Evaluation Criteria

The IQAP protocol for review of existing undergraduate and graduate programs shall minimally require that the evaluation criteria, as set out below, be addressed in both the self-study and external reviewers’ reports. Where it so chooses, the university may expand upon these evaluation criteria.     Program objectives

  1. Consistency of the program’s objectives with the institution’s mission and academic plans.     Program requirements

  1. Appropriateness of the program’s structure and the requirements to meet its objectives and the program-level learning outcomes;
  2. Appropriateness of the program’s structure, requirements and program-level learning outcomes in meeting the institution’s own undergraduate or graduate Degree Level Expectations;
  3. Appropriateness and effectiveness of the mode(s) of delivery (see Definitions) to facilitate students’ successful completion of the program-level learning outcomes; and
  4. Ways in which the curriculum addresses the current state of the discipline or area of study.     Program requirements for graduate programs only

  1. Clear rationale for program length that ensures that students can complete the program-level learning outcomes and requirements within the time required;
  2. 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; and
  3. For research-focused graduate programs, clear indication of the nature and suitability of the major research requirements for degree completion.     Assessment of teaching and learning (see Guidance)

  1. Appropriateness and effectiveness of the methods for assessing student achievement of the program-level learning outcomes and degree level expectations; and
  2. Appropriateness and effectiveness of the plans to monitor and assess:
    1. The overall quality of the program;
    2. Whether the program continues to achieve in practice its objectives;
    3. Whether its students are achieving the program-level learning outcomes; and
    4. How the resulting information will be documented and subsequently used to inform continuous program improvement.     Admission requirements

  1. Appropriateness of the program’s admission requirements given the program’s objectives and program-level learning outcomes; and
  2. Sufficient explanation of alternative requirements, if applicable, for admission into a graduate, second-entry or undergraduate program, e.g., minimum grade point average, additional languages or portfolios, and how the program recognizes prior work or learning experience.     Resources

Given the program’s class sizes and cohorts as well as its program-level learning outcomes:

  1. Participation of a sufficient number of qualified core faculty who are competent to teach and/or supervise in and achieve the goals of the program and foster the appropriate academic environment;
  2. If applicable, discussion/explanation of the role and approximate percentage of adjunct and part-time faculty/limited term appointments used in the delivery of the program and the associated plans to ensure the sustainability of the program and quality of the student experience (see Guidance);
  3. If required, provision of supervision of experiential learning opportunities;
  4. Adequacy of the administrative unit’s utilization of existing human, physical and financial resources; and
  5. Evidence that there are adequate resources to sustain the quality of scholarship and research activities produced by students, including library support, information technology support, and laboratory access.     Resources for graduate programs only

Given the program’s class sizes and cohorts, as well as its program-level learning outcomes:

  1. Evidence that faculty have the recent research or professional/clinical expertise needed to foster an appropriate intellectual climate, sustain the program, and promote innovation;
  2. Where appropriate to the program, evidence that financial assistance for students is sufficient to ensure adequate quality and numbers of students; and
  3. Evidence of how supervisory loads are distributed, in light of qualifications and appointment status of the faculty.     Quality and other indicators

  1. Evidence of the quality of the faculty (e.g., qualifications, funding, honours, awards, research, innovation and scholarly record; appropriateness of collective faculty expertise to contribute substantively to the program and commitment to student mentoring);
  2. Any other evidence that the program and faculty ensure the intellectual quality of the student experience; and
  3. For students: grade-level for admission, scholarly output, success rates in provincial and national scholarships, competitions, awards and commitment to professional and transferable skills, and times-to-completion and retention rates.