Note:  The following guidance might also be helpful when considering how a self-study is to address the teaching and assessment evaluation criteria for cyclical program reviews (QAF 5.1.3.1.4 a)).

When developing a new program proposal, what information is reasonable and appropriate to meet the QAF evaluation criterion 2.1.2.4 a): “Appropriateness of the methods for assessing student achievement of the program-level learning outcomes and degree level expectations?”

External Reviewers and the Appraisal Committee/Quality Council members need to be able to discern the relation between the curricular assessment methods used in a program, individual program learning outcomes (PLOs) and Degree Level Expectations (DLEs). To give an obvious example, if a learning outcome is focused on the development of oral communication skills, then a written test as the method of assessment would be questionable. If an outcome indicates the importance of applying specific knowledge in order to develop a set of cognitive and conceptual problem-solving skills, then written tests and assignments certainly can be appropriate. If an outcome concerning such application involves achieving designated proficiency of hands-on skill, then a practical assignment with, but not limited to, observational assessment would have a more immediate relation to this outcome. Simply put, “hands-on application” and “written conceptualization” do not convey a clear and immediate relation.

In essence: “is the assignment or assessment method well-suited for all students to demonstrate the knowledge, skills, attributes, values or habits of mind they have acquired in the course?” and “will the assessment allow the instructor to assess and evaluate the achievement of specific program learning outcomes?”

Examples of the multiple ways in which universities can provide information are shown in the examples linked below:

Long-standing examples:

McMaster University – 2.1.2.4 a) Best Practice Example (Graduate Program – PhD; March 2018)

Queen’s University – 2.1.2.4 a) Best Practice Example (Graduate Program – PhD; December 2017)

Trent University – 2.1.2.4 a) Best Practice Example (Undergraduate Program – BSc; January 2018)

Recent Examples:

Trent University – 2.1.2.4.a) Best Practice Example (Undergraduate – BA December 2023)

McMaster University – 2.1.2.4.a) and b) Best Practice Example (Undergraduate – BA; May 2024)

York University – 2.1.2.4.a) and b) Best Practice Example (Graduate – PhD; January 2024)

When developing a new program proposal, what information is reasonable and appropriate to meet the QAF evaluation criterion 2.1.2.4 b) “Appropriateness of the plans to monitor and assess:

1. The overall quality of the program;
2. Whether the program is achieving in practice its proposed 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.

Note:  The following guidance might also be helpful when considering how a self-study is to address the teaching and assessment evaluation criteria for cyclical program reviews (QAF 5.1.3.1.4 b)).

External Reviewers and the Appraisal Committee/Quality Council members need to be able to discern how a program will document and be able to assess whether students, upon graduation, have achieved the intended program learning outcomes and degree level expectations. In particular, how the university plans to document the level of performance of students in the program as a whole and how it will use this information towards the continuous improvement of the program moving forward. The university should consider: What is the information being collected? Who will collect it? Will any student feedback be obtained after graduation? How will the information collected be used to inform continuous program improvement? How and when will the information be provided back to the program?

In order to then demonstrate how the resulting information will be documented and subsequently used to inform continuous program improvement (2.1.2.4 b) iv), universities are strongly encouraged to ensure the proposal describes the way(s) in which the achievement of program learning outcomes, particularly at the cohort level, is assessed on a routine basis. Most typically, this monitoring and oversight responsibility will be assigned to an individual or committee. Indicators used by such a person or committee typically include student grades, awards data, and exit surveys. It is expected that the proposal will indicate that classes, and assessment practices, will be closely monitored by the individual / committee with responsibility for this oversight on an ongoing basis. Feedback from students, faculty, teaching assistants, community members, and others is obtained and assessed, as is career success and satisfaction of graduates. To this end, every effort is made to maintain contact with graduates of the program (i.e., through a requirement for alumni surveys). The proposal should also signal that efforts to improve the program, whether in content or delivery, in response to these data / feedback will be routine.

In addition, programs are encouraged to seek guidance from the university’s Centre for Teaching and Learning (or equivalent), as well as the QA Office, before finalizing the proposal for external review.

Finally, it is worth noting that the work put into getting these aspects related to teaching and learning “right” at the time of the program’s creation will significantly help not only when the program is launched, but also moving forward through cyclical reviews.

Examples of ways in which universities can provide information that will assist reviewers in assessing parts i., ii., iii. and iv. of criterion 2.1.2.4.b) are shown in the examples linked below:

Recent Examples:

University of Guelph – 2.1.2.4.b) Best Practice Example (Undergraduate – BEng; June 2024)

McMaster University – 2.1.2.4.a) and b) Best Practice Example (Undergraduate – BA; May 2024)

York University – 2.1.2.4.a) and b) Best Practice Example (Graduate – PhD; January 2024)