Transcript Program Review for Quality Assurance

External Reviews of
Departments and
Programs, 2009-10
Overview
Amy Mullin, Interim Vice-Principal Academic & Dean
New Quality Assurance Framework
• A new Quality Assurance Framework has been developed,
as required of all Ontario universities. Details of its full
mandate were discussed by Lynn Snowden at the Nov. 3
meeting of AAC.
• External reviews, governed by this framework, occur at
intervals of 7-10 years.
• Supervised by the new provincial Quality Council, which is
responsible for auditing the process.
Role of External Reviews
• External reviewers are chosen on the basis of
administrative experience and wide-respect
within their fields. We typically choose one
Canadian and one U.S. reviewer.
• They assist in determining the quality of the
program or department, make recommendations
for improvement, and raise any significant areas
of concern.
• Often external reviews coincide with a chair’s end
of term and help shape the mandate for the new
chair.
External Review Process
• Preparation and submission of internal self-study by
program director or departmental chair in context of
widespread consultation with faculty, staff, cognate units
and students.
• Increasingly templates and data to be used in self-study
will be provided centrally. Programs, research, teaching,
governance and plans for the future to be discussed, along
with measures of quality to assess the program or
department against national and international peers.
• External reviewers (typically 2 for a department) visit
campus for two days and prepare their report for the Dean.
Important that report provides detailed evaluation of
programs and curriculum.
Response to the External
Review
• Department chair or program director
prepares a response.
• The external review and unit response are
forwarded to the provost’s office. Provost
writes request for specific decanal response.
• Review summary and decanal response are
shared with Committee on Academic Policy &
Programs (AP&P), Academic Board, Academic
Affairs and Erindale College Council.
2009-10 Reviews
• Department of Anthropology
• Program in Forensic Science (housed within
the Department of Anthropology)
• Department of Historical Studies
Anthropology
• Visit November 3-4, 2009
• Dr. Judith Irvine, University of Michigan
• Dr. Michael Blake, University of British
Columbia
• Chair in 2009-10: Professor Gary Crawford
Major Findings- Positive
Elements
• Excellent job in course development to reflect
diverse subfields within anthropology
• High praise for faculty and courses they teach
• Excellent new hires, strong research
productivity overall
Concerns
• Stagnant enrolment
• Curriculum: complicated prerequisites, sharp division between
science and arts degrees, availability of 400 level courses
• Writing skills of students
• Staffing organization
• Space needs
• Governance – need for more participation and transparency
• Tri-campus relations – increase graduate student presence
extensive graduate department service by faculty
Response to review
• Curriculum renewal initiative
• Increased attention to students’ writing skills,
more connection with RGASC
• Will receive appropriate new space with move to
HSC in September 2011 (though planned new
teaching lab in Davis Bldg delayed, chairs
committed to sharing teaching labs in Davis Bldg)
• Reassessment of duties of staff
Anthropology response
continued
• Executive ctte established to advise chair, more
consultation with department members and
committees
• Use of funds from GEF to increase interactions
between graduate students and undergraduates,
and research activities on campus
• Discussions with graduate chair to ensure faculty
members’ service not as heavily weighted to
graduate department
Forensic Science
• Dr. Max Houck, West Virginia University
• Visit December 2-3, 2009
• Program Director in 2009-10, Professor
Martin Evison (resigned position with
university in 2010)
Major Findings- Positive
Elements
• Excellent reputation
• Good placement record
• Attracts students of high calibre
• Support from the Centre of Forensic Sciences,
Toronto Police Department, Office of the
Coroner and other external stakeholders
Significant concerns
• Concern about location of program within
Department of Anthropology, authority of program
director
• Concerns about course content and coordination of
courses
• Concerns about faculty complement
• Concerns that program does not meet standards for
accreditation
• Need for dedicated space for teaching laboratories
Response
• Temporarily halted admissions to program (reopened February 2011)
• Appointed new director, committed to program
and to working cooperatively with other units at
UTM, secured faculty commitments to teaching in
program, good working relationship with
Anthropology Chair
• Curricular review – anthropology and psychology
streams reconfigured so that students can meet
requirements of specialist, chemistry and biology
streams now meet requirements for accreditation
Response continued
• Teaching laboratories are adequate (external
reviewer not shown them), access to cottage
for “crime scene” analysis
• Planned hire of limited term lecturer in
Forensic biology or biochemistry, teaching
needs to be re-evaluated in 2 years
• Will pursue accreditation for biology and
chemistry streams (only streams eligible for
accreditation)
Historical Studies
• Visit December 7-8, 2009
• Prof. Anthony Pinn, Dept of Religious Studies,
Rice University
• Professor John Zucchi, Dept. of History and
Classical Studies, McGill University
• Chair in 2009-10: Professor Robert Johnson
Major Findings – Positive
Elements
• Integration of several disciplines into a single
unit has been received enthusiastically by
faculty
• Faculty members are dedicated to their
students
• Curriculum sensitive to interests of students
• Faculty talented researchers and teachers
Concerns
• Opportunity for clearer intellectual identity of
department
• Need for more presence of faculty and graduate
students at UTM, more teaching by faculty with
continuing appointments in large courses, more
faculty involvement in student advising
• Governance – suggest clearer governance
structure, more standing committees, increased
mentorship of junior faculty
• Need for increased staffing
Response
• Intellectual identity of department continues to
evolve, new appointments bridge areas of
scholarly and teaching interest, other areas of
common interest (such as pedagogy or digital
humanities) connect faculty from different
disciplines
• Clearer governance structure established, more
standing committees appointed, terms of
reference developed for them
• Staffing increased 0.5 FTE
Historical Studies
Response continued
• External reviewers misunderstood – faculty
already involved in academic advising, continuing
appointment faculty do teach at least one large
course each (with rare and decreasing
exceptions), more fourth year courses to be
taught by faculty with continuing appointments
• Director of Intellectual Community appointed to
increase faculty and graduate student presence
on campus, mentors to be more fully engaged
with new faculty