Academic Quality Review

• Academic integrity - the approach adopted must be seen to have integrity in being able to evaluate effectively and address the quality of academic programs. 
   
• Public integrity - the approach adopted must be seen by interested parties external to the universities to be credible and effective in addressing the quality of academic programs.

• Respect university autonomy - an appropriate balance between the need for public accountability and institutional autonomy should be effected.

• Administrative ease - the process chosen should be easy to administer and not require a significant and costly bureaucracy for its administration.

• Standards reflect fiscal realities - the standard developed and the consequent expectations of the public must reflect the fiscal realities faced by Ontario universities.

• Build an informed public - provide consumers of academic programs (for example, students, parents, employers and government) appropriate information on the quality of academic programs and what is happening in the classroom.

• Institutional ownership - for the process to work effectively in the long-term, institutions themselves must have a sense of ownership in the process and that it meets the unique circumstances found at their university.   

Purposes

The primary purpose of the assessment process at Nipissing is formative. That is, the review is intended to primarily provide data that will lead to improved program quality.

 
• to inform decision makers about strengths and weaknesses of programs
   

• to help make decisions about modification, expansion or termination of programs
   

• to provide information to the planning process
   

• to help make decisions concerning the allocation of resources
   

• to provide information to prospective students, parents and employers
   

Reviews will be conducted at the basic academic unit (BAU) level. The BAU is the lowest reasonable aggregation of individual departments or programs. In some circumstances, it could be determined that the BAU is at the Faculty level (e.g., Education) and for others, the department or discipline level (e.g., Geography).

The basic academic units would be defined by Senate (Academic Planning Committee).

Appointment periods of administrators, proposals for program change, and staffing considerations are issues that could influence the timing of BAU reviews.

Normally the Dean or a designate of the appropriate Faculty would be responsible for administering the review process. For reviews at the Faculty level, normally the President or designate of the appropriate Faculty would be responsible for administering the review process. In this regard, the President, the Dean, or designate is responsible to the Academic Planning Committee for the review process. The Chair of the Academic Planning Committee will carry review reports forward to the Senate and to the Board.

For reviews at the Faculty level, normally the President or designate of the appropriate Faculty would be responsible for administering the review process.

External reviewers should receive appropriate documentation from the Chair of the Review Committee.

The following is a suggested list. Other items may be added as appropriate. All items should be classified by the Academic Planning Committee in the context of the size and scope of the review as one of the following:

a) Required core material (this material must be provided to the reviewers)

b) Suggested material (the Academic Planning Committee would suggest that this material be available to the reviewers)

c) Desired material (this material would likely enhance the reviewers' perspective)

Site Visit: 

The reviewers should visit the BAU at a mutually convenient time for at least two days. They should meet with faculty individually and/or in groups and with students and the deans, appropriate Librarians, computer staff and should, if possible, observe teaching. Reviewers should visit at the same time. At least two weeks prior to the scheduled visit, the reviewers would receive the materials prepared by the BAU and guidelines for their report.

Reports of Reviewers:

Within five weeks of the visit, the reviewers will prepare independent reports responding to the items on the various agendas, offering a considered overview of the program's strengths and weaknesses, and suggesting steps that departments might take - with and without additional resources - to improve their programs. Any comments or observations provided regarding individuals in the basic academic unit (BAU) are to be directed under separate cover to the Dean of the Faculty. The Dean will share these documents/comments with the Chair of APC; however, these comments may not necessarily be forwarded to the department or the Academic Planning Committee. The spirit of these reviews should be formative and constructive. All reports come to the Chair of the Review Committee. Copies of the individual reviewers reports are circulated to the BAU.

BAUs are asked to prepare, within five weeks of the receipt of the reports, written responses to reviews, including a discussion of changes to be implemented and commentary on suggestions from the reports. The response may take the form of commentary, or a revised academic plan. BAU responses will be circulated to the relevant dean and to the Academic Planning Committee.

b) Dean

After receiving the BAU response, the Dean will respond, normally in writing, with copies to the BAU and to the Academic Planning Committee.

 University Follow-Up:

There is no assurance that all of the consultants' recommendations will be implemented, but every effort will be made to address comments/concerns identified by the reviewers for program improvement.