PERIODIC ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAMS AT UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL

1. PERIODIC ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAMS AT UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL Office of the Provost Hélène David, associate vice-rector academic affairs Claude Mailhot, Professor and CAEP member Slowly but surely!

2. PERIODIC ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAMS Table of Contents • Context • Program Assessment Objectives • Institutional Framework • Assessment Steps • Authorities and Partners • Observations • Conclusion

3. CONTEXT • Number of faculties: 13 • Total number of programs: 491 • Number of graduate programs: 248 Data on the programs at Université de Montréal

4. OBJECTIVES OF THE PERIODIC ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAMS Ensure and improve the quality and relevance of programs • Identify the strengths and weaknesses in the programs • Orient the decision-making process concerning the programs, both in the departments and within the institution • Encourage the integration within the programs of the institutionalorientations: interdisciplinarity, internationalization, informational competencies, the relationship between research and teaching • Support program development • Promote teaching and learning

5. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK Creation of the Program Assessment Work Group Development of the following documents: PeriodicAssessment Protocol for academic programs PeriodicAssessment Protocol Application Guide for academic programs (version 1.0) Context: budgetary restrictions teaching staff’s increased workload Development of documents Based on the CREPUQ policy (Conference of Rectors and Principals of Québec Universities)

6. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK Specifies the role of the periodic assessment of programs with respect to the institutional mission and orientations States the principles, goals and objectives targeted by the assessment Proposes criteria and indicators of quality instrumental in assessing programs Specifies the roles and responsibilities of the authorities in the assessment Describes the follow-up to be provided on the periodic assessment of programs PROTOCOL

7. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK Specifies the activities to be carried out at each step of the process Proposes an approach consistent with the assessment themes For each theme, the Guide provides: - A certain number of specific criteria; - A list of the documentation to be consulted and the data to be collected; -A list of questions likely to direct how the assessment themes are handled. GUIDE for members of self-assessment committees

8. Curriculum 2. Program management and teaching methods 3. Student enrollment and admission criteria 4. Human, material and financial ressources 5. Program outcomes ASSESSMENT THEMES

9. ASSESSMENT STEPS • Program’s self-assessment report • Creation of the Self-Assessment Committee for the Program • Preparatory meeting • Assessment plan (2 months) • Preparation and writing of the self-assessment report (5 months) • Opinion of the assembly and the dean on the report (1 month) Step 1 Visit and written report by the external reviewers (2 months) Step 2 Reactions to the report by the external reviewers (2 months) Step 3 Study by the Institutional Program Assessment Committee Step 4 Feedback from the COMET (Academic Committee) Step 5 Strategic plan action and follow-up Step 6

10. SELF-ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE • COMPOSITION: • It is necessarily composed of professors, students, and lecturers. • It is presided over by a faculty member. • ROLE • Receives indicators prepared by the Office of Institutional Research (BRI in French); • Collates and analyzes the information required to prepare the self-assessment report; • Consults professors, lecturers, students, graduates, etc.; • Drafts the program’s self-assessment report; Step 1

11. VISIT AND REPORT OF THE EXTERNAL REVIEWERS Step 2 • The external reviewers are selected by the Provost. • The reviewers analyze the self-assessment report. • They proceed with the assessment visit. • They send their written report to the Provost. • The external reviewers’ report is submitted for opinion to:- the self-assessment committee • - the departmental or faculty assembly • - the Dean Step 3

12. INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE • The complete assessment dossier is submitted to the Institutional Committee for Academic Program Assessments. • The Institutional Committee is presided over by the Provost • The committee: • - verifies the thoroughness of the assessment process; • - guarantees that an institutional perspective is recognized; • - analyzes and summarizes the assessment dossier; • - formulates its own recommendations; • - sends the final report to the Academic Board. Step 4

13. FINAL REPORT, PLAN OF ACTION, FOLLOW-UP • The final report is submitted to the Academic Board. • The final report is sent to the Dean in order to prepare a strategic plan. • After consultation with the Provost, the strategic plan is adopted and conveyed to the departmental or faculty assembly. Step 5 Step 6

14. AUTHORITIES AND PARTNERS ACADEMIC BOARD ________________ Institutional Committee for Academic Program Assessments DEAN SELF-ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE FOR ACADEMIC PROGRAMS OFFICE OF THE PROVOST ____________ Academic Program Assessment Committee (CAEP in French) • DEPARTMENTAL OR FACULTY ASSEMBLY • PROFESSORS, LECTURERS, STUDENTS • ASSESSMENT OFFICE FOR TEACHING AND ACADEMIC PROGRAMS (BEEPE in French) • EXTERNAL REVIEWERS • DIFFERENT SERVICES: Office of Institutional Research, etc.

15. AUTHORITIES AND PARTNERS • The Provost or his representative presides over the preparatory meeting for the academic program assessment. • He finalizes the list of external reviewers, signs the invitation letter and participates in their visit. • He presides over the institutional assessment commitee for academic programs. • In collaboration with the Dean, he approves the final version of the strategic plan and follows up on the implementation. Office of the Provost

16. AUTHORITIES AND PARTNERS • An academic representative from the CAEP is assigned to support each program. • This representative may be consulted by faculty officers and by professors for any issues of an academic/institutional nature. ACADEMIC REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PROVOST

17. AUTHORITIES AND PARTNERS THE CAEP (Academic Program Assessment Committee) The CAEP is comprised of: - Four academic representatives from the Office of the Provost - Members of the Assessment Office for Teaching and Academic Programs (BEEPE in French) (Director and assessment advisors) The CAEP oversees the entire program assessment process and ensures appropriate progress.

18. Assigns a program assessment advisor for each program undergoing assessment Assists the self-assessment committee with its work AUTHORITIES AND PARTNERS The BEEPE (Assessment Office for Teaching and Academic Programs)

19. AUTHORITIES AND PARTNERS • Prepare the program assessment schedule • Inform their faculty members • Nominate the self-assessment committee • Participate in the preparatory meeting The Dean oversees the process to ensure that all steps are properly followed. DEANS Distribute tasks and mobilize

20. AUTHORITIES AND PARTNERS Office of Institutional Research BRI (in French) Prepares institutional data concerning the program being assessed, including: • Variables and indicators (e.g.: student retention and promotion data); • Data drawn from the Exit Surveys intended for Bachelor, Masters and Ph.D. graduates; * High expectations and requirements for this service in the introductory stage.

21. OBSERVATIONS • Schedule identified for all programs (over a five-year window with several exceptions) • Number of self assessments expected in 2007-2008 =26(including 7 committees for accredited programs) • 19visits by external reviewers expected over the following year • First visit by external reviewers: late May 2008 • Identification, by the CAEP, of a hybrid process for programs under accreditation TO DATE

22. OBSERVATIONS From an institutional perspective - Ongoing reflection on the process carried out by the CAEP - Importance of presenting the process to different groups (deans, vice-deans, directors,etc) - Increased role played by the academic representatives in the place of the Provost To the deans and the self-assessment committees The first meeting with the academic representative, the advisor and the BEEPE director is crucial. INTRODUCTORY STAGE

23. OBSERVATIONS • With the department chairs, link the benefits to the more short-term gains that will improve certain aspects of their programs. • Support provided by the BEEPE is highly appreciated by the departments. To facilitate acceptance

24. www.beepe.umontreal.ca

25. CONCLUSION • Important to involve a large number of players in the process • Important role of the deans in the introductory stage • Good lines of communication between the different partners • Ready to make adjustments. Slowly but surely!