PERIODIC ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAMS AT UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL Office of the Provost Hélène David, associate vice-rector academic affairs Claude Mailhot, Professor.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Preparation of the Self-Study and Documentation
Advertisements

Joint ATS-WASC Accreditation Reviews Jerry McCarthy, ATS Teri Cannon, WASC.
Assessing Your Organization: Gauging Your Land Trusts Progress Maryland Land Conservation Conference 2009 Sylvia Bates, Land Trust Alliance Beki Howey,
IMPLEMENTING EABS MODERNIZATION Patrick J. Sweeney School Administration Consultant Educational Approval Board November 15, 2007.
Planning for Academic Program Review Site Visits
Academic Program and Unit Review at UIS Office of the Provost Fall 2014.
Using the New CAS Standards to Assess Your Transfer Student Programs and Services Janet Marling, Executive Director National Institute for the Study of.
Evaluation Team Chair Training Presented By Dr. Tim Eaton TRACS Regional Representative.
The University of Arizona Academic Program Review Orientation April 2015.
Service Agency Accreditation Recognizing Quality Educational Service Agencies Mike Bugenski
Quality Enhancement Cell Dr. Dawar Hameed Mughal Director.
Performance management guidance
Version 2 November Provost and VPAA G.E. Assessment Task Force Centers Program Assessment and Review Committee President Director of Institutional.
EEN [Canada] Forum Shelley Borys Director, Evaluation September 30, 2010 Developing Evaluation Capacity.
PPA Advisory Board Meeting, May 12, 2006 Assessment Summary.
CONNECT WITH CAEP | Timeline for Accreditation Handbook and Early Adopters Stevie Chepko, Sr., VP.
Graduate Program Review Prof. Emad Ali. Major Review Steps Self-study Report External evaluation Apply actions for improvement.
Medical School Preparation for LCME Accreditation The University Toledo College of Medicine August 24, 2011 Barbara Barzansky, PhD, MHPE LCME Secretary,
Quality Assurance at the University St. Kliment Ohridski Elizabeta Bahtovska National Bologna promoter TEMPUS SCM C-032B06 West Balkan Bologna Promoters.
Engaging the Arts and Sciences at the University of Kentucky Working Together to Prepare Quality Educators.
Do it pro bono. Strategic Scorecard Service Grant The Strategy Management Practice is presented by Wells Fargo. The design of the Strategic Scorecard Service.
Continuing Accreditation The Higher Learning Commission provides institutional accreditation through the evaluation of the entire university organization.
HECSE Quality Indicators for Leadership Preparation.
Strategic Academic Visioning and Empowerment (SAVE) Final Report to UWF BOT December 2011.
AMU DoQuP FINAL REPORT MD, PhD, Associate Professor G.Ahmadov Azerbaijan Medical University Bishkek, April 22, 2015.
March 26-28, 2013 SINGAPORE CDIO Asian Regional Meeting and Workshop on Engineering Education and Policies for Regional Leaders Programme Evaluation (CDIO.
Commission on Teacher Credentialing Ensuring Educator Excellence 1 Biennial Report October 2008.
STUDENT SERVICES REVIEW January 8, Context – Administrative Unit Reviews Objectives Roles Unit Self-Study Internal Review Committee External Reviewers.
National Commission for Academic Accreditation & Assessment Developmental Reviews at King Saud University and King Faisal University.
University of Idaho Successful External Program Review Archie George, Director Institutional Research and Assessment Jane Baillargeon, Assistant Director.
South Western School District Differentiated Supervision Plan DRAFT 2010.
On-line briefing for Program Directors and Staff 1.
Work of the Faculty Leadership Team An Overview. Our Charge Serving to recommend process Serving to set up a strategic plan.
Program Framework Review November 2011 Pamela Miller, Ph.D. AVP for Learning.
Columbia University School of Engineering and Applied Science Review and Planning Process Fall 1998.
Middle States Reaccreditation Process at The Catholic University of America.
ROMANIA MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, RESEARCH AND INNOVATION National Centre for Development of Vocational Education and Training Implementation Unit of Phare.
Systems Accreditation Berkeley County School District School Facilitator Training October 7, 2014 Dr. Rodney Thompson Superintendent.
Continuous Improvement. Focus of the Review: Continuous Improvement The unit will engage in continuous improvement between on-site visits. Submit annual.
Ohio Improvement Process (OIP) Facilitating District-wide Improvement in Instructional Practices and Student Performance.
The Bologna Process at the University of Helsinki University of Helsinki
Academic Program Review Committee Report Faculty Senate meeting November 11, 2008.
Workshop For Reviewers Operating the Developmental Engagements Prof. Dr. Hala SalahProf. Dr. Hoda ELTalawy.
Program-Review Process Ohio University Link to Program Review Web Site.
Patricia Linton, Ph.D. Professor of English Senior Associate Dean for Academics College of Arts and Sciences Faculty Evaluation.
Dr. Salwa El-Magoli Chairperson of the National Quality Assurance and Accreditation Committee. Former Dean of the Faculty of Agricultural, Cairo university.
The Role of the Internal and External Evaluators in Student Assessment Arthur Brown Advisor to the Quality Assurance and Accreditation Project Republic.
SZABIST INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH DEPARTMENT QUALITY ENHANCEMENT CELL.
King Saud University, College of Science Workshop: Programme accreditation and quality assurance Riyadh, June 13-14, 2009 III.1 The accreditation report:
P&T Update: College of Medicine, Carol S. Weisman, PhD Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs Distinguished Professor of Public Health Sciences.
CHB Conference 2007 Planning for and Promoting Healthy Communities Roles and Responsibilities of Community Health Boards Presented by Carla Anglehart Director,
1 Establishing a New Gallaudet Program Review Process Pat Hulsebosch Office of Academic Quality CUE – 9/3/08: CGE – 9/16/08.
Strategic planning A Tool to Promote Organizational Effectiveness
Academic Program Review Workshop 2017
PILOT SCHOOL PRINCIPAL EVALUATION
Preparation of the Self-Study and Documentation
Principles of Good Governance
DEVELOPMENT OF STUDY PROGRAMS IN UNIVERSITY OF PRISHTINA/KOSOVO
Dutchess Community College Middle States Self-Study 2015
Taught Postgraduate Program Review
Promotion to Full Professor: Regulations and Procedures
Presenters: Lisa McLaughlin, Institutional Data Coordinator
2016 Tenure and Promotion Workshop Policy and Procedures Overview
To achieve improvement through: Self assessment Benchmarking
Program Review Guidelines & Processes at SUNY New Paltz
Promotion to Full Professor: Regulations and Procedures
Taught Postgraduate Program Review
Fort Valley State University
Cyclical Program Review
Program Modification “Academic Year 2019” Assumption University
Presentation transcript:

PERIODIC ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAMS AT UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL Office of the Provost Hélène David, associate vice-rector academic affairs Claude Mailhot, Professor and CAEP member Slowly but surely!

2 PERIODIC ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAMS Table of Contents Context Program Assessment Objectives Institutional Framework Assessment Steps Authorities and Partners Observations Conclusion

3 CONTEXT Number of faculties: 13 Total number of programs: 491 Number of graduate programs: 248 Data on the programs at Université de Montréal

4 OBJECTIVES OF THE PERIODIC ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAMS Identify the strengths and weaknesses in the programs Orient the decision-making process concerning the programs, both in the departments and within the institution Encourage the integration within the programs of the institutional orientations: interdisciplinarity, internationalization, informational competencies, the relationship between research and teaching Support program development Promote teaching and learning Ensure and improve the quality and relevance of programs

5 INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK Creation of the Program Assessment Work Group Development of the following documents: –Periodic Assessment Protocol for academic programs –Periodic Assessment Protocol Application Guide for academic programs (version 1.0) Context: –budgetary restrictions –teaching staff’s increased workload Development of documents Based on the CREPUQ policy (Conference of Rectors and Principals of Québec Universities)

6 INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK Specifies the role of the periodic assessment of programs with respect to the institutional mission and orientations States the principles, goals and objectives targeted by the assessment Proposes criteria and indicators of quality instrumental in assessing programs Specifies the roles and responsibilities of the authorities in the assessment Describes the follow-up to be provided on the periodic assessment of programs PROTOCOL

7 INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK Specifies the activities to be carried out at each step of the process Proposes an approach consistent with the assessment themes For each theme, the Guide provides: - A certain number of specific criteria; - A list of the documentation to be consulted and the data to be collected; - A list of questions likely to direct how the assessment themes are handled. GUIDE for members of self- assessment committees

1. Curriculum 2. Program management and teaching methods 3. Student enrollment and admission criteria 4. Human, material and financial ressources 5. Program outcomes ASSESSMENT THEMES

9 Program’s self-assessment report Creation of the Self-Assessment Committee for the ProgramCreation of the Self-Assessment Committee for the Program Preparatory meeting Assessment plan (2 months) Preparation and writing of the self-assessment report (5 months) Opinion of the assembly and the dean on the report (1 month) Visit and written report by the external reviewers (2 months) Reactions to the report by the external reviewers (2 months) Study by the Institutional Program Assessment Committee Strategic plan action and follow-up Feedback from the COMET (Academic Committee) ASSESSMENT STEPS Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6

10 COMPOSITION: It is necessarily composed of professors, students, and lecturers. It is presided over by a faculty member. ROLE Receives indicators prepared by the Office of Institutional Research (BRI in French); Collates and analyzes the information required to prepare the self-assessment report; Consults professors, lecturers, students, graduates, etc.; Drafts the program’s self-assessment report; SELF-ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE Step 1

11 The external reviewers are selected by the Provost. The reviewers analyze the self-assessment report. They proceed with the assessment visit. They send their written report to the Provost. The external reviewers’ report is submitted for opinion to: - the self-assessment committee - the departmental or faculty assembly - the Dean Step 2 VISIT AND REPORT OF THE EXTERNAL REVIEWERS Step 3

12 The complete assessment dossier is submitted to the Institutional Committee for Academic Program Assessments. The Institutional Committee is presided over by the Provost The committee: - verifies the thoroughness of the assessment process; - guarantees that an institutional perspective is recognized; - analyzes and summarizes the assessment dossier; - formulates its own recommendations; - sends the final report to the Academic Board. Step 4 INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE

13 The final report is submitted to the Academic Board. The final report is sent to the Dean in order to prepare a strategic plan. After consultation with the Provost, the strategic plan is adopted and conveyed to the departmental or faculty assembly. Step 5 FINAL REPORT, PLAN OF ACTION, FOLLOW-UP Step 6

14 DEAN EXTERNAL REVIEWERS ASSESSMENT OFFICE FOR TEACHING AND ACADEMIC PROGRAMS (BEEPE in French) ACADEMIC BOARD ________________ Institutional Committee for Academic Program Assessments SELF-ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE FOR ACADEMIC PROGRAMS DEPARTMENTAL OR FACULTY ASSEMBLY PROFESSORS, LECTURERS, STUDENTS AUTHORITIES AND PARTNERS OFFICE OF THE PROVOST ____________ Academic Program Assessment Committee (CAEP in French) DIFFERENT SERVICES: Office of Institutional Research, etc.

15 The Provost or his representative presides over the preparatory meeting for the academic program assessment. He finalizes the list of external reviewers, signs the invitation letter and participates in their visit. He presides over the institutional assessment commitee for academic programs. In collaboration with the Dean, he approves the final version of the strategic plan and follows up on the implementation. Office of the Provost AUTHORITIES AND PARTNERS

16 An academic representative from the CAEP is assigned to support each program. This representative may be consulted by faculty officers and by professors for any issues of an academic/institutional nature. ACADEMIC REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PROVOST AUTHORITIES AND PARTNERS

17 The CAEP is comprised of: - Four academic representatives from the Office of the Provost - Members of the Assessment Office for Teaching and Academic Programs (BEEPE in French) (Director and assessment advisors) The CAEP oversees the entire program assessment process and ensures appropriate progress. THE CAEP (Academic Program Assessment Committee) AUTHORITIES AND PARTNERS

18 Assigns a program assessment advisor for each program undergoing assessment Assists the self-assessment committee with its work The BEEPE (Assessment Office for Teaching and Academic Programs) AUTHORITIES AND PARTNERS

19 AUTHORITIES AND PARTNERS Prepare the program assessment schedule Inform their faculty members Nominate the self-assessment committee Participate in the preparatory meeting The Dean oversees the process to ensure that all steps are properly followed. DEANS Distribute tasks and mobilize

20 Office of Institutional Research BRI (in French) Prepares institutional data concerning the program being assessed, including: Variables and indicators (e.g.: student retention and promotion data); Data drawn from the Exit Surveys intended for Bachelor, Masters and Ph.D. graduates; * High expectations and requirements for this service in the introductory stage. AUTHORITIES AND PARTNERS

OBSERVATIONS Schedule identified for all programs (over a five-year window with several exceptions) Number of self assessments expected in = 26 (including 7 committees for accredited programs) 19 visits by external reviewers expected over the following year First visit by external reviewers: late May 2008 Identification, by the CAEP, of a hybrid process for programs under accreditation 21 TO DATE

22 OBSERVATIONS From an institutional perspective - Ongoing reflection on the process carried out by the CAEP - Importance of presenting the process to different groups (deans, vice-deans, directors,etc) - Increased role played by the academic representatives in the place of the Provost To the deans and the self-assessment committees The first meeting with the academic representative, the advisor and the BEEPE director is crucial. INTRODUCTORY STAGE

OBSERVATIONS With the department chairs, link the benefits to the more short-term gains that will improve certain aspects of their programs. Support provided by the BEEPE is highly appreciated by the departments. 23 To facilitate acceptance

CONCLUSION Important to involve a large number of players in the process Important role of the deans in the introductory stage Good lines of communication between the different partners Ready to make adjustments. 25 Slowly but surely!