Systematic Program Review - Assessment Categories (June 2002)

SPR Home

Systematic Program Reviews
Assessment Categories (June 2002)

ASSESSMENT CATEGORIES DESCRIPTION
[Extracts from the SPR Policy and Procedures, Section XIII with June 2002 revisions]

Category A
The program is supported by evidence of academic vitality in teaching and scholarly/artistic work and extension/public service sustained over a significant period of time. It has achieved at least a national reputation, and might be expected to develop as a centre of excellence. Few, if any, changes are required.

Such programs are typically characterized by most of the following:

distinguished faculty with a national/international reputation for scholarly work;

an up-to-date curriculum;

sound teaching practices;

strong student demand;

evidence of high student satisfaction with their educational experience;

routine use of evaluation procedures for all aspects of the program's objectives; and,

justifiable program costs.

Category B
The program is supported by evidence of academic vitality in teaching and scholarly/artistic work and extension/public service sustained over a period of time but has some weaknesses. Some changes should be made. Modifications may include program changes (e.g. curriculum revisions), internal redirection of faculty resources, additional resource allocations, (both faculty and non-faculty), and, measures to improve student satisfaction/quality of experience in the program.

Such programs are typically characterized by most of the following:

many faculty actively engaged in scholarly work;

a generally up-to-date curriculum;

generally sound teaching practices;

high to moderate student demand;

evidence that students are generally satisfied with the program and the quality of their experience in it;

evaluation procedures which may not be as effective as they could be; and,

high to moderate program quality to cost ratio.

Category C
The program is supported by some evidence of academic vitality in teaching and scholarly/artistic work and extension/public service but has identifiable deficiencies which should be rectified in a given timeframe. It is characterized by sufficient demand, and/or may be essential to the service requirements of other units. Several fundamental changes must be made to achieve adequacy and provide a credible program. Deficiencies may be identified as program (e.g., curricular), faculty/scholarly activity (e.g. quality and quantity of scholarship or breadth of expertise of faculty), and non-faculty resources.

Such programs are typically characterized by most of the following:

some distinguished faculty, but more who are not actively engaged in scholarly work;

a curriculum in need of revision;

a need for attention to be directed to some aspects of the teaching enterprise;

moderate student demand;

some dissatisfaction of students with their educational experience;

lack, or minimal use, of evaluation procedures; and,

moderate to low program quality to cost ratio.

Category D
The program, over a period of years, has shown little evidence of academic vitality in teaching or scholarly/artistic work or extension/public service. Such a program may suffer from additional liabilities including low quality to cost ratio, low student demand, and lack of provision of an important service component to other programs. The academic quality of the program area is unlikely to improve without significant additional resources. Many fundamental changes are required.

Such programs are typically characterized by most of the following:

few faculty who are actively engaged in scholarly work;

several significant weaknesses in the curriculum;

uneven and often poor teaching practices and results;

low student demand;

significant dissatisfaction expressed by students with their educational experience; and,

lack of or ineffective evaluation procedures.

In their report, the Review Team will be asked to identify the assessment category which best describes each program under review. Based on this guidance, the Vice-President Academic and the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research will determine which of the four categories best describes the program. The Planning Committee of Council will then be asked whether it concurs with this assessment, and will report its decisions to Council, together with an explanation of any differences from the initial assessment.

Outcomes associated with each assessment category include the following:

ASSESSMENT CATEGORIES POSSIBLE OUTCOMES
[Extracts from the SPR Policy and Procedures, Section XIII]

Category A
Commitment to at least sustain the program at the existing levels and provide additional resources where justified. Examples of justified additional resources might include resources to serve more students; to develop interdisciplinary initiatives; to enhance significantly student experience in the program; to enhance a national and international reputation in the discipline.

Category B
Commitment to sustain the program at approximately the current level and to consider additional resource needs in the context of regular university resource allocation processes.

Category C
Requirement for development of a concrete and realistic action plan by the unit/College to address deficiencies within an identifiable time frame. Possible outcomes include:

Commitment of College/university to provide essential additional resources to remedy deficiencies.

Consideration of potential for reallocation of resources.

Consideration of phasing out or consolidating subspecialties within a unit or between units.

Consideration of an early date for subsequent review.

Category D
Requirement to consider initiation of approved Council procedures for program termination.

Additional potential outcomes relating to Council, the College of Graduate Studies and Research, and the Vice-President Academic & Provost are identified in the SPR Policy and Procedures, Section XIII, as follows [extracts]:

For Council:

identification of programs as areas of potential institutional priority;

identification of programs for possible discontinuation;

preparation of recommendations to the President and the Board of Governors on the next year's operating budget;

preparation of recommendations to the President and the Board of Governors on the next year's capital budget.

For the College of Graduate Studies and Research:

allocation of scholarship funds and the devolution of authority over graduate programs.

For the Vice-President Academic, in consultation with the appropriate Dean:

authorization to recruit to faculty positions; allocation and reallocation of faculty.

SPR Home

ASSESSMENT CATEGORIES	DESCRIPTION [Extracts from the SPR Policy and Procedures, Section XIII with June 2002 revisions]
Category A	The program is supported by evidence of academic vitality in teaching and scholarly/artistic work and extension/public service sustained over a significant period of time. It has achieved at least a national reputation, and might be expected to develop as a centre of excellence. Few, if any, changes are required. Such programs are typically characterized by most of the following: distinguished faculty with a national/international reputation for scholarly work; an up-to-date curriculum; sound teaching practices; strong student demand; evidence of high student satisfaction with their educational experience; routine use of evaluation procedures for all aspects of the program's objectives; and, justifiable program costs.
Category B	The program is supported by evidence of academic vitality in teaching and scholarly/artistic work and extension/public service sustained over a period of time but has some weaknesses. Some changes should be made. Modifications may include program changes (e.g. curriculum revisions), internal redirection of faculty resources, additional resource allocations, (both faculty and non-faculty), and, measures to improve student satisfaction/quality of experience in the program. Such programs are typically characterized by most of the following: many faculty actively engaged in scholarly work; a generally up-to-date curriculum; generally sound teaching practices; high to moderate student demand; evidence that students are generally satisfied with the program and the quality of their experience in it; evaluation procedures which may not be as effective as they could be; and, high to moderate program quality to cost ratio.
Category C	The program is supported by some evidence of academic vitality in teaching and scholarly/artistic work and extension/public service but has identifiable deficiencies which should be rectified in a given timeframe. It is characterized by sufficient demand, and/or may be essential to the service requirements of other units. Several fundamental changes must be made to achieve adequacy and provide a credible program. Deficiencies may be identified as program (e.g., curricular), faculty/scholarly activity (e.g. quality and quantity of scholarship or breadth of expertise of faculty), and non-faculty resources. Such programs are typically characterized by most of the following: some distinguished faculty, but more who are not actively engaged in scholarly work; a curriculum in need of revision; a need for attention to be directed to some aspects of the teaching enterprise; moderate student demand; some dissatisfaction of students with their educational experience; lack, or minimal use, of evaluation procedures; and, moderate to low program quality to cost ratio.
Category D	The program, over a period of years, has shown little evidence of academic vitality in teaching or scholarly/artistic work or extension/public service. Such a program may suffer from additional liabilities including low quality to cost ratio, low student demand, and lack of provision of an important service component to other programs. The academic quality of the program area is unlikely to improve without significant additional resources. Many fundamental changes are required. Such programs are typically characterized by most of the following: few faculty who are actively engaged in scholarly work; several significant weaknesses in the curriculum; uneven and often poor teaching practices and results; low student demand; significant dissatisfaction expressed by students with their educational experience; and, lack of or ineffective evaluation procedures.

ASSESSMENT CATEGORIES	POSSIBLE OUTCOMES [Extracts from the SPR Policy and Procedures, Section XIII]
Category A	Commitment to at least sustain the program at the existing levels and provide additional resources where justified. Examples of justified additional resources might include resources to serve more students; to develop interdisciplinary initiatives; to enhance significantly student experience in the program; to enhance a national and international reputation in the discipline.
Category B	Commitment to sustain the program at approximately the current level and to consider additional resource needs in the context of regular university resource allocation processes.
Category C	Requirement for development of a concrete and realistic action plan by the unit/College to address deficiencies within an identifiable time frame. Possible outcomes include: Commitment of College/university to provide essential additional resources to remedy deficiencies. Consideration of potential for reallocation of resources. Consideration of phasing out or consolidating subspecialties within a unit or between units. Consideration of an early date for subsequent review.
Category D	Requirement to consider initiation of approved Council procedures for program termination.