The Commissioning Officer, usually the Dean, formally commissions the review. The review must take place no later than 8 years following the last review.
The Terms of Reference outline the programs to be reviewed, and the parameters of the review (what the reviewers must assess).
The Office of the Vice-Principal Academic & Dean (OVPAD) and Office of the Vice-Provost, Academic Programs (VPAP) share a standardized data package with institutional metrics and a supplemental data package with UTM-specific data to help the unit utilize key quality indicators (such as faculty research performance, student evaluations, graduation rates, etc.) in assessing the unit's programs.
The self study serves as an introduction for the reviewers to the unit's programs. The study comes out of internal consultation, as the unit reflects on its curriculum, its quality indications, and key considerations that affect the programs under review. The study must follow the structure of the template shared by VPAP.
The unit must submit a number of reviewer nominations, which must be vetted by the OVPAD and finally approved by the VPAP. Reviewers must be leading scholars at peer institutions, with administrative experience and no potential conflict of interest.
During a 2-Day visit, reviewers meet with senior leadership at UTM, unit leadership, staff, and students. The visit should include discussions about the curriculum, available spaces, student experience, and any concerns or challenges experienced by the unit or its community.
Submitted by reviewers roughly a month after the site visit, the Reviewer Report must address all of the priorities and programs outlined in the Terms of Reference. The OVPAD fact checks the report, prior to finalizing it and sending it to the unit and VPAP.
Following receipt of the reviewer report, VPAP requests an administrative response from the unit Chair and the Dean. The Town Hall is an opportunity for the entire unit community to reflect upon the recommendations of the reviewers, and craft these administrative responses. The responses do not require full implementation; rather, a discussion of plans to address them.
Administrative responses take shape as the Final Assessment Report & Implementation Plan (FAR/IP), which highlights each of the recommendations made by the reviewers, and plans to address them.
The FAR/IP is brought to AP&P for approval, circulated through the levels of governance, and ultimately sent to Quality Canada (and posted online by UofT).
UTM and the unit set out to implement various changes stemming from the review. VPAP has a Program Innovation Fund to support these changes (such as curriculum renewal, program development, etc.). The next review will take place within 8 years.
Note: AP&P may request a follow-up report to be submitted within a year of the review.
