Algoma University Template for Reviewers’ Reports on Existing Programs

Reviewers’ Report on the (insert degree) Program in (insert program name) at Algoma University

General Guidelines for the Report

The Reviewers’ Report should address the substance of both the Self-Study Report and the Evaluative Criteria in Section 3.13 of Algoma University’s IQAP. The Reviewers’ Report should provide a considered overview of the program’s strengths, areas for improvement, and opportunities for enhancement. The central objective is to assess how current programs could be improved to serve students given the available resources.

Date of Review:

Date of Submission of Reviewers’ Report: This report is submitted to the AVP at Algoma University no later than two months after the site visit. Please email completed reports to .

Reviewer 1

Insert Name, University Affiliation, and full contact information

Reviewer 2

Insert Name, University Affiliation, and full contact information

1. Outline of the review

Please indicate the following:

  • Who was interviewed
  • What facilities were seen
  • Any other activity relevant to the appraisal

2. Provide feedback on each of the following evaluative criteria

Please distinguish in the report between recommendations for improvement that the Department can itself undertake, those that require the administration’s action, and those that require additional resources to implement.

2.1 Objectives

  • Is the program consistent with the vision, special mission, and strategic objectives of the university, and with the academic principles of the 5-Year Academic Plan? Does the program fit into the broader array of program offerings, particularly in areas of teaching and research strength?
  • Are the program requirements and associated learning outcomes consistent with Algoma University’s expression of the undergraduate degree level expectations (Appendix A of IQAP)?

2.2 Admissions

  • Are the admission requirements appropriately aligned with the learning outcomes established for completion of the program?

2.3 Curriculum

  • Does the curriculum reflect the current state of the discipline or area of study? Does the curriculum ensure continuing relevance to the field of practice it serves?
  • Is the curriculum designed to maximize the graduates’ potential for employment and promotion in their field of study?
  • Are the learning outcomes appropriate and clear?
  • What evidence is there of any significant innovation or creativity in the content and/or delivery of the program relative to other such programs?
  • Is the mode of delivery appropriate to the intended program learning outcomes and university undergraduate degree level expectations?
  • Do the learning outcome achievements of students/graduates compare well with – 1) program’s stated learning outcomes and standards; 2) degree-level standards (Appendix A of IQAP); 3) opinions of employers, students, and graduates; and, 4) standards of any related regulatory, accrediting or professional associations?

2.4 Teaching and Assessment

  • Are the methods used to assess student achievement of the defined learning outcomes and university undergraduate degree level expectations appropriate and effective?
  • Are the means of assessment (particularly in the students’ final year of the program) appropriate and effective to demonstrate achievement of the program learning outcomes and the university undergraduate degree level expectations?

2.5 Resources

  • Assess the appropriateness and effectiveness of the academic unit’s use of existing human, physical, and financial resources in delivering its program. Note reviewers must recognize the institution’s autonomy in determining priorities for funding, space, and faculty allocation.
  • Comment on the appropriateness and effectiveness of academic services (e.g. library, co-op, technology, etc.) to support the program being reviewed.

2.6 Quality Indicators

  • Comment on the following student success indicators: applications and registrants; attrition rates; time-to-completion; final-year academic achievement; graduation rates; academic awards; student in-course reports on teaching; post-graduate employment (six months and two years after graduation); alumni feedback on program quality and skills match.
  • Comment on the following student experience indicators: faculty qualifications; research and scholarly record; class sizes; percentage of classes taught by permanent or non-permanent (contract) faculty; faculty to student ratio; number, assignment, and qualifications of part-time or temporary faculty.

Note: Reviewers are urged to avoid using references to individuals. Rather, they are asked to assess the ability of the faculty as a whole to deliver the program and to comment on the appropriateness of each of the areas of the program (fields) that the university has chosen to emphasize, in view of the expertise and scholarly productivity of the faculty.

2.7 Quality Enhancement

  • Comment on initiatives taken to enhance the quality of the program and the associated learning and teaching environment.
  • Include recommendations for future initiatives that could lead to quality enhancement for the program by presenting opportunities for growth or resource acquisition (e.g. student enrolment growth, additional funding, stronger community ties, etc.).

3. Other Issues

4. Summary and Recommendations

Signature: ______

Date: ______

Signature: ______

Date: ______