Frequently Asked Questions
The ideal background of an external reviewer is that they have achieved senior rank, such as Associate Professor or Professor, at a peer institution (i.e., AAU, U15 institutions), are currently active in research, and have had program management experience. A good way of identifying potential external reviewer candidates is to search for programs at peer institutions that your unit would like to emulate and identify faculty who have held leadership roles at those institutions and programs.
External reviewers must be at an “arm’s length” distance from the academic unit and programs that are under review. This means that they cannot have been previously affiliated with the unit or its faculty (as former graduate students, instructors, conference panelists, collaborators, etc.) and must conduct the review from a neutral standpoint.
Absolutely – it is expected. Student and staff voices are key parts of the unit’s self-study and reflection upon the programs and experiences offered by the academic unit. Units are encouraged to utilize surveys, consultations, and town halls to gather these perspectives, and must articulate how these groups were consulted in writing of the self-study. Reviewers will meet with each of these groups and will offer recommendations for improvements to student and staff experiences.
The self-study must cover all sections and themes identified in the template from the Office of Vice-Provost, Academic Programs. The usual length for a self-study is about 75-90 pages. In most cases, the self-study is unlikely to exceed 150 pages. Often, units will choose to use appendices to provide additional information or supporting details about their department and academic programs.
The Office of the Vice-Provost, Academic Programs, shares a standardized institutional data package that includes key metrics on NSSE student evaluations, department statistics, faculty research, etc. The Office of the Dean also shares a Supplemental Data package that provides more UTM-specific information, including enrolments, graduation, and other metrics. These documents will help guide the self-study for the department. The academic unit is responsible for the consultative aspects of the self-study, as well as the curriculum map for each program and/or discipline under review.
Since reviews are focused on both units and programs, the curriculum of each program must be articulated in the self-study. A curriculum map is an important component of this document, as it outlines Program Learning Outcomes compared to UTM’s Undergraduate Degree Level Expectations, and demonstrates how they are introduced, developed, or advanced through the unit’s academic programs and courses. Resources for creating curriculum maps for each of your programs are available through the Program and Curriculum Unit and the Office of the Vice-Provost, Innovations in Undergraduate Education.
Some examples of external review outcomes include:
- The creation of new experiential learning opportunities for students,
- Curriculum review and changes,
- The establishment or closure of programs, and
- The creation of sabbatical calendar for faculty,
- Among others.
No, recommendations are not provided in an order of priority. Rather, reviewers will highlight areas of improvement that they observe through their study of the programs and site visit. The reviewer report will be guided by the Terms of Reference of the review, which outlines the parameters of the review and identifies areas for reviewers to comment on.
Implementation plans will identify timelines for responses to recommendations, ranging from immediate (6-12 months), to medium (1-2 years), to long term (3-5 years).
No, the Administrative Response to the review is due to the Vice-Provost, Academic Programs within a few months of the receipt of the reviewer report, and therefore cannot reflect any already-executed changes and implementations of recommendations. The administrative response will allow the unit and decanal teams to reflect on the recommendations and outline any action they intend to undertake should they wish to implement them. For example, the unit may wish to state that a new committee or task force has been struck up to address a key feature identified in the review. The Implementation Monitoring Report, completed roughly 4 years following the site visit, will provide the opportunity to discuss tangible changes and implementation of recommendations.
