Cyclical University Program Reviews (UPRs)

All existing graduate and undergraduate programs must undergo a periodic review at least once every 8 years according to an established schedule. Each year the Office of Quality Assurance will hold an orientation meeting for programs that are scheduled for review. Below is a summary of the main steps involved in  cyclical program reviews: 

(Details about the University of Windsor Institutional Quality Assurance Process (IQAP) are outlined in the University of Windsor IQAP guide available from the Senate web-site.)

Step 1: Initiating a University program review (UPR)

The Dean of Graduate Studies and Quality Assurance initiates the UPR process by contacting the designated programs approximately 12 months before the intended site visit. The AAU Head or Program Director appoints a program representative who will be overseeing the review process and will act as the main liaison with the Quality Assurance office. The Office of Quality Assurance will hold an information session for the program liaisons and the program teams, to provide an overview of the process, set internal submission deadlines, and discuss required documentation.

Step 2: Preparation of three required documents:

1. The self-study

The self-study is prepared through consultation with members of the University community directly involved in the new initiative, including faculty, staff and students, the Faculty Dean, as well as those managing resources key to its implementation. A template of the self-study will be provided to each program. You can find a copy of the Self-Study Template Document in templates and resources.

2. Faculty CVs 

The CVs of all faculty members in the AAU must be appended to the self-study. The CVs must be prepared in a specific format - for details see Faculty CVs - resume template (cyclical reviews) and Faculty CVs - mapping document (cyclical reviews) in templates and resources.  

3. CVs of reviewer candidates

The Department Head, in consultation with the AAU council, forwards a list of at least 8 reviewer candidates along with their resumes to the Dean of Graduate Studies and Quality Assurance who selects two to three external reviewers. In addition, one internal reviewer not from the program under review is appointed to the review committee.

Note that there are arms-length and expertise requirements for external reviewer nominees.  A sample letter is available and can be used to approach potential reviewer nominees. For details refer to the External reviewers - resume template (cyclical reviews) in templates and resources.

Step 3: Review of documents by the Quality Assurance Office

The Office of Quality Assurance will review the self-study and faculty CVs and work with the AAU to finalize these documents before proceeding to schedule the site-visit. Note that the reviewers need to receive a copy of the proposal brief and faculty CVs at least 6 weeks in advance of the site-visit.

Step 4: External review

The review committee is provided with a copy of the self-study and the faculty CVs, as well as a template for the reviewers' report and any other supporting documentation. The Office of Quality Assurance coordinates a site visit and the review committee submits a joint report within 6 weeks after the site visit, focusing on specific program quality criteria, and identifying recommendations, if applicable.

Step 5: Response to the reviewers' report and recommendations

Both the AAU and the relevant Faculty Dean or designate will respond to the Reviewer’s Report and recommendations:

The review committee report is first forwarded to the AAU Head for a written response. The AAU council will review the document before it is sent to the relevant Faculty Dean, who then prepares a written response to the self-study, review report and response. The Dean’s response includes commentary regarding the plans and recommendations proposed in the self-study report, the recommendations advanced by the review committee, and the program’s response to the review committee report. It also describes changes in organization, policy or governance that would be required to meet those recommendations, the resources that would have to be provided in supporting the implementation of selected recommendations, and a proposed timeline for the implementation of any of those recommendations 

Step 6: Institutional approval

Following review (and approval as required by areas) by the AAU Council and Faculty Council, all documentation, including the self-study, reviewers’ report, and responses by the AAU Head and the Dean are forwarded to the University Secretariat, which convenes a meeting of the UPR sub-committee of PDC. The UPR sub-committee produces draft reports which include an executive summary, and an implementation plan. The final reports including implementation plans are reviewed and approved by the Program Development Committee and then submitted to Senate for information.

Step 7: The executive summary, final assessment report, and implementation plan are posted on the Senate website and forwarded to the Quality Council.