New Program Proposals: what you need to know … Opening remarks by Mario and Jeff (5 minutes) Mario Coniglio, Associate Vice-President, Academic Jeff Casello, Associate Provost, Graduate Studies

Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance (Quality Council or QC) Was established by OCAV in 2010 Operates at arm’s length from the provincial government and the public universities QC is supported by an Appraisal Committee and an Audit Committee Source: http://oucqa.ca/framework/1-2-quality-assurance-in-ontario/ Amanda & Ena present slides 2 - 25

New Program Proposals Quality Council (QC) reviews and must give approval to each new undergraduate and graduate program at Ontario universities The QC works closely with the Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development (MAESD) QC looks closely at curriculum, learning outcomes and content, whereas MAESD looks more at duplication, labour market and student demand, SMA alignment and the proposed tuition fees

New Program Proposals Cyclical reviews of existing programs Every university follows its own Institutional Quality Assurance Process (IQAP) that is approved by the Quality Council The IQAP is our road map as to how to prepare a new program proposal Compliance is the responsibility of the AVPA and APGS with support from the Quality Assurance Office The steps for approval of a new program are similar to those for cyclical reviews of existing programs IQAP outlines the various processes related to: Proposals for new academic programs/degrees Cyclical reviews of existing programs Changes to existing programs (major modifications) Closure of existing degrees and programs

What is a new program Any degree, degree program, or program of specialization, currently approved by Senate or equivalent governing body, which has not been previously approved for that institution by the Quality Council Source: http://oucqa.ca/framework/1-6-definitions/

A major modification to an existing program may include: Requirements that differ significantly from those existing at the time of the previous cyclical program review; Significant changes to the learning outcomes; Significant changes to the faculty engaged in delivering the program and/or to the essential physical resources as may occur, for example, where there have been changes to the existing mode(s) of delivery (such as different campus, online delivery and inter-institutional collaboration); The addition of a new field to an existing graduate program Source: http://oucqa.ca/framework/1-6-definitions/

A change of name, only, does not constitute a new program; nor does the inclusion of a new program of specialization where another with the same designation already exists (e.g., a new honours program where a major with the same designation already exists). Source: http://oucqa.ca/framework/1-6-definitions/

Program Type Senate External reviewers Quality Council MAESD Undergrad minor, option, certificate Yes No Undergrad major or specialization Yes if “brand-new” Yes, in non-core areas Undergraduate degree Undergraduate diploma Graduate field4 Graduate collab. program New graduate degree Graduate Diploma Yes, if stand-alone Major change to existing program No (but notification required) *No, but change needs to be reported to MAESD in the Annual Program Development Report *(Confirm with IAP) Minor change to existing program

Where to start?! Discuss the idea within your department Contact the Quality Assurance Office Recognize the timeline to develop a new program (~18-24 months) Ask IAP any questions in regards to starting a new program proposal Create a “statement of interest” Source: https://uwaterloo.ca/academic-reviews/sites/ca.academic- reviews/files/uploads/files/new_program_timeline_process_fall_2016.pdf

Statement of Interest must include: The proposed emphasis of the new program Whether the program will be regular, co-op or both A suggested date for starting the program The name of the individual(s) who will be developing the new program proposal Space needs

Share Statement of Interest with: Associate Registrar(s) for your Faculty Space Planning & Utilization Office CTE Associate Dean (UG or GRAD) CECA RO & MUR IAP Library Quality Assurance Office CEL

Point out stage in process

New Program Proposal Feedback from and consultation with the aforementioned groups should be used to develop your proposal document (Volume I) Financial Viability Analysis (including space costs) MUST be approved by the Provost before being presented to Faculty Council Complete 3 volumes: I) Proposed Brief, II) Faculty CV’s and III) Suggested Reviewers Templates are available on the Academic Program Reviews website Open website and show basic navigation

Site Visit The two external reviewers will read the new program proposal The external reviewers then come to campus and meet up with one internal reviewer for a site visit Visit typically takes place over 2 days Reviewers meet with current faculty, instructors, students and alumni and tour program related facilities

External Reviewers Report External reviewers use a template to write their report The reviewers’ report is submitted 2 weeks after the site visit QA Office will communicate with the reviewers should any further clarification and/or information be needed

Reviewers Report The Provost, Dean or AFIW head, Associate Dean (UG or GRAD Studies), Associate Vice-President, Academic, and/or Associate Provost, Graduate Studies and the program all receive a copy of the report Any factual errors should be communicated to the QA Office Revisions to the proposal will be made by the program The revised proposal is then taken back to Department/School and Faculty Council for approval

Internal Approval The proposal is reviewed by council members at either Senate Undergraduate Council (SUC) or Senate Graduate & Research Council (SGRC) Once passed through SUC or SGRC, the proposal is sent to Senate for approval New programs may be advertised once Senate approval has been granted and the proposal has been sent to the Quality Council, but should clearly state “subject to approval by the Quality Council”

Ministry Approval Required for: Submission to MAESD Ministry Approval Required for: Grant Eligibility Tuition & Fees Information Required: Evidence of Societal/Labour Market Need Evidence of Student Demand Justifiable Duplication Alignment with SMA areas of growth and/or strength Operating grant support from Ministry ensures students in the program are OSAP-eligible (Not eligible for grant = No OSAP support for students) Information Required: Tuition & fees compared and contrasted with similar programs in the province Tuition breakdown (# terms, FT vs. PT, # co-op terms, etc.) Requested BIU weight (FORPOS code, CIP code) Program enrolment plan Compliance with Ministry regulations

Ministry Guidelines for New Programs Institutions can submit concerns about competition, differentiation, labour market demand, student demand, availability of work placements Ministry Submission Deadline Other institutions invited to comment on proposals Ministry decides which programs are expedited Ministry announces decisions for expedited programs Non-expedited (secondary) review January February May ? April August June July October November December March IAP will speak to this

Ministry Guidelines for New Programs Alignment with Strategic Mandate Agreement Comparable tuition fees – high-cost programs often lead to additional Ministry scrutiny Cost of program delivery – ability to operate program without additional infrastructure or operating investment Justifiable duplication (institutional differentiation) Evidence of societal need and labour market demand Evidence of student demand IAP will speak to this All new non-core programs require Ministry approval to be eligible for grant. The Ministry has rules. IAP is here to help Faculties navigate these rules so UW can be efficient and successful acquiring Ministry approval

Ministry Guidelines for New Programs Enrolment planning and graduate allocations Experiential learning (sufficient plan, evidence of placement opportunities) Program prioritization/program transformation Accreditation process underway, if applicable Programs offered at new locations justified Consent sought for collaborative/joint programs IAP will speak to this All new non-core programs require Ministry approval to be eligible for grant. The Ministry has rules. IAP is here to help Faculties navigate these rules so UW can be efficient and successful acquiring Ministry approval

Financial Viability Analysis Enrolment planning and projections Steady state projection Proposed tuition rates Grant value (Ministry BIU value for program) Number of new faculty positions (if any) required to run program Space requirements (New infrastructure required? Labs? Studios?) Other considerations, as applicable IAP will speak to this

Enrolment planning, financial viability analysis, tuition rates, Ministry environment/compliance, support for Faculties and Departments IAP responds to Ministry questions about program, follow up discussions, if applicable IAP prepares and submits program approval submission for Ministry; coordinates submission of tuition rates and fees to BOG

CTE Support – Program Design Creating program outcomes Identifying key learning experiences What makes this program distinct from similar programs? Mapping the Curriculum Fulfilling Degree Level Expectations (UDLEs/GDLEs) Course and other key learning experiences IAP will speak to this

CTE Support - Assessment What do we want from our students? How are they developing these attributes? How are we (and they) assessing their progress? Adapted from: Wolf, P. (2010). Curriculum Development Processes: Faculty-Driven and Data-Informed. Presentation at the Spring 2010 Degree Level Expectations Workshop – Implementing the Undergraduate and Graduate Degree Level Expectations: Sharing Successes and Challenges.

Library Report Issues-driven template Evaluates overall level of potential support Information resources Research skills development Research support Get to know your Librarian Library site > Services > Librarians by Subject

Information Resources Particular strengths in local holdings Critical gaps Cost of new needs Infrastructure to support open access publishing The online general support page: * Highlights critical resources areas for the program and how these are supported in a high level. For journals and eResources, specific critical titles will be highlighted. Access from off-campus is also addressed. *Since access is critical, more than ownership, the Library reports outlines the many ways that we ensure a high-level of access to our collection as well as collections from other universities. If appropriate, mentions key supporting resources from Ontario and/or Guelph and Laurier. For example, the Theater Archives at the University of Guelph would be of interest to the Drama & Speech Communications Department.

Information Services Research skills development in support of communication degree learning expectations Course integration and collaboration Partnerships to support student learning and research The Liaison Librarian develops information literacy-related activities and materials, in consultation with faculty. These include the development of online modules, research guides and screencasts as well as the preparation of classroom sessions and outcomes-based workshops for students in the program. It is intended that the sessions and workshops may complement, or take the form of, assignments students complete as part of their course requirements. Depending on the nature of the assignments and the instructors’ expectations, these activities focus on introducing, reinforcing, or mastering key aspects of information seeking, critical appraisal , information management and supporting academic integrity. Liaison Librarians draw from the Ontario Council of Academic Vice-Presidents’ Guidelines for University Undergraduate Degree Level Expectations and the Association of College and Research Libraries’ Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. The report also itemized other services, such as in-depth information strategy and research consultation, that the Library and the Liaison Librarian are able to offer.

Space Planning Any proposed new staff, faculty, labs, and/or classes need to be carefully considered for a new program Programs should send their “Statement of Interest” to the Space Planning & Utilization Office as early as possible in the process Space costs must be considered in the Financial Viability Analysis Response time to the “Statement of Interest” is approx. 2-4 months

Best Practices Start now! Consult expertise on campus to assist you (e.g., IAP) Keep the QA Office up-to-date Be succinct and relevant Regularly meet with your colleagues/team about progress Start now!

Question & Answer Period ~10 minutes FAQ’s are – numbering and formatting – please use bookmarks for sections! Number any additional tables in a section following the consecutive #ing Remove all instructional text!!! Do not change the margins or other formats such as text size or font Use hyperlinks to your advantage!!! Embed them into the report. Readability – a layperson should be able to make sense of this report. Do not write it using obscure language – simple and straight to the point. Capitalization consistency and degree consistency M.A or MA. Introduce acronyms prior to using them as early as possible in the report. Asking for more … every report COULD include an ask for more funding from the Univ.; however, this isn’t always the answer to the issue. Think of collaborative and new and different ways of doing things – suggest solutions rather than just reporting problems.

https://uwaterloo.ca/academic-reviews/ Questions? Contact: Quality Assurance Office Amanda McKenzie Ena Devedzija Institutional Analysis & Planning Carrie MacKinnon Jennifer Kieffer https://uwaterloo.ca/academic-reviews/