|▪ Identify Review Committee.
▪ Arrange Site Visit
▪ Meet with Review Committee
▪ Completion of External Review Report
▪ Approximately 4 months.
From the list of nominees provided by the unit head (see Stage 1: Self-Evaluation and Nomination of Reviewers), the Dean/Director shall identify the external review committee and invite them to participate in the review and corresponding site visit. The committee shall consist of two (2) external reviewers and one (1) internal reviewer (University of Manitoba) from a cognate discipline, not connected to the unit under review.
Once the external review team has been identified, the unit head, in collaboration with the relevant Dean/Director, will be responsible for organizing a two (2) day site visit of the unit under review.
At the same time, the relevant Dean/Director shall provide the members of the Review Committee and the Vice-Provost (Integrated Planning and Academic Programs) electronic copies of the Self-Evaluation Report.
Note that the Dean/Director shall advise the review team, in writing, that the review must be conducted under Article 38.1 of the UMFA collective agreement, whereas academic program reviews are not intended to be evaluations or reviews of individual performance. Reference to the complete article can be found at: http://umanitoba.ca/admin/human_resources/staff_relations/media/ARTICLE_38.pdf.
The unit head, in collaboration with the relevant Dean/Director, will be responsible for organizing a two-day site visit of the program. This includes aiding in the following:
|1||Booking airfare and accommodations.|
|2||Providing additional information as requested by the reviewers prior to, during, or following the site visit.|
|3||Co-ordinating an appropriate itinerary for the site visit, including an exit interview with the Provost and Vice-President (Academic) or delegate, at the end of the site visit (a sample itinerary can be found on the right).|
|4||Arrange discussions with faculty members and students in the program.|
|5||Arrange for an opportunity to consider the matter of program resources, particularly those associated with the library and study space for students.|
A sample itinerary for the site visit can be found in the right-hand menu.
The budget for each site visit will be approximately $6,000.00. The Dean of the Faculty will be responsible for arranging reviews and ensuring costs are reasonable. Each external reviewer will receive an honorarium of $1,000.00, which will be paid for by the faculty and reimbursed by the Vice-Provost (Integrated Planning and Academic Programs). The Faculty will be reimbursed by the Vice-Provost (Integrated Planning and Academic Programs) for reasonable costs associated with the review; including airfare, accommodations and meals.
Once the review has been completed the faculty will submit copies of invoices to the Budget Officer in the Provost’s Office for reimbursement. Budget adjustment will be done to reimburse faculty for related expenditures once they appear on the revenue and expenditures statement. Should expenditures be deemed to be unreasonable by the Vice-Provost (Integrated Planning and Academic Programs) they will not be reimbursed and will become the responsibility of the faculty.
|1||Site visits shall take place within twelve (12) weeks of the unit head’s submission of the Self-Evaluation Report to the relevant Dean/Director.|
|2||The Review Committee shall meet as a committee to conduct the site visit.|
|3||The site visit shall be conducted over no less than one full day and no more than two full days.|
|4||The Review Committee shall assess the program in accordance with section on the External Review Report below.*|
|5||The Review Committee shall meet with the relevant Dean/Director, the unit head, academic and support staff associated with the program, and students of the program. The Review committee will also meet with the Provost and Vice-President (Academic), or delegate.|
|6||The Review Committee shall submit the External Review Report to the relevant Dean/Director within four (4) weeks of the site visit.|
|7||Site visit expenses (travel, meals, lodging) paid by the Review Committee shall be reimbursed as soon as possible following completion of the site visit, and an agreed upon honorarium will be paid upon receipt of the External Report by the relevant Dean/Director.|
|*||Note that as per Article 38.1 of the UMFA collective agreement, reviews are not intended to be evaluations or reviews of individual performance. For reference to the complete article, please visit http://umanitoba.ca/admin/human_resources/staff_relations/media/ARTICLE_38.pdf.|
Upon consideration of the Self-Evaluation Report and following the site visit, the Review Committee shall submit a report to the relevant Dean/Director that contains an overall assessment of the program(s) under review, and provides recommendations for program improvement.
The Review Committee is to assess the quality of the academic program and to comment on the program in relation to the stated strategic direction of the unit and the relevant Faculty/School. In writing the External Review Report, the Review Committee may be guided by the following headings although not be restricted to them.
It is requested that the committee conclude its report by classifying the program into one of the categories stated below, and to provide justification for the category allocated.
The Review Committee must articulate clear recommendations and/or priorities of choice where appropriate to do so.
In addition to consideration of the below, it is requested that the committee complete and attach the External Review Summary Form (found in the right-hand menu) along with the report.
|Recommended Headings for External Review Report|
|1||Strategic importance of the program(s) in relation to the strategic directions of the relevant Faculty/School and the University as a whole.|
|2||Comparisons with related programs with which the review committee is familiar.|
|3||Quality of undergraduate student advising.|
|4||Quality of students.|
|5||Critical mass and appropriate mix of students, where possible.|
|6||Times(s) to completion of degree program by students, where possible.|
|7||Excellence of academic staff and breadth of experience. Is the workload appropriate?|
|8||Adequacy of facilities, space and other resources.|
|9||Strengths and weaknesses of the program(s). Are there areas of weakness which if corrected could improve the contribution of the department to the University and the discipline? What strategies might be adopted to improve the Department’s effectiveness in its various roles?|
|10||Extent to which program(s) objectives are met. Is the curriculum appropriate at the various levels? Are the courses appropriate and is the delivery satisfactory? Are there changes to programs or courses that should be entertained?|
|11||Suggestions and recommendations for improvements in the program(s).|
|Stage 1: Self- Evaluation and Nomination of Reviewers ►
|Stage 2: External Review
|Stage 3: Responses to Review ►|
|Stage 4: Assessment by Office of the Provost & Vice-President (Academic) ►|
Academic Programs Specialist