrastructure
Do the facilities and physical spaces provide the essential resources to support the faculty/graduate students adequately in their research/work?
Measures:
Shared or common resources.
Library.
Laboratory.
Computers.
Office Space.
Special facilities.
External resources.
Adequacy of the level of graduate student support.
Graduate student scholarships.
Questions:
Are there adequate numbers of appropriately trained staff available?
Are the necessary facilities and equipment provided?
Are the computing and other information technology resources adequate?
Are appropriate library resources available?
Is there adequate funding for graduate students?
Procedures in place.
Monitoring of the academic standards required for continuation and graduation.
Normal progress of graduate students through the Graduate Program.
Estimated enrollments.
Changes in the recent past.
Incorporation of past recommendations.
F. Outcome
Do graduate students achieve a level of preparation appropriate to the objectives and requirements of the Graduate Program?
Measures:
Competitiveness of the Graduate Program with other comparable programs.
Questions:
Would graduates from this M.Sc. program be acceptable for admittance to
Ph.D. programs at other Universities in Canada?
Quality of the graduate student research.
Quality of entering students.
G. Demand
Do graduate students entering the Graduate Program have the capacity and preparation necessary to meet the challenges of the Graduate Program effectively?
Measures:
Student demand.
Critical mass of graduate students.
Questions:
What feedback do the graduate students give with respect to this area?
H. Resource Usage
Does the Graduate Program use resources efficiently?
Measures:
Faculty/graduate student ratio.
Administrative personnel.
Questions:
How does the Department compare to other departments both at the University
of Saskatchewan and other comparable universities?
I. Unique
Uniqueness of the Graduate Program?
Measures:
Other comparable programs.
Questions:
Are there ways in which this program is unique compared to others in the
discipline with which you are familiar?
J. Relevance
Does the Graduate Program build on or contribute to areas of interest to the community and industry?
Measures:
Community involvement.
Industrial association.
Contracts.
Consulting.
Questions:
Are there ties to the community and/or industry in the Department?
Graduate Program Review College of Graduate Studies and Research Report Guide
Objectives
To provide information to the Department under review with respect to the
following aspects of the Graduate Program that relate to the quality of
the education provided.
Information
The following categories of information should be addressed in the College of Graduate Studies and Research Report on the Graduate Program. Note that the College of Graduate Studies and Research will not be performing an assessment on the following information. It is provided to the Department under review to assist them in preparation of the Self-Study document.
The questions are intended to assist the College of Graduate Studies and Research in determining what relevant data to provide in the preparation of the College of Graduate Studies and Research Report by indicating the evaluative purposes for which they are needed. These are questions that will be asked and evaluated by the Graduate Program Review Committee, the External Reviewers, the Dean (College of Graduate Studies) and the Vice-President (Academic). They are provided as suggestions only.
1. Curriculum
Data:
Past course offerings (as evidenced by graduate student programs).
Present course offerings.
Questions:
What do students say about the Department's courses and curricula in the
College of Graduate Studies and Research Exit Survey and other information
the College of Graduate Studies and Research has collected?
What are the course and program requirements that graduates from this Department
have needed for graduation over the review period?
Other information available related to the Department's graduate curriculum?
How many graduate classes are offered in the Department?
Adequacy of course frequency of offering and course content.
2. Faculty
Data:
Membership of the Department Faculty in the College of Graduate Studies.
Number of graduate students.
Questions:
Does the faculty have the appropriate academic and/or professional qualifications
to support and development the program?
Are faculty adequately involved in scholarly activities?
Are faculty adequately involved with academic, professional and scientific
organizations
To what extent have faculty been recognized for their scholarly and/or professional
work?
In what way has the scholarly work of faculty made a significant contribution
to the discipline?
Are the teaching skills of faculty current and adequate?
To what extent have faculty been successful in obtaining external research
support?
What is the quantity and quality of the research done in the Department?
How does the research completed in the Department meet the mission and objectives
of the program?
Are the faculty competent in the conduct of research and the advancement and dissemination
of knowledge?
Are the qualifications of the faculty teaching the courses appropriate?
Does their research/scholarship get transferred to the learning environment?
Who are the adjuncts, associates and what are their affiliations?
Do the adjuncts and associates add to the Department's graduate program?
3. Graduate Students
Data:
Student demographics
Past degrees
Time to completion
Thesis titles.
Programs.
Research Projects.
Part-time vs. Full-time.
Degrees offered/taken.
Number of non-successful graduate students.
Questions:
How many students have completed a portion of their program at another Canadian
university (e.g., under the Western Deans' Agreement)?
How many from other Canadian universities have completed a portion of their
programs at the University of Saskatchewan?
4. Learning Environment
Data:
Financial support.
Graduate Scholarship statistics.
Department Scholarship Equity Plan.
Questions:
Are persons from outside the University of Saskatchewan (e.g., from industry,
government) involved on graduate student advisory committees?
5. Administration
Data:
Administration organization.
Committee demographics.
Program administration.
Student evaluation procedures.
Grievance Procedures.
What have been the entrance requirements for students into this graduate
program?
What courses have been accepted as transfer credits into this program?
Is the make-up of supervisory/advisory committees appropriate?
Accessibility to supervisor and Advisory Committee members.
Frequency of administrative problems?
Frequency of adequate progress reports?
Effectiveness of program management in comparison to other units?
On average, what year in the program has a student's program of study been
defined?
Have there been waivers of the Department's requirements in, for example,
the case of qualifying examinations?
6. Student Exit Survey Summary
Data:
Financial.
Infrastructure.
Supervision.
Questions:
Are there questions related to education equity on the College of Graduate
Studies and Research Exit Survey? If so, how have they been answered by
the students.
What do students say about their opportunities to pursue interests outside
their area of specialization on the exit survey?
Have students in this program participated in recognized internship programs
as part of their graduate program?