4.3 Evaluation Criteria
a) Program is consistent with the institution’s mission and academic plans.
b) Program requirements and learning outcomes are clear, appropriate and align with the institution’s statement of the undergraduate and/or graduate Degree Level Expectations.
4.3.2 Admission requirements
Admission requirements are appropriately aligned with the learning outcomes established for completion of the program.
a) The curriculum reflects the current state of the discipline or area of study.
b) Evidence of any significant innovation or creativity in the content and/or delivery of the program relative to other such programs.
c) Mode(s) of delivery to meet the program’s identified learning outcomes are appropriate and effective.
4.3.4 Teaching and assessment
a) Methods for assessing student achievement of the defined learning outcomes and degree learning expectations are appropriate and effective.
b) Appropriateness and effectiveness of the means of assessment, especially in the students’ final year of the program, in clearly demonstrating achievement of the program learning objectives and the institution’s (or the program’s own) statement of Degree Level Expectations.
Appropriateness and effectiveness of the academic unit’s use of existing human, physical and financial resources in delivering its program(s). In making this assessment, reviewers must recognize the institution’s autonomy to determine priorities for funding, space, and faculty allocation.
4.3.6 Quality indicators
While there are several widely used quality indicators or proxies for reflecting program quality, institutions are encouraged to include available measures of their own which they see as best achieving that goal. Outcome measures of student performance and achievement are of particular interest, but there are also important input and process measures which are known to have a strong association with quality outcomes. It is expected that many of the following listed examples will be widely used. The Guide makes reference to further sources and measures that might be considered.
a) Faculty: qualifications, research and scholarly record; class sizes; percentage of classes taught by permanent or non-permanent (contractual) faculty; numbers, assignments and qualifications of part-time or temporary faculty;
b) Students: applications and registrations; attrition rates; time-to-completion; final-year academic achievement; graduation rates; academic awards; student in-course reports on teaching; and
c) Graduates: rates of graduation, employment six months and two years after graduation, postgraduate study, “skills match” and alumni reports on program quality when available and when permitted by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). Auditors will be instructed that these items may not be available and applicable to all programs.
4.3.7 Quality enhancement
Initiatives taken to enhance the quality of the program and the associated learning and teaching environment.
4.3.8 Additional graduate program criteria
a) Evidence that students’ time-to-completion is both monitored and managed in relation to the program’s defined length and program requirements.
b) Quality and availability of graduate supervision.
c) Definition and application of indicators that provide evidence of faculty, student and program quality, for example:
- Faculty: funding, honours and awards, and commitment to student mentoring;
- Students: grade level for admission, scholarly output, success rates in provincial and national scholarships, competitions, awards and commitment to professional and transferable skills;
- Program:evidence of a program structure and faculty research that will ensure the intellectual quality of the student experience;
- Sufficient graduate-level courses that students will be able to meet the requirement that two-thirds of their course requirements be met through courses at this level (see Guide.)