Undergraduate Program Self-Evaluation Report (Name of the Discipline)

Undergraduate Program Self-Evaluation Report – (Name of the discipline)

CYCLICAL REVIEW OF UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS

(Name of discipline for programs being evaluated)

Prepared for External Evaluation

VOLUME I: SELF-EVALUATION REPORT

(Date)

Approved by the Departmental Assembly (Date)

Updated -November 2013

1

Undergraduate Program Self-Evaluation Report – (Name of the discipline)

Preamble

1. Pages 3 to 5 are for information purposes only. Do not includethem in the version you submit tothe Office of the Vice-President Academic and Provost.

1. Do not include the template instructions in the version you submit to the Office of the Vice-President Academic and Provost.

1. Be sure the report is written in both official languages or, at the very least, the Summary or Introduction and Conclusionare in both languages.

1. Place tables with the corresponding text.

1. If the course is given in both French and English, include the course codes and names in both languages in Table 1.

1. Submit an electronic copy (preferably aMS Word document) and 4 double-sided paper copies of Volume 1 – Self-evaluation Report.

1. Submit an electronic copy (preferably a MS Word document) and one double-sided paper copy ofVolume II – CVs of Regular Professors.

1. Submit 2 double-sided paper copies of the template andVolume III – Selection of External Reviewers.

1. Do not include the checklist with the version you submit to the Office of the Vice-President Academic and Provost.

1. Include the Guidelines for University Undergraduate Degree Level Expectations (Ontario Council of Academic Vice-Presidents), as Appendix 2.

1. Include the library report in support of the programs of study, as Appendix 3. The Library will provide you with this report.

1. Consult the tools available at help you prepare the self-evaluation report.

1. If you have any questions, please contactone of the individuals below.

Madeleine Boisvert, Coordinator, Evaluation of Programs and Courses
Office of the Vice-President Academic and Provost

(extension 1076)

Jovan Groen, Curriculum Design and Quality of Learning Specialist
Centre for University Teaching (CUT)

(extension2607)

Caroline Brisson,Executive Assistant, Management and Projects
Office of Institutional Research and Planning

(extension 5954)

Tony Horava, Associate University librarian
University of Ottawa Library Network

(extension3645)

Programs subject to the evaluation process

The evaluation process applies to all undergraduate programs that lead to a degree or a diploma from the University of Ottawa, whether they require prior university studies or not. Also subject to evaluation are programs offered by affiliated or federated institutions under collaborative agreements or partnerships with other colleges and universities.

Undergraduate programs are evaluated in turn every seven years, according to a pre-determined schedule. If exceptional circumstances require an evaluation be deferred, the Quality Council mustbe advised. The schedule takes into account evaluations required for graduate programsand evaluations conducted by professional accreditation bodies.

Programs that require professional accreditation canundergo both the cyclical review and the accreditation at the same time. The template for evaluating these programs is designed to meet the requirements of evaluations by professional bodies and the cyclical review. The schedule is determined by the requirements of the professional accreditation process; however, when accreditation visits take place every four years, cyclical reviews take placeonlyevery eight years.

Bidisciplinaryprogramsand integrated programs are assessed discipline-by-disciplineduring the cyclical review of the disciplinary program (major, honours or honours with specialization).

General bachelor’s programs also undergo cyclical reviews, but these are conducted using a specifically designed template and do not involve an external review component.

For joint and other collaborative undergraduate programs, the cyclical review process will include a self-evaluation report that clearly explains how input was received from faculty, staff and students at each partner institution. The selection of reviewers involves participation by each partner institution, and the site visit involves all partner institutions preferably at all sites (with exceptions noted, as per Quality Assurance Framework). Reviewers consult faculty, staff and students at each partner institution, preferably in person.

A self-evaluation requires a concerted reflection on and a critical analysis of program strengths and weaknesses and, as such, points the way to how improvements can be made. The self-evaluation report must be not only descriptive but also analytical. The University’s Office of Institutional Research and Planning provides academic units with the results of various surveys that may be used to enrich and support the analysis.

The Senate Committee on the Evaluation of Undergraduate Programs developed this template to facilitate the self-evaluation process and to standardize self-evaluation reports prepared by various academic units. Although the basic information on programs, student progress, faculty members and resources is common to all programs, adjustments may be needed to describe specific programs more accurately. Units may modify the template depending on their needs as long as they include the basic information in their report.The template is to be used in conjunction with the documentInstitutional Quality Assurance Process: Protocol for the Cyclical Review of Programs.

Evaluation of undergraduate programs takes into account the Quality Council’s Framework, the Ontario Council of Academic Vice-Presidents (OCAV) guidelines for University Degree Level Expectations and the learning outcomes of both the program and the degree. These periodic reviewsof undergraduate programs allow us to measure the degree to which programs:

• have achievedprogram goals and learning outcomes;

• meet students’ needs and provide students with a university experience that lives up to their high expectations;

• help the University executeits academic plan and accomplish its mission;

• have the quantity and quality of human, financial and material resources they need and

• are viable and remain relevant.

Self-evaluation

The self-evaluation process allows us to critically analyze all aspects of a program, specifically, the curriculum, student population and faculty resources, as well as all other human, financial and material resources. It is an in-depth, forward-looking probe based on significant data and on quality indicators. The self-evaluation calls for the involvement of all professors in the academic unit, a representative number of students—especially those serving on the unit’s assembly or standing committees—and administrative staff.

The self-evaluation report must include a specific description of educational goals and learning outcomes of the program under review. The goals refer to the program’s purpose (specific profession and graduate studies, in-depth training in a specific discipline, prerequisite training for a related program, etc.), while the outcomes translate students’ expected learning in terms of knowledge, skills and attitudes. The report must make reference to the Guidelines for University Undergraduate Degree Level Expectations, approved by the Ontario Council of Academic Vice-Presidents (OCAV).

Information to be included in the self-evaluation report

The self-evaluation report must include the following.

a)A rationale indicatingthe program’s goals, learning outcomes, undergraduate degree level expectations, student profile and enrollment

b)A detailed description of the program’s structure and content (total number of credits; discipline, optional and elective courses; year-by-year course sequence), admission requirements and opportunities, including access to graduate studies

c)A statement on ways in which the curriculum addresses the current state of the discipline or area of study

d)A description of the program delivery methods, teaching evaluation and learning assessment

e)The administrative structure of the program

f)The language(s) of instruction of the program

g)The length of the program

h)Program-related data and measures of performance, including applicable provincial, national and professional standards (where applicable)

i) A comparison with similar programs offered elsewhere, ensuring that any innovative aspects or distinctive features of the program are highlighted, including the strengths of the academic unit, teaching staff, partnerships, etc.

j) An evaluation of resources (space, professorial, material and financial) required to offer the program as well as an indication of expected class sizes

k)An evaluation of academic services (library, co-op education, academic guidance, etc.)

l)Concerns and recommendations raised in previous reviews

m)Comments deemed relevant and useful received from others (e.g. graduates of the program; employers; representatives from industry, business, the professions or practical training programs) may also be included in the self-evaluation

The Senate Committee on the Evaluation of Undergraduate Programs (SCEUP)reviews the self-evaluation reports. The Committee then meets with the authors of the reports as well as with the chair of the academic unit concerned and asks for any necessary changes to be made. The revised self-evaluation report is then forwarded to the external reviewers.

The self-evaluation report is much more than a description of the aspects being evaluated. It must be the product of a thorough examination ofthe program’s strengths and weaknesses; where applicable, it mustalsosuggest how the program can be improved and what its future directions are.

To help units draft their self-evaluation reports, the University has developed a workshop and a detailed template (Template for the Self-Evaluation of Undergraduate Programs), available online at Units can also call on the expertise of the Teaching and Learning Support Service. Finally, through the Office of Institutional Research and Planning (OIRP), they canalsotap into a range of relevant statistics on the student population such as the number of applications, offers andacceptances; admission averages; registration figures; size and direction of cohorts; languages used; student age, sex, region of origin; withdrawal rates; graduation rates; length of study before graduation; grade distribution; grades in the final year of study; teachingevaluation results and number of registrations per class. OIPR also provides academic units with the results of surveys conducted among students registered in the program and students who have completed the program since the last review.

Self-evaluation reports are comprised of three volumes. The first volume is the evaluation itself. Volume twocontains the CVs of all faculty members.The third volume includes the CVsof the suggested external reviewers.

It is important that some sections of the report be written in French and others in English. If, for some reason, a unilingual report is submitted, the Committee will ask to have the summary presented in the other official language.

1

Undergraduate Program Self-Evaluation Report – (Name of the discipline)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.SUMMARY

2.INTRODUCTION

3.PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

3.1Program evaluated

3.2Disciplinary or professional goals and learning outcomes the program is expected to achieve

3.3Program structure

3.4 Comparison with other programs

3.5Curriculum and modes of delivery

3.6Grading

3.7Progress since the last evaluation or program review process

3.8Changes made to the program

3.9 Bidisciplinary programs

3.10 Interdepartmental, interfaculty, interuniversity and international contributions

3.11 Contribution to the University’s mission

4.STUDENT POPULATION

4.1Admission process

4.2 Applications for admission, admission offers and registrations

4.3 Registrations

4.4 Progress through the program

4.5 Student experience

4.6Survey among graduates

5. PROFESSORIAL RESOURCES

5.1 Full-time teaching staff

5.2 Part-time professors

5.3 Ratio of regular / part-time professors

5.4Evaluation of teaching and courses

6.HUMAN, MATERIAL AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES

7. CONCLUSION

Checklist

List of tables

TABLE 1

Program structure

TABLE 2

Availability of disciplinary courses in French and English

TABLE 3

Comparison of program structures with those of other universities

TABLE 4a

Admission average of new students (entering directly from high school / final averages)

TABLE 4b

Origin of new students

TABLE 4c

Applications for admission, admission offers and registrations by program language

TABLE 4d

Applications for admission, admission offers and registrations by citizenship status

TABLE 5a

Full-time and part-time registrations by program (Fall)

TABLE 5b

Full-time and part-time registrations in second study module (Fall)

TABLE 6

Registration by origin in discipline courses (2012-13)

TABLE 7

Breakdown of class size by course level and language of instruction

TABLE 8

Registrations by language

TABLE 9

Registrations by sex in all programs

TABLE 10

Registrations by immigration status in all programs

TABLE 11a

Progress of cohorts in the discipline (retention and graduation rates in the discipline)

TABLE 11b

Progress of cohorts in the discipline (retention and graduation rates at the University)

TABLE 11c

Progress of cohorts in the faculty (retention and graduation rates by faculty at the University)

TABLE 12a

Degrees conferred (first discipline)

TABLE 12b

Degrees conferred (second discipline)

TABLE 13a

Percentage of students / graduates who report being very satisfied or satisfied with their experience in their program of study

TABLE 13b

Percentage of students / graduates who strongly agree or agree with the following statements about their program of study

TABLE 13c

Percentage of students / graduates who identify the items below as being a major obstacle to access courses

TABLE 13d

Percentage of students who have participated in the following experiential learning activities

TABLE 13e

Percentage of students / graduates who indicate that their experience at uOttawa (including in-class and out-of-class activities) contributed a lot or moderately to their learning and development in each of the following areas

TABLE 14a

Summary of graduates’ employment situation

TABLE 14b

Percentage of graduates who indicate that the following aspects of their program of study are very or moderately relevant to their current position

TABLE 15

Full-time professors

TABLE 16

Full-time professors: Areas of specialization (July 20xx)

TABLE 17

Teaching load of regular and replacement professors

TABLE 18

Undergraduate teaching / professors

TABLE 19

Evaluation of courses (all professors)

List of appendices

APPENDIX 1

Grade distribution for the last year

APPENDIX 2

Guidelines for University Undergraduate Degree Level Expectations

APPENDIX 3

Library support

APPENDIX 4

Bidisciplinary programs

1.SUMMARY

Summarize both the program’s strengths and areas where improvement is needed.

Describe the process followed to prepare this self-evaluation (including the impact and involvement of full-time and part-time faculty and students, subcommittees, etc.) as well as the discussion forums used (meetings, retreats, study days, etc.).

2.INTRODUCTION

Present the history of the academic unit[1] and of the discipline at the University of Ottawa (see previous reports). Provide a list of all the undergraduate programs offered by the unit and clearly identify themor those evaluated in the report. Give a brief summary of the report.

3.PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

3.1Program evaluated

Provide the exact name of the program involved in the self-evaluation (include constituents if necessary).

3.2Disciplinary or professional goals and learning outcomes the programis expected to achieve

Describe very specifically the educational goals and learning outcomes of your program. The goals refer to the program’s purpose (specific profession and graduate studies, in-depth training in a specific discipline, prerequisite training for a related program, etc.) while the outcomes indicate students’ expected learning in terms of knowledge, skills and attitudes.

Units can consult Jovan Groen, curriculum design and quality learning specialist at the Teaching and Learning Support Service,for assistance with the learning outcomes.

(

It is very important to clearly define the program’s educational goals and learning outcomes because these parameters justify all aspects of and resources for the program.
Do not include this text box in the report.

Complete the table below for the program or programs being evaluated (see Appendix 2). If the program undergoes professional accreditation, replace this table with the table submitted for accreditation. However, be sure to indicate the accreditation element that corresponds to each of the categories in the table below and that each categoryis represented in the accreditation. If any categories are not included in the accreditation, include the missing elements in your table.

Learning outcomes

(If you have only one program, remove secondcolumn.)

Name of degree
This degree is awarded to students who have demonstrated: / Name of degree
This degree is awarded to students who have demonstrated:
1. Depth and breadth of knowledge
2. Knowledge of methodologies
3. Application of knowledge
4. Communication skills
5. Awareness of limits of knowledge
6. Autonomy and professional capacity

3.3Program structure

Complete Table 1 and include a copy of the program, as it is presented in the University’s calendar, as an Appendix. If the program offers the co-op option, attach the sequence of co-op terms as well.

TABLE 1

Program structure

(If you have only one program, remove secondcolumn.)

Program name: / Program name:
Code: / Cr. / Title abbrev.: / Code: / Cr. / Title abbrev.:
Compulsory core courses[2] / Compulsory core courses
Subtotal: / Subtotal:
Compulsory courses in the discipline[3] / Compulsory courses in the discipline
Subtotal: / Subtotal:
Optional courses[4] / Optional courses
Total number of optional credits required: / Total number of optional credits required:
Number of credits at the 3000 level: / Number of credits at the 3000 level:
Number of credits at the 4000 level:
Elective courses[5] / Elective courses
Number of credits required: / Number of credits required:
Total credits: / Total credits:

i)Justify the structure of the program (core credits, disciplinary credits, compulsory and optional credits, elective courses, number of credits for each of the course groups, credit totals and areas of specialization).

ii)Show how the curriculum reflects the current state of the discipline or field of study and highlights the innovative and creative elements with respect to content that set the curriculum or program apart from similar ones.

iii)Discuss the availability of courses in French and English, taking into account the University’s mission.

TABLE 2

Availability of disciplinary courses in French and English

French / English
2010-2011 / 2011-2012 / 2012-2013 / 2010-2011 / 2011-2012 / 2012-2013
CMNxxxx / CMNxxxx

1. Courses offered in Fall and Winter sessions.

iv)Discuss French and English teaching material.