Academic program review
Academic program reviews are cyclical and comprise a systematic analysis of a department’s academic programs, strategic vision, innovations and pedagogical values.
The department’s guided self-study of their programs and department provides an opportunity to recognize and celebrate the dedicated efforts and the innovative practices of faculty and administrative staff.
Program review cycle
The Concordia academic program review cycle is seven (7) years and is divided into several key stages. Academic program review processes at universities across Quebec are mandated by the Ministère de l’enseignement supérieur (MES) and based on criteria and guidelines provided by the Bureau de coopération interuniversitaire (BCI).
Overview
Concordia’s academic program reviews engage one faculty or sector per academic year in a rigorous and comprehensive review. The review invites stakeholders to discuss the recent successes and challenges faced by the department in addition to their aspirations and future directions. Following a period of self-study, external evaluators visit and perform their own review. Afterwards a university-level committee reviews the self-study and external evaluators reports to draft their own report. All three reports are sent to the Faculty Dean to prepare a plan to implement the recommendations.
Criteria from the Bureau de coopération interuniversitaire
The nine criteria of the BCI on which Concordia based the academic program review process are the following:
- Clarity and coherence of program learning outcomes and their suitability for the level of study.
- Adequacy of the admission requirements relative to the program learning outcomes.
- Appropriateness of the program structure in relation to the program learning outcomes.
- Coherence between the curriculum and the expected program learning outcomes.
- Appropriateness of teaching and learning assessment strategies in relation to program learning outcomes.
- Measures to support student success tailored to the needs and diversity of student population.
- Adequacy of faculty expertise and other human resources required to deliver quality programs.
- Adequacy of material, informational, and digital resources in relation to program outcomes.
- Maintaining the relevance of the program. Relevance includes: academic or artistic, societal, and system.
Schedule of reviews
The schedule of reviews is determined for the entire academic program review cycle. There is no overlap between faculties or sectors.
| Start of review cycle | Faculty - Sector | Departments |
|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Faculty of Arts and Sciences - Sciences | Biology; Chemistry & Biochemistry; Health, Kinesiology, and Applied Physiology |
| 2025 | Faculty of Arts and Sciences - Humanities | Classics, Modern Languages and Linguistics; Communication Studies; Études françaises; English; History; Journalism; Liberal Arts College; Philosophy; School of Irish Studies; Theological Studies |
| 2026 | Faculty of Arts and Sciences - Social Sciences | Applied Human Sciences; Economics; Education; Geography, Planning, and Environment; Individualized Program; Political Science; Religions and Cultures; School of Community and Public Affairs; Simone de Beauvoir Institute and Women’s Studies; Sociology and Anthropology |
| 2027 | Gina Cody School of Engineering | Building, Civil and Environmental Engineering; Chemical and Materials Engineering; Concordia Institute for Information Systems Engineering; Electrical and Computer Engineering; Mechanical, Industrial and Aerospace Engineering |
| 2028 | Faculty of Fine Arts | Art Education; Art History; Contemporary Dance; Creative Arts Therapies; Design and Computation Arts; Mel Oppenheim School of Cinema; Music; Studio Arts; Theatre |
| 2029 | John Molson School of Business | Accountancy; Finance; Management; Marketing; Supply Chain and Business Technology Management; MBA; MBA in Investment Management; EMBA. |
Components of the program review
The Concordia academic program review process comprises six key elements. The “active” portion or where the department is more hands-on include the Departmental Program Review Committee, the self-study, and when the external evaluators conduct their site visits.
The University Program Review Committee (UPRC) acts as a check and balance for the overall process. The Dean’s implementation plan extracts key action items from the self-study and external evaluators report and develops a framework for improvements.
The progress reports ensure that departments are accountable for the continuous improvement of their programs and departmental activities.
The Departmental Program Review Committee (DPRC) is formed by the Department Chair. Membership includes faculty, staff, and students. The role of the DPRC is to conduct the self-study, submit reports (for the department and each program), nominate and meet with external evaluators.
The self-study is a process of answering a variety of questions that cover different areas such as the department’s overall vision, teaching innovations, enrolment, student retention and performance, administrative resources, and facilities.
The self-study is supported by a departmental data package, a student experience survey, a curriculum mapping exercise, and various consultations. The self-study report templates are provided to the DPRC Chair at the start of the academic program review cycle.
Following the completion of the self-study, external evaluators are brought in to review the DPRC report and meet with various stakeholders during an on-site visit. As experts in their fields, external evaluators provide a unique assessment of the department and its programs. The external evaluators produce a report which is added to the program review dossier.
With the self-study and external evaluator reports, the UPRC reviews the information and provides recommendations from a university level perspective.
The Faculty Dean receives all the reports (DPRC, External Evaluators, and UPRC) and after reviewing all the recommendations prepares an implementation plan. The Dean’s implementation plan itemizes and prioritizes the recommendations in addition to outlining a timeline for implementation. The Dean’s implementation plan is provided to the Department Chair to oversee implementation.
Following reception of the Dean’s implementation plan, departments complete progress reports at 18-month and 48-month intervals. The progress reports ensure accountability for implementing the recommendations and contribute to the continuous improvement of the department. The progress reports also provide essential information for the next academic program review cycle.
Timeline & milestones
At the start of the academic program review process, the Faculty and department are provided with a timeline outlining the different steps and milestones. Various stakeholders are solicited at different stages of the process. The milestones typically involve a key deliverable which is necessary to move the academic program review process along.
Estimated timeline
- June: the Faculty Dean and Department Chairs are introduced to the academic program review process.
- August: Department Chairs confirm the composition of their Departmental Program Review Committee.
- September: The academic program review process is launched with the DPRC, and their first meeting is held.
- September: The Student Experience Survey is deployed.
- September-October: DPRCs receive their departmental data package and begin the Curriculum Mapping exercise.
- October: DPRCs submit their external evaluator candidates.
- March: DPRCs submit their self-study reports.
- April-June: External evaluators conduct their on-site visits and prepare their report.
The Dean’s implementation plan must be completed.
The 18-month progress report must be completed.
The 48-month progress report must be completed.
Academic program review cycle begins again.
Program review process milestones
- The self-study report (Department and program-specific) is the first milestone of the academic program review process.
- The external evaluators on-site visit, and subsequent report concludes the role of the Departmental Program Review Committee (DPRC).
- The University Program Review Committee (UPRC) report is the final step before the Faculty Dean receives all the necessary information.
- The Dean’s implementation plan is the first publicly available document and provides Department Chairs with actionable recommendations.
- The progress reports represent the final deliverable of the academic program review process.
Resources & support
Throughout the academic program review process there are a variety of resources, both informational and people-powered, available to departments. Departments are invited to reach out to the Program Review Lead to discuss their individual needs.
Program review lead
The Program Review Lead (program.review@concordia.ca) oversees the academic program review process and is the main resource person for units. They are responsible for providing documentation, consulting and guiding departments, organizing working sessions, planning the on-site visit for external evaluators, and ensuring the timeline is followed. The Program Review Lead communicates in most cases with the DPRC Chair.
Working sessions
Units may request a variety of working sessions throughout the academic program review process. The DPRC Chair is responsible for requesting working sessions, as needed. Available working sessions include:
- Data review
- Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs)
- Curriculum Mapping
- Curriculum Map Analysis
Supporting documents
The main guiding document for the academic program review process is the Academic Program Review Manual [PDF, 624 kb]. The self-study templates and related documents are sent directly to the DPRC Chair for distribution.
Outcomes of the program review
Academic program reviews are partially public facing. All documents and information up until the Dean’s implementation plan are confidential. The Dean’s implementation plan and Progress reports are available to the wider internal and external community.
Utility of the recommendations
The purpose of the academic program review process is first to ensure the quality of academic programs offered by the department and second to outline the continuous improvement efforts of the department.
Dean’s implementation plan
The Faculty Dean prepares the implementation plan based on the various recommendations of the DPRC, external evaluators, and UPRC. The implementation plan prioritizes the recommendations, identifies key collaborators, and provides a timeline for completion.
Progress reports
The Progress reports are prepared at 18- and 48-month intervals by the Department Chair. It acts as a follow-up to the Dean’s implementation plan.
Department files (available to public)
Sciences departments implementation plans
- Biology, progress report
- Chemistry and Biochemistry
- Health, Kinesiology, and Applied Physiology
- Mathematics and Statistics
- Physics, progress report
- Psychology