Undergraduate

A presentation is held each year to review the processes and timelines for upcoming academic program reviews.

Each submission includes three volumes using the cyclical review templates.

A copy of the draft Self-Study Report is emailed to the Quality Assurance Office and Faculty Dean, at the beginning of April, for review and comment.

Final copies of the Self-Study Report (Volume I) (doc)Faculty CVs (Volume II) (doc) and Proposed Reviewers (Volume III) (doc) are sent electronically to the Quality Assurance Office by July 1st. The QA Office will oversee the co-ordination of a two-day site visit.

The external reviewers are selected from those suggested by the program in Volume III. Please note the criteria for choosing arm's length reviewers. The internal faculty reviewer, selected by the AVPA, does not have to be a specialist in the field of the program review, but should be at arm's length from the program in question.  As a result, this individual will come from outside the Faculty of the program being reviewed.

The external reviewers should address the criteria in the External Reviewers' Report (doc)  and use this template for their report which is to be submitted to the Quality Assurance Office two weeks after the site visit. The Quality Assurance Office will then forward the External Reviewers' Report to the Department/School for comments on factual errors (if any). The Department/School has four weeks to respond with any corrections, and if no comments are received within that time period, unless other arrangements have been made, it will be concluded that the report requires no correction.

The program response is submitted by the Chair/Director, in consultation with the Associate Dean, Undergraduate Studies and Faculty Dean (or the Academic Dean or equivalent if the program resides wholly or partially in one of the Affiliated and Federated Institutions of Waterloo), within 10 weeks. This document should include detailed responses to the review, and provide an implementation plan for recommended changes.

The Quality Assurance Office prepares a Final Assessment Report (FAR) and provides it to the Department/School for review and comment. Thereafter, once the FAR has been shared with the Provost and approved by the AVPA, the Final Assessment Report (FAR) will be submitted to Senate Undergraduate Council (SUC) and Senate for approval. After Senate approval, the FAR is submitted to the Quality Council.

The Chair/Director is responsible for a Two-Year Progress Report which the QA Office presents to Senate Undergraduate Council (for approval), and Senate (for information), on steps taken on the recommended changes since the program review.