2.1 Evaluation Criteria
Prior to submitting a Proposal Brief to the Quality Council for appraisal, institutions will evaluate any new graduate or undergraduate programs against the following criteria:
a) Consistency of the program with the institution’s mission and academic plans.
b) Clarity and appropriateness of the program’s requirements and associated learning outcomes in addressing the institution’s own undergraduate or graduate Degree Level Expectations.
c) Appropriateness of degree nomenclature.
2.1.2 Admission requirements
a) Appropriateness of the program’s admission requirements for the learning outcomes established for completion of the program.
b) Sufficient explanation of alternative requirements, if any, for admission into a graduate, second-entry or undergraduate program, such as minimum grade-point average, additional languages or portfolios, along with how the program recognizes prior work or learning experience.
a) Appropriateness of the program’s structure and regulations to meet specified program learning outcomes and Degree Level Expectations.
b) For graduate programs, a clear rationale for program length that ensures that the program requirements can be reasonably completed within the proposed time period.
2.1.4 Program content
a) Ways in which the curriculum addresses the current state of the discipline or area of study.
b) Identification of any unique curriculum or program innovations or creative components.
c) For research-focused graduate programs, clear indication of the nature and suitability of the major research requirements for degree completion.
d) Evidence that each graduate student in the program is required to take a minimum of two-thirds of the course requirements from among graduate level courses.
2.1.5 Mode of delivery
Appropriateness of the proposed mode(s) of delivery (see Definitions) to meet the intended program learning outcomes and Degree Level Expectations.
2.1.6 Assessment of teaching and learning
a) Appropriateness of the proposed methods for the assessment of student achievement of the intended program learning outcomes and Degree Level Expectations.
b) Completeness of plans for documenting and demonstrating the level of performance of students, consistent with the institution’s statement of its Degree Level Expectations (see Guide).
2.1.7 Resources for all programs
a) Adequacy of the administrative unit’s planned utilization of existing human, physical and financial resources, and any institutional commitment to supplement those resources, to support the program.
b) Participation of a sufficient number and quality of faculty who are competent to teach and/or supervise in the program.
c) Evidence that there are adequate resources to sustain the quality of scholarship produced by undergraduate students as well as graduate students’ scholarship and research activities, including library support, information technology support, and laboratory access.
2.1.8 Resources for graduate programs only
a) Evidence that faculty have the recent research or professional/clinical expertise needed to sustain the program, promote innovation and foster an appropriate intellectual climate.
b) Where appropriate to the program, evidence that financial assistance for students will be sufficient to ensure adequate quality and numbers of students.
c) Evidence of how supervisory loads will be distributed, and the qualifications and appointment status of faculty who will provide instruction and supervision.
2.1.9 Resources for undergraduate programs only
Evidence of and planning for adequate numbers and quality of: (a) faculty and staff to achieve the goals of the program; or (b) of plans and the commitment to provide the necessary resources in step with the implementation of the program; (c) planned/anticipated class sizes; (d) provision of supervision of experiential learning opportunities (if required); and (e) the role of adjunct and part-time faculty.
2.1.10 Quality and other indicators
a) Definition and use of indicators that provide evidence of quality of the faculty (e.g., qualifications, research, innovation and scholarly record; appropriateness of collective faculty expertise to contribute substantively to the proposed program).
b) Evidence of a program structure and faculty research that will ensure the intellectual quality of the student experience.