Criterion 3
To what extent does your college’s quality assurance process ensure that programs conform to the Framework for Programs of Instruction and the Credentials Framework, are consistent with accepted college system nomenclature / program titling principles, and maintain relevance?
3.1 The structure of the program is consistent with the program learning outcomes.
Program Learning Outcomes are an essential point of reference in the design process undertaken for the development of new programs and the modification of existing programs. Courses proposed for the Program of Studies are first characterized as Foundational, Specialized or Integrational. “Clinking”, a curriculum mapping strategy, requires that each learning outcome proposed for a course be linked to the Program Vocational Standards, Essential Employability Skills and External Standards as appropriate. The links are then classified based on the degree to which the learner’s performance of the course learning outcomes contributes to the graduate’s ability to accomplish the specific program standard. A four-level system is used for the classification: Very Significant (4), Significant (3), Moderate (2), and Minor (1). Program pre-requisites and co-requisites are identified as part of the process and subsequently reviewed during the annual program of studies review.
After this process has been completed for each of the courses, and the data captured in the Course Outline application (CORE), a Curriculum Mapping Matrix (CMM) is prepared (3.1.01a 3.1.01b 3.1.01c). This mapping process informs the Management Report (New Program Proposal) that is distributed internally for the necessary program approvals and then sent to CVS and MTCU for external validation.
The comprehensive Program Review integrates assessment of course outlines, program learning outcomes, and the curriculum map as strategies for assessing curriculum content (3.1.02). The goal of the mapping activity is to assess depth, breadth and complexity of the learning by course, by semester and by vocational standard. However, recent program review data sets have suggested the need for process refinements. Students are requesting more depth, breadth and complexity in some programs. This issue has been flagged as an area of concern, and will continue to receive attention. The need for process refinements has provided the rationale for the recent revision of the Program Quality Policy (3.1.03), and the introduction of more structured processes for program review and program modifications. The move to a more detailed annual review will also ensure more frequent opportunities for enhancing courses and programs. As new processes are introduced, however, program learning outcomes will continue to serve as the initial and essential points of reference for curriculum decisions.
3.2 The length of the program is appropriate to the level of the program outcomes.
The Credentials Framework is the ultimate determinant of the duration of the postsecondary programs offered at Mohawk College. However, within the Credentials Framework, time allocations by course and by topic within specific courses are addressed with reference to the Curriculum Mapping process identified in 3.1 above. The Curriculum Mapping Matrix facilitates classification of the nature of the course and the learning addressed, information which is essential to determining course hours, and the length of time allotted to specific topics. Initial decisions regarding timing occur as new programs are developed. These decisions are subsequently re-evaluated during program reviews at which time recommendations for change may be informed by feedback from students and faculty, delivery history, program advisory committee feedback, environmental scans, and industry trends.
The duration of individual program courses and the length of semesters are considerations addressed during the annual review. The program outcomes remain the key point of reference against which proposed program changes are evaluated. Proposed changes to course content which alter the vocational outcomes of the program are considered extraordinary changes which require both internal and external approvals (3.2.04a 3.2.04b).
3.3 Academic practices and policies govern program structure, including any specific pre-and co-requisites, mandatory and optional/elective components, practical/work-based components, alternative entry and exit points, and are consistent with program learning outcomes.
Decisions regarding course prerequisites, electives, entry and exit points, laboratory components, and practical components are made within a framework that encompasses multiple references. As demonstrated elsewhere in this report, the program learning outcomes are the primary reference during the new program design phase and the program review. The course outlines and the curriculum matrix that result from the comprehensive mapping process integrated into new program development provide the data needed to accurately determine course prerequisites and co-requisites.
The Credentials Framework determines the number of general education components, and the College General Education Policy (3.3.01) provides guidance to those involved in the design of a new program. However, selection of specific choices from the list of approved general education electives and the mix of mandatory versus optional electives are tied to the content of the program as well as College programming efficiencies.
Decisions regarding entry and exit points and the inclusion of practical work-based components are informed by several factors: input from Program Advisory Committee members; employment trends; environmental scans; competitive curriculum analyses; and recommendations arising from program reviews. All of these program components receive careful analysis during program review phases and are documented as part of the Program Review Final Report (3.3.02a 3.3.02b - in progress) .
3.4 Program title is consistent with college system nomenclature / titling principles.
Compliance with system nomenclature/titling principles is mandated in the Program Quality Policy (Principle #2) (3.4.01). Program titles are determined as a preliminary step in the New Program Development Process (3.4.02). Both the New Program Statement of Interest and the New Program Concept Report require the inclusion of a name for the proposed program. When work begins on the Management Report (New Program Proposal) after initial approvals have been received, the proposed title receives more scrutiny from the curriculum design team. The Credentials Validation Service (CVS) is consulted on proposed program titles before the completion of the Management Report. In addition, submission of the completed Management Report to CVS and MTCU ensures a final check of the program title.
The titles of existing academic programs are reviewed during the Program Review process (3.4.03), a step which has gradually eliminated the incidence of non-compliant program titles among the College’s offerings. Any requests for changes in program titles are routinely submitted to CVS to verify their acceptability.
Assessment of Criterion #3
Does the evidence provided for each of the 4 requirements indicate the criterion is Met, Partially Met, or Not Met using the definitions provided on Page 20 of the PQAPA Orientation and Training Manual?
In the event the Criterion is rated as Partially Met or Not Met, what plans are being identified to improve on this?
Having reviewed college documentation and evidence, we have concluded that all four requirements of Criterion # 3 have been met. The college policy framework and academic processes associated with the design, development and review of academic programs all support consistency with provincial standards and the centrality of program learning outcomes in the essential decisions about program design, structure and duration. The Program Quality Policyhas been revised, and a tighter structure introduced to guide annual and comprehensive program reviews and decisions related to program consolidation and modification. The current curriculum mapping process, first introduced in 2006, met the test of quality in the first provincial audit in 2009, and has undergone further refinement. With an ongoing commitment to program quality and excellence, Mohawk will continue to identify and implement mapping enhancements.
The chart below identifies initiatives currently in progress or planned to enhance quality assurance at Mohawk.
Initiative |
Responsibility |
Timeline |
Current Status |
|---|---|---|---|
Implement Annual Program Review Process |
Program Quality |
Pilot in Spring 2014; |
Draft process developed |
Implement General Education Strategy |
VPA Group |
Fall 2014 |
Implementation underway |
Test new Course outline systems / opportunities including Algonquin and D2L |
Program Quality |
Pilot in 2014/15 |
Preparing for pilot |