Summary of CREPUQ Policy

Summary of CREPUQ’s Periodic Program Review Policy

A) History:

As early as 1981 McGill had instituted a “cyclical review” process and by the time Quebec universities, through CREPUQ, adopted their “Policy of Quebec Universities for the Periodic Evaluation of Current Academic Programmes” (March 1991), McGill had already carried out the first of two rounds of reviews. While some universities, including McGill, chose at that time to review units, the CREPUQ Policy emphasizes teaching programs.

The mandate of CREPUQ’s Program Evaluation Review Commission (Commission de vérification de l’évaluation des programmes, CVEP), is to verify the appropriateness of institutional policies and practices with respect to the goals, stages, criteria and procedures established under the terms of the Policy and to make recommendations towards improving the evaluation process if necessary.

B) CREPUQ Policy:

CREPUQ published a revised “Policy of Quebec Universities for the Periodic Evaluation of Current Academic Programmes”. The text of this was adopted by the Board of Directors of CREPUQ on September 28, 2000.

This policy defines the minimum standards and conditions which our processes and criteria for program review are expected to meet. It intends to provide a framework to guide universities in the development of their institutional policies.

Policy Outline:

1) Purpose: To improve quality and relevance of academic programs with a view to fostering further development. It deals with all degree program (bachelor, master, doctoral degrees). It can be applied to certificate and diploma programs, provided the appropriate adjustments can be made. If applied to teaching and research units, the focus must remain on the programs. Accreditation reports may be used as part of the review.

2) The process must consist of three distinct stages: Stages: a) Self-Evaluation – by faculty members and students involved in the program b) Opinion of external experts who are specialists in the field (at least 2), and if necessary the opinion of those in charge of professional internships or representatives from the socio-economic sectors involved. c) Final evaluation by an institutional review committee (composed of faculty members, not involved in the program, and possibly academic administrators.

3) Evaluation Criteria: The institutional policy must specify that the evaluation should be based, as a minimum, on: a) clarity and validity of the program’s learning objectives b) compliance with the university’s mission and development plans c) appropriateness of admission criteria re learning objectives d) appropriateness of program’s structure e) consistency between content of learning activities and the development of the discipline f) appropriateness of teaching, learning and assessment strategies re the program’s objectives g) appropriateness of human resources (p-t faculty, instructors, professional resources for adequate supervision of students and for critical mass of active researchers). h) appropriateness of physical and financial resources re program’s objectives i) relevance of program under: institutional relevance, inter-university relevance, social relevance.

The institutional policy should also provide for indicators reflecting the evolution of the academic staff (degrees, universities, teaching loads, research performance, publications, grants ) as well as evolution of student clientele (applications, registrations, graduation rates, time to completion, etc.)

4) Evaluation Procedures: The institutional policy should provide for a merging of internal views, external views, and the views of colleagues. It must: a) designate an authority in charge of the implementation b) provide for preparation of an institutional manual for evaluations c) determine frequency (not to exceed a 10 year cycle for full range of programs) d) provide for agreement protocols in cases where a program is offered through cooperation of several units. e) determine procedure for and who is in charge of implementation of recommendations set out in evaluation reports and establish an action plan. f) provide for dissemination of evaluation results, internally and externally.

5) Each institution shall forward to the Commission: - its institutional policy (manuals, other documents) - a copy of the text to be used for the publication of the results

C) The Review Procedure of the Program Evaluation Review Committee:

The policy includes an external review procedure allowing for the review of all institutional policies and practices over a cycle of approximately seven years. The objective is to verify the appropriateness of the institutional policy and the periodic evaluation practices with respect to the policy. The implementation of this procedure is entrusted to the Commission de vérification de l’ évaluation des programmes.

The Commission will: - establish a calendar of visits. - ask universities to forward, in due course, a list of completed evaluations, and of those in progress. - identify two or three programs (representative of the range of programs) which have been evaluated over the past three years. - ask that the institution forward the complete evaluation files of the selected programs, and the institutional policy (if modified since the previous evaluation).

Through the analysis of the above provided by the university, the Commission will: - examine the consistency of the institutional policy and of the periodic evaluation practices with respect to the CREPUQ Policy. - identify the need for further information

By means of a visit, the Commission will: - acquire a better understanding of the implementation practices of the process - complete its overall examination of how the institutional policy is implemented.

The Commission will then meet with some of the senior administration and those in charge of implementing the evaluation process, as well as with faculty members and students. The timetable, agenda and duration of these will be flexible, and the visit is usually completed in a single day.

The Commission will then prepare a draft report setting out its observations, conclusions and recommendations. The institution will receive a copy of the draft. It may express any comments it deems appropriate (the commission will be free to use them if it chooses), and the final report will be drafted by the Commission.

The final report is filed with the Board of Directors and the Academic Affairs Committee of CREPUQ, then forwarded to the Ministry of Education. It will be accessible on the CREPUQ website.

Within a year after the publication of the final report, the institution will inform the Commission as to what actions were taken to comply with the recommendations, and if any modifications in the wording of its institutional policy and practices may have been adopted as a result.

Site Visits:

CREPUQ has conducted site visits at all Quebec universities between 2002 and 2006. Initially a visit was planned for McGill for 2005, but due to unforeseen administrative delays, it was postponed. The visit to McGill took place on December 5, 2006 and the report is forthcoming in the Spring of 2007.