We use cookies on this site to enhance your experience.
By selecting “Accept” and continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies.
Search for academic programs, residence, tours and events and more.
This online version is for convenience; the official version of this policy is housed in the University Secretariat. In case of discrepancy between the online version and the official version held by the Secretariat, the official version shall prevail.
Approving Authority: Senate
Original Approval Date: April 1, 1997
Date of Most Recent Review/Revision: December 2, 2021 (Senate approval); May 26, 2022 (OUCQA re-ratification)
Office of Accountability: Provost and Vice President: Academic
Administrative Responsibility: Quality Assurance Office
A rigorous and transparent system of academic program review ensures quality and demonstrates accountability to the public and to current and prospective students. It also provides a sound basis for program enhancement and improvement. Within the university's commitment to the principle of academic freedom, reviews should be objective, analytical and constructive. Components of the review process have been mandated by the Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance Council (Quality Council) of the Council of Ontario Universities.
Wilfrid Laurier University’s Institutional Quality Assurance Procedures (IQAP), comprising this policy and policy 2.2, represent the university’s commitment to quality assurance and continuous improvement as articulated in the principles outlined in the Quality Assurance Framework. Core to the university’s approach to quality assurance is the centrality of the student and their learning experience, the importance of transparency in its quality assurance activities, the value of expert peer review, and the support of an independent external body, all of which operate in the context of the overall goal of continuous program improvement.
The Institutional Quality Assurance Procedures are subject to approval upon revision and will be audited by the Quality Council on an eight-year cycle.
As set out in the Quality Assurance Framework, the unit of examination throughout the review process is at the program-level, reviewing the program, or set or programs, offered by an academic unit. In the Wilfrid Laurier academic calendar, a program is defined as a group of courses, generally a combination of required and elective courses and milestones, which leads to a degree. The review process is designed to evaluate the program’s objectives, requirements, structure, content, and resources as described in Section C of this policy.
This policy pertains to the review of the following programs at Wilfrid Laurier University and all of its federated and affiliated colleges:
Wherever possible, programs that are offered at both the undergraduate and graduate level in the same discipline, department, or unit will be reviewed together. Similarly, programs that are offered at more than one campus will be reviewed together. Whether a cyclical review addresses single or multiple programs, the quality of each academic program, and the learning environment of the students in each program, will be explicitly addressed in the self-study and the external reviewers’ report.
The review schedule for all programs, which includes all degree levels, campuses, modes of delivery, and joint programs with other institutions, can be found on the Quality Assurance Office website and is reviewed and updated annually. All programs must be reviewed within eight years of their initial approval or last review.
In the case of programs which must also receive review by a professional accreditation body (e.g., programs in Business, Education, Music Therapy, Social Work, and Theology), these review documents may replace those prescribed by this policy only when all evaluation criteria outlined in Section C is included or appended. The Program Review Sub-Committee will make a determination of the suitability of accreditation documents for the purposes of program review. Where the committee determines that accreditation documents may be substituted for all or part of the Self-Study, a record of all substitutions and additions made, along with the rationale for those decisions, will be created by the Quality Assurance Office in collaboration with the academic unit.
In the case of joint programs with other postsecondary institutions, the participating institutions will agree on a common review schedule. Cyclical reviews will be conducted according to the IQAP of the institution administering the review (usually the institution at which the current director holds appointment) and under the leadership of that institution’s program director. For purposes of consistency, the institution that holds directorship of the joint program at the beginning of the cyclical review will be responsible for leading the process through to the completion of it.
The following principles shall apply to reviews of joint programs:
In cases where degree and/or diploma programs are offered jointly or as dual credential programs with non-IQAP institutions (e.g., colleges of applied arts and technology or institutes of technology and advanced learning), Wilfrid Laurier University will take the lead in the review process; all criteria and principles described below shall pertain as relevant.
1. The review process will be initiated by the Quality Assurance Office, as the designate of the Provost and Vice-President: Academic. A letter identifying all of the specific programs to be included in the review will be sent to the academic unit at the beginning of the review cycle.
2. A Self-Study will be prepared by the academic unit and include consultation with students and other relevant communities. These communities may include academic departments or programs within the university, as well as stakeholders in the broader community, such as employers and professional associations, whose perspectives should be included in the review of professional programs. One author whose responsibility it is to assemble all material must be identified and recorded on the document. Typically, this author will be a chair, program coordinator, or associate dean (in non-departmentalized faculties).
3. A draft of the Self-Study will be submitted for review and comment to the Quality Assurance Office and relevant Faculty dean(s), in the case of undergraduate programs. In the case of graduate programs, the Self-Study draft will be submitted to the Quality Assurance Office, Faculty dean and dean of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies. Where both undergraduate and graduate degrees are being reviewed, the Quality Assurance Office and all relevant deans will receive the draft Self-Study.
4. After receiving feedback from the Quality Assurance Office and the dean(s), the program director, coordinator, chair, or associate dean will revise the Self-Study in response to the feedback.
5. The Program Review Sub-Committee will select a review committee (in camera) from the nominees recommended by the academic unit.
6. The Quality Assurance Office will contact the review committee, schedule the external review, and submit the Self-Study and other relevant documents to the review committee.
7. Following its external review, the review committee will write a report summarizing the strengths of the program(s) and note any concerns or recommendations for change.
8. The academic unit will write a response to the report of the external review committee.
9. The relevant dean(s) will prepare a response to the reviewers’ report and the unit’s response, including an implementation plan that identifies which recommendations made by the review committee will be prioritized.
10. The key outcome of the cyclical review process is the Final Assessment Report and associated Implementation Plan, which become the basis of a continuous improvement process through monitoring of key performance indicators. The Final Assessment Report, which consists of an institutional synthesis of the review process and relevant documents (Self-Study, Reviewers’ Report, Unit Response, Decanal Response), as well as the Implementation Plan, will be prepared by the Quality Assurance Office and reviewed and approved by the Provost and Vice-President: Academic.
11. The Program Review Sub-Committee will review the Final Assessment Report for adherence to criteria outlined in Section I (below) and submit it to the Senate Academic Planning Committee with a recommendation for final approval.
12. The Final Assessment Report will be submitted to Senate and the Quality Council for information, and posted on the university’s Public Accountability cyclical program review webpage.
The Self-Study provides an opportunity for the unit to engage in serious self-reflection through the analysis of the strengths and areas for improvement of all aspects of the program(s) under review. As such, the report is intended to be contemplative and analytical, not defensive, evasive, or merely descriptive. The opportunity should be taken for a probing examination of the academic character of the program(s) and for exploring innovative alternatives within the broader context of continuous program improvement.
The Self-Study consists of three volumes: the Self-Study report (Volume I), full faculty curricula vitae (Volume II), and proposed external reviewers (Volume III). The report should make clear how all data were collected, in what form, and by whom. Only data relating to the period under review should be included, i.e., normally the previous eight (8) years. Program faculty, staff, students, and (where applicable) external stakeholders and professional accrediting bodies should participate in the self-study process and have their contributions acknowledged. For professional programs, feedback from employers and professional associations should be included in the Self-Study.
Where an academic unit is reviewing multiple programs within a single Self-Study, each program must be discussed discretely where applicable. The following evaluation criteria apply to all programs being reviewed in the Self-Study.
The distinction between program objectives and program-level learning outcomes is an important one in the cyclical review process. For the purposes of the cyclical review, program objectives refers to clear and concise statements that describe the broad goals of the program. Clear and thorough articulation of program objectives can provide transparency in what the program seeks to accomplish, describe to potential students why the discipline is important, and explain how the program is unique and meaningful in the context of the discipline as a whole. Program objectives are often framed or phrased from the perspective of the program and what it aims to accomplish through its curriculum.
In contrast, program-level learning outcomes are framed or phrased from the perspective of the student, rather than the program. They are clear and concise statements that describe what successful students should have achieved, as well as the knowledge, skills, and abilities that they should have acquired, by the end of the program. Program-level student learning outcomes emphasize the application and integration of knowledge rather than simply coverage of content. They articulate the expectations for student success—what students should know and/or know how to do by the end of the program.
The self-study will address the following related to the program objectives and program-level learning outcomes:
a. Appropriateness of the program’s admission requirements for the learning outcomes established for completion of the program, including adherence to the university’s minimum requirements (consult the undergraduate and graduate academic calendars for minimum university requirements).
b. Explanation of alternative requirements, if any, for admission into a graduate, second-entry or undergraduate program, including minimum grade point average, additional languages, portfolios or creative work, along with how the program recognizes prior work or learning experience.
a. Faculty:
i) Discussion of the sufficiency of the faculty complement, along with evidence that faculty have the recent research or professional/clinical expertise needed to foster an appropriate and inclusive intellectual climate, sustain the program, and promote innovation.
ii) Description of the type and amount of professional service provided to the profession, discipline, or community.
iii) Description of the quality and quantity of scholarly and creative activity within the program, including involvement by undergraduate students where applicable.
iv) Qualifications and appointment status of faculty who provided instruction and supervision, including the qualifications of part-time faculty. Discussion 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. Evidence of how teaching and supervisory loads were distributed and the criteria used to determine this distribution.
v) For graduate programs, the numbers of faculty who have graduate faculty status by type of status.
b. Undergraduate Students:
i) Numbers of applications and registrations, compared to targets (if applicable).
ii) Average GPA of students entering from secondary school (for first undergraduate degree programs only) or from any previous postsecondary degrees (if applicable).
iii) Percentage of students obtaining the necessary GPA, or other requirements, to progress through the program and attrition rates per year.
iv) Number of students graduating from the program each year and their average GPA at program completion, as well as the percentage of graduating students who have completed the program within the normal number of years (e.g., four years for an honours program; one or two years for a second degree or master’s program; four years for a doctoral program).
v) Average number of honours, general, and graduate students in the program per year, by level and any changes in unit enrolment patterns during the time period under review.
vi) Number of international students in the program per year and the resources available to support their academic success.
vii) Overview of academic awards available to students.
viii) Summary of course evaluations and summarized exit surveys, where permitted by the Collective Agreement and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).
ix) Employment options and career successes 6 months and 2 years after graduation, an estimate of the numbers applying to graduate school and the rate of successful admissions, an estimate of number working in relevant “skills matched” fields.
x) Alumni reports of satisfaction with the program. (Programs should consult Policy 8.2 Ethics Approval for Administrative Research Using Human Subjects prior to surveying alumni.)
c. Graduate Students:
i) Numbers of applications and registrations, compared to targets.
ii) Graduate student cohort data. How students’ time to completion is both monitored and managed in relation to the program’s defined length and program requirements.
iii) Number of degrees granted.
iv) A discussion of the nature and suitability of the major research requirements for degree completion, including the number of students completing a Master’s degree by coursework, major research paper or thesis.
v) Student enrolment patterns and predicted future trends.
vi) Number of international students in the program per year and the resources available to support their academic success.
vii) vEvidence that financial support for students has been sufficient to ensure adequate quality and numbers of students.
viii) Course evaluations and summarized exit surveys, where permitted by the Collective Agreement and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).
ix) iDiscussion of the employment rates and further education choices of program graduates.
x) Alumni reports of satisfaction with the program. (Programs should consult Policy 8.2 Ethics Approval for Administrative Research Using Human Subjects prior to surveying alumni.
9. Conclusion
The university will prepare a detailed handbook for the conduct of cyclical program reviews. The handbook will include templates for all volumes of the Self-Study. In addition, the handbook will provide guidance on the benefits and conduct of rigorous, transparent, objective, analytical, and constructive self-studies; establish criteria for nomination and selection of arm’s length external peer reviewers; and identify responsibilities for the collection, aggregation and distribution of institutional data and outcome measures required for self-studies.
The academic unit(s) responsible for the program under review will submit to the Quality Assurance Office the names, contact information, and rationale for those they wish to nominate as reviewers, as specified here:
In keeping with the requirement that reviewers must be at arm’s-length, the academic unit(s) will not contact the reviewers directly but will submit the names of prospective reviewers to the Quality Assurance Office. The Quality Assurance Office will contact the nominees to determine their interest and availability and collect the information to complete the Volume III template.
From the lists of nominees, the Program Review Sub-Committee will use the criteria identified above, as well as additional considerations such as diversity, institutional affiliations, and complementarity to select a review committee that consists of one internal reviewer from outside the academic unit(s) and two external reviewers for all undergraduate, graduate, and augmented reviews. If the Sub-Committee is not satisfied with the appropriateness of the nominees, they will request additional names from the academic unit. The Sub-Committee will submit the names of the review committee members to the Senate Academic Planning Committee for information. Following approval by the Program Review Sub-Committee, the Quality Assurance Office will contact the nominees to confirm their role and to schedule the site visit.
The internal reviewer is included as a member of each review committee in order to provide valuable institutional context. The internal reviewer has access to the same documentation as the external reviewers, and participates as an active member in all of the review meetings. The internal reviewer is not expected to contribute to the writing of the reviewers’ report, but may take on the role of reviewing the report prior to submission.
It is the responsibility of the Associate Vice-President: Academic to ensure that all members of the review committee:
a. Understand their role and obligations;
b. Identify and commend the program’s notably strong and creative attributes;
c. Describe the program’s respective strengths, areas for improvement, and opportunities for enhancement;
d. Recommend specific steps to be taken to improve the program, distinguishing between those the program can itself take and those that require external action;
e. Recognize the University’s autonomy to determine priorities for funding, space, and faculty allocation, and are informed that any recommendations related to the purview of the university’s budgetary decision-making processes (e.g. faculty complement and/or space requirements) should be tied directly to issues of program quality or sustainability;
f. Respect the confidentiality required for all aspects of the review process.
These expectations will be conveyed to the review committee in written instructions and face-to-face meetings with the relevant dean(s) and the Provost and Vice-President: Academic and/or Associate Vice-President: Academic. The Provost and Vice-President: Academic and/or the Associate Vice-President: Academic will also be responsible for providing the review committee with explicit instructions that each program is to be evaluated against the criteria listed in C above.
The review committee will receive the unit’s Self-Study, in addition to a volume of faculty CVs and course syllabi from the Quality Assurance Office approximately one month in advance of the external review. The review committee may request additional information, and these requests will be fulfilled and documented through the Quality Assurance Office. External reviews will normally take the format of a one to two day site visit at the relevant Laurier campuses. External reviews for undergraduate programs will normally take place on campus, but may be conducted via desk review, virtual site visit, or equivalent method if the external reviewers are satisfied that the off-site option is acceptable and a clear and sufficient rationale is provided by the provost and vice-president: academic, or delegate. External reviews of master’s level programs will normally be conducted on campus; exceptions made be made for professional master’s programs be conducted via desk review, virtual site visit, or equivalent method if the external reviewers are satisfied that the off-site option is acceptable and a clear and sufficient rationale is provided by the Provost and Vice-President: Academic, or delegate. External reviews for doctoral programs must take place on campus.
Regardless of the review format, the review committee will meet with the Provost and Vice-President: Academic and/or Associate Vice-President: Academic; faculty, staff, and undergraduate and graduate students within the unit; the deans of the relevant Faculties; the chair/director/coordinator of the unit under review and of any collaborating units (for interdepartmental programs); the University Librarian; and any other members of the university community who can provide needed information.
The report of the external review committee must be submitted to the Quality Assurance Office within four weeks of the site visit. In the written report, the review committee should:
The reviewers’ report will be treated as confidential, but should contain an executive summary suitable for inclusion in the Final Assessment Report and posting on the university’s Public Accountability cyclical program review webpage. Should the reviewers’ report not adequately address all of the above, it will be returned to the committee by the Quality Assurance Office for revision.
Upon receipt of the reviewers’ report, the Quality Assurance Office will distribute copies to the provost and vicepresident: academic, dean(s) and chairperson(s)/co-ordinator(s)/associate dean(s) of the academic unit(s) under review. Within one month of receiving the report, the unit(s) will prepare a written response which includes:
a. clarifications or corrections of statements in the report;
b. answers to all questions and responses to all recommendations made by the reviewers.
Following completion of the Unit Response, the dean(s) of the relevant faculties will prepare a Decanal Response that responds to the recommendations made by the review committee as well as the unit’s response to those recommendations. The dean(s) will also prepare the Implementation Plan, which identifies those recommendations prioritized for implementation, who is responsible for implementing the recommendation, and the target completion dates for each recommendation. Primary responsibility to execute the Implementation Plan lies with the leadership of the program. The Decanal Response will also provide an explanation for any recommendations that are not prioritized for implementation in the plan. This Implementation Plan will form part of the Final Assessment Report.
An exception to the requirement for separate responses from the unit and the dean is in the case of single-department Faculty (or equivalent), where the Dean (or equivalent) is essentially the Divisional Head (e.g. Faculty of Education).
The Quality Assurance Office will prepare the Final Assessment Report, and submit it to the Provost and Vice-President: Academic, for review and approval, prior to submission to the Program Review Sub-Committee. The Final Assessment Report will:
a. Include an executive summary of the review process;
b. Identify significant strengths of the program;
c. Identify opportunities for program improvement and enhancement, with a view towards continuous improvement;
d. Include the executive summary and all recommendations from the external reviewers’ report, along with the associated internal responses and decanal responses;
e. Explain which recommendations from the reviewers’ report will be approved and why;
f. Prioritize recommendations approved for implementation in the Implementation Plan;
g. Include any additional recommendations that the unit, the dean(s) and/or the university may have identified as requiring action as a result of the cyclical review;
h. If necessary, contain a confidential section where personnel issues may be addressed;
i. Include an implementation plan that identifies for each recommendation:
1. The Program Review Sub-Committee will review the Final Assessment Report to ensure it meets and includes all criteria outlined in Section I, then submit the Final Assessment Report to the Senate Academic Planning Committee for approval or further modification, as necessary.
2. The Final Assessment Report (excluding all confidential information) will be provided to the program and relevant deans and submitted for information to Senate and the Quality Council.
3. The Final Assessment Report will be posted on the university’s Cyclical Review Public Accountability website.
4. Only the Final Assessment Report will be publicly accessible. All other information will remain confidential.
Two years following the submission of the Final Assessment Report to Senate, the unit will be asked to prepare an Implementation Report describing progress made on the implementation of the recommendations prioritized. The Quality Assurance Office will send the unit the template and instructions for the Implementation Report several months in advance of its due date. In the Implementation Report, the unit will propose a revised implementation date for any recommendations not completed, and identify any significant developments or initiatives since the cyclical review that have impacted the implementation of recommendations. The report will be submitted to the relevant dean(s) for comment, then to the Program Review Sub-Committee for review and approval, and to the Senate Academic Planning Committee for information. The Program Review Sub-Committee will determine if and when a subsequent report is necessary and communicate that decision back to the unit. All implementation reports will be made public on the university’s Public Accountability cyclical review webpage.
A Cyclical Audit of the university’s internal quality assurance procedures, conducted by the Quality Council, ensures transparency and accountability to the stakeholders of Ontario’s post-secondary education system, including students, employers, the government, and the general public. The Cyclical Audit assesses the extent to which the university’s quality assurance policies, procedures, and practices are aligned with the standards and criteria outlined in the Quality Assurance Framework. Through the development of an institutional Self-Study, combined with the examination of quality assurance artefacts from the previous audit cycle, and an external review, the Cyclical Audit provides the university with an opportunity to reflect upon and evaluate its approach and commitment to continuous program improvement, and enables the Quality Council to identify strong institutional practices, and areas for improvement.
The following steps will apply to the Cyclical Audit: