Under the University of Toronto Quality Assurance Process (UTQAP), all units and their academic programs must be reviewed a minimum of every 7-8 years. These cyclical reviews provide an opportunity for units to reflect on their commitment to academic excellence, consider key performance data, and assess their programs against international peers.
The Program & Curriculum Unit (PCU) supports cyclical reviews by providing process information and support to units, as well as liaising with the Office of the Vice-Provost, Academic Programs (VPAP), the Committee on Academic Policies & Programs (AP&P), and external reviewers.
On this page you will find:
Process Overview
Phase 1: Commission and Self-Study Development
Commission and Terms
The Commissioning Officer, usually the Dean, formally commissions the review. The review must take place no later than 8 years following the last review.
The Terms of Reference outline the programs to be reviewed, and the parameters of the review (what the reviewers must assess).
Data Packages
The Office of the Vice-Principal Academic & Dean (OVPAD) and Office of the Vice-Provost, Academic Programs (VPAP) share a standardized data package with institutional metrics and a supplemental data package with UTM-specific data to help the unit utilize key quality indicators (such as faculty research performance, student evaluations, graduation rates, etc.) in assessing the unit's programs.
Self Study
The self study serves as an introduction for the reviewers to the unit's programs. The study comes out of internal consultation, as the unit reflects on its curriculum, its quality indications, and key considerations that affect the programs under review. The study must follow the structure of the template shared by VPAP.
Phase 2: Site Visit Planning and Reviewer Report Submission
Invitations and Plans
The unit must submit a number of reviewer nominations, which must be vetted by the OVPAD and finally approved by the Vice-Provost, Academic Programs. Reviewers must be leading scholars at peer institutions, with administrative experience and no potential conflict of interest.
Site Visit
During a 2-Day visit, reviewers meet with senior leadership at UTM, unit leadership, staff, and students. The visit should include discussions about the curriculum, available spaces, student experience, and any concerns or challenges experienced by the unit or its community.
Reviewer Report
Submitted by reviewers roughly a month after the site visit, the Reviewer Report must address all of the priorities and programs outlined in the Terms of Reference. The OVPAD fact checks the report, prior to finalizing it and sending it to the unit and VPAP.
Phase 3: Report Response & Planning
Consultation
Following receipt of the reviewer report, VPAP requests an administrative response from the unit Chair and the Dean. The OVPAD will arrange a consultation meeting between the Dean and the Unit Chair/Director to prepare the administrative response. The unit will also conduct consultations within the department/institute to reflect on the recommendations of the reviewers and prepare the Chair's administrative response. The responses do not require full implementation; rather, a discussion of plans to address them.
Phase 4: Short-Term Changes & Potential Follow-up
Governance Review
Administrative responses take shape as the Final Assessment Report & Implementation Plan (FAR/IP), which highlights each of the recommendations made by the reviewers, and plans to address them.
The FAR/IP is brought to the Committee on Academic Policy and Programs (AP&P) for approval, circulated through the levels of governance, and ultimately sent to Quality Canada (and posted online by UofT).
UTM and the unit set out to implement various changes stemming from the review. The Committee on Academic Policy and Programs may request a follow-up report to be submitted within a year of the review.
Phase 5: Long-Term Changes & Interim Report
Implementing Changes
The unit must submit an Interim Monitoring Report approximately 4 years after the site visit, to provide an update to the Office of the Vice-Provost, Academic Programs, on the progress of the implementation of recommendations.
The next review will take place within 8 years.
The ideal background of an external reviewer is that they have achieved senior rank, such as Associate Professor or Professor, at a peer institution (i.e., AAU, U15 institutions), are currently active in research, and have had program management experience. A good way of identifying potential external reviewer candidates is to search for programs at peer institutions that your unit would like to emulate and identify faculty who have held leadership roles at those institutions and programs.
External reviewers must be at an “arm’s length” distance from the academic unit and programs that are under review. This means that they cannot have been previously affiliated with the unit or its faculty (as former graduate students, instructors, conference panelists, collaborators, etc.) and must conduct the review from a neutral standpoint.
Absolutely – it is expected. Student and staff voices are key parts of the unit’s self-study and reflection upon the programs and experiences offered by the academic unit. Units are encouraged to utilize surveys, consultations, and town halls to gather these perspectives, and must articulate how these groups were consulted in writing of the self-study. Reviewers will meet with each of these groups and will offer recommendations for improvements to student and staff experiences.
The self-study must cover all sections and themes identified in the template from the Office of Vice-Provost, Academic Programs. The usual length for a self-study is about 75-90 pages. In most cases, the self-study is unlikely to exceed 150 pages. Often, units will choose to use appendices to provide additional information or supporting details about their department and academic programs.
The Office of the Vice-Provost, Academic Programs, shares a standardized institutional data package that includes key metrics on NSSE student evaluations, department statistics, faculty research, etc. The Office of the Dean also shares a Supplemental Data package that provides more UTM-specific information, including enrolments, graduation, and other metrics. These documents will help guide the self-study for the department. The academic unit is responsible for the consultative aspects of the self-study, as well as the curriculum map for each program and/or discipline under review.
Since reviews are focused on both units and programs, the curriculum of each program must be articulated in the self-study. A curriculum map is an important component of this document, as it outlines Program Learning Outcomes compared to UTM’s Undergraduate Degree Level Expectations, and demonstrates how they are introduced, developed, or advanced through the unit’s academic programs and courses. Resources for creating curriculum maps for each of your programs are available through the Program and Curriculum Unit and the Office of the Vice-Provost, Innovations in Undergraduate Education.
Examples of external review outcomes include, but are not limited to:
- The creation of new experiential learning opportunities for students
- Curriculum review and changes
- The establishment or closure of programs
- The creation of sabbatical calendar for faculty
No, recommendations are not provided in an order of priority. Rather, reviewers will highlight areas of improvement that they observe through their study of the programs and site visit. The reviewer report will be guided by the Terms of Reference of the review, which outlines the parameters of the review and identifies areas for reviewers to comment on.
Implementation plans will identify timelines for responses to recommendations, ranging from immediate (6-12 months), to medium (1-2 years), to long term (3-5 years).
No, the Administrative Response to the review is due to the Vice-Provost, Academic Programs within a few months of the receipt of the reviewer report, and therefore cannot reflect any already-executed changes and implementations of recommendations. The administrative response will allow the unit and decanal teams to reflect on the recommendations and outline any action they intend to undertake should they wish to implement them. For example, the unit may wish to state that a new committee or task force has been struck up to address a key feature identified in the review. The Implementation Monitoring Report, completed roughly 4 years following the site visit, will provide the opportunity to discuss tangible changes and implementation of recommendations.
Final Assessment Reports & Implementation Plans
Upon the completion of a review, a final assessment report and implementation plan (FAR/IP) is shared by the Office of the Vice-Provost, Academic Programs.
Units are welcome to email the Program & Curriculum Unit (programcurriculum.utm@utoronto.ca) with any questions.
