Systematic Program Review

SPR Home

UNIVERSITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE
FOR INFORMATION ONLY

PRESENTED BY: Lou Qualtiere, Chair, Planning Committee

DATE OF MEETING: May 20, 2004

SUBJECT: Item for Information:
SPR Outcomes 2002-03 for Social Sciences and Music

COUNCIL ACTION: For information only

SPR 2002-03 outcomes for Social Science and Music programs

When it considers the Systematic Program Review results, the Planning Committee receives the Review Team’s Report, the Program Head’s Response, the Dean’s Response, and a summary of the report and responses. As well, Planning Committee receives an assessment category recommendation from the review team and the SPR Executive.

The Committee has now considered the SPR reviews conducted in the spring of 2003. The Committee agrees that the following final SPR Executive assessment categories for these programs are consistent with SPR process and the criteria for assessment as outlined in the SPR Policies and Procedures.

PROGRAMS CATEGORY

Fine Arts:

Music BMus C

BA C

BMus/MusEd C

Social Sciences:

Archaeology BSc C

BA C

Graduate (MA) C

Classical & Near Eastern Archaeology BA C

Economics BA A

Graduate (MA) B

Geography BSc B

BA B

Graduate (MSc, MA, PhD) B

International Studies BA C

Political Studies BA A

Graduate (MA) A

Public Administration BA C

Sociology BA A

Graduate (MA, PhD) A

Please note that the Reviewers Report recommended an assessment category of B for the Music programs and for the Public Administration program. The Planning Committee concurs with the SPR Executive’s assessment category of C for these programs and presents them to Council in this table.

Attached is a report from Planning Committee detailing the two instances when the SPR Executive’s assessment recommendations differed from those of the review teams.

A summary of SPR assessment categories is also attached for the information of Council.

Respectfully submitted,

Lou Qualtiere, Chair, Planning Committee

Members:
Beth Bilson (Law)
Donna Canevari de Paredes (Library)
Brett Fairbairn (History)
Glenn Feltham (Accounting)
Gordon Hill (Chemical Engineering)
John Rigby (Management & Marketing)
Joan Sawatzky (Nursing)
John Thompson (Sociology STM)
Ken Coates (Dean, College of Arts and Science)
Chris Gran (USSU academic vice-president)
Serife Tekin (GSA president)
Ruth Thompson (Sessional Lecturer)
Michael Atkinson, Provost and Vice-President Academic
Steven Franklin, Vice-President (Research)
Tony Whitworth, Vice-President (Finance and Administration)
Peter MacKinnon, President
Barrie Dubray, Integrated Planning
Pauline Melis, Integrated Planning
Rob Schultz, Institutional Analysis
Cathie Fornssler, secretary, OUS

Systematic Program Review

REPORT TO UNIVERSITY COUNCIL ON SPR ASSESSMENT CATEGORY DETERMINATIONS
May 2004

Further to our report of 21 January 2004, there are two more instances where the SPR Executive has recommended an assessment category that differs from that recommended by the review team. In both instances, the Planning Committee concurs with the final assessment categories determined by the SPR Executive.

To review, according to the SPR Policies and Procedures approved by Council in February 1999, it is the role of the Vice President Academic and Dean of Graduate Studies and Research (SPR Executive) to make a determination “on the assessment category to be assigned to each program reviewed.” The Executive determines “which of the four categories best describe the program” based on the “guidance” of the review team. (Pg. 4 SPR Policy and Procedures) The SPR Executive consists of the Provost and Vice-President Academic and the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research supported by the Academic Director of SPR, the SPR Administrator, and the Director of Institutional Planning.

Planning Committee is then “asked whether they concur with the assessment of the VPA and Dean of Graduate Studies and Research. The Planning Committee will report this information to Council and explain its reasons for any differences from the initial assessment.” (pg. 9 SPR Policies and Procedures)

In the case of the Music programs, the SPR Executive recommended Assessment Categories of C for all the programs reviewed (B.Mus./Mus.Ed., B.Mus. and B.A.(Music) because, in their opinion, the review team’s comments and ensuing recommendations as indicated in the review team report, were indicative of a C rating rather than a B rating. After the SPR Executive sent their recommendations to Planning Committee, they met with Patrick Browne, Acting Head of Music; Judy Henderson Associate Dean (Fine Arts and Humanities), College of Arts and Science; Cecilia Reynolds, Dean of Education; Len Haines, Assistant Dean (Undergraduate Programs), College of Education to discuss this review.

The second instance where the SPR Executive determined an assessment category different from that recommended by the review team was Public Administration. In this case, the SPR Executive determined that the comments cited by the review team in their report corresponded to an Assessment Category C, rather than the B assigned by the reviewers. Before recommending the Category of C, the Executive met with Dr. Joseph Garcea, Acting Head of Political Studies, Associate Dean Michelmann (Social Sciences) and Dean Coates.

Systematic Program Review

Assessment Categories (June 2002)

Assessment Categories Description
[revised SPR Policy and Procedures, Section XIII]

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.

SPR Home

PRESENTED BY:	Lou Qualtiere, Chair, Planning Committee
DATE OF MEETING:	May 20, 2004
SUBJECT:	Item for Information: SPR Outcomes 2002-03 for Social Sciences and Music
COUNCIL ACTION:	For information only

PROGRAMS		CATEGORY
Fine Arts:
Music	BMus	C
	BA	C
	BMus/MusEd	C
Social Sciences:
Archaeology	BSc	C
	BA	C
	Graduate (MA)	C
Classical & Near Eastern Archaeology	BA	C
Economics	BA	A
Economics	Graduate (MA)	B
Geography	BSc	B
	BA	B
	Graduate (MSc, MA, PhD)	B
International Studies	BA	C
Political Studies	BA	A
Political Studies	Graduate (MA)	A
Public Administration	BA	C
Sociology	BA	A
Sociology	Graduate (MA, PhD)	A

*Assessment Categories*	Description [revised SPR Policy and Procedures, Section XIII]
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.

Systematic Program Review

REPORT TO UNIVERSITY COUNCIL ON SPR ASSESSMENT CATEGORY DETERMINATIONSMay 2004

Systematic Program Review

Assessment Categories (June 2002)

REPORT TO UNIVERSITY COUNCIL ON SPR ASSESSMENT CATEGORY DETERMINATIONS
May 2004