brocku.ca Page 1 of 1 641st Meeting of Senate WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 2016 . 3:30 P.M. SANKEY CHAMBER, MACKENZIE CHOWN COMPLEX . A G E N D A . 1) Call to Order 2) Approval of Agenda 3)

Page 1 of 1

641st Meeting of Senate WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 2016

3:30 P.M. SANKEY CHAMBER, MACKENZIE CHOWN COMPLEX

A G E N D A

1) Call to Order

2) Approval of Agenda

3) Approval of Minutes

640th Meeting of Senate held May 11, 2016

4) Business Arising from the Minutes

5) Unfinished Business from the Last Meeting

5.1. Graduate Studies (Refer to Part C- Change in FHB 7.13 and D- Changes to FHB 1)

5.2. Governance

5.3. Undergraduate Student Affairs

5.4. Academic Review Committee

6) Communications

7) Report of the Chair

8) Report of the President and Vice-Chancellor

9) Report of the Provost and Vice-President, Academic

10) Report of the Vice-President, Research

11) Report of the Academic Colleague

12) Report of Actions of the Board of Trustees

13) Graduands- Spring 2016 Convocation (Including appendix 1)

14) Reports of Standing Committees

14.1. Teaching and Learning Policy (Including IEAC report and appendices 1-2) 14.2. Graduate Studies 14.3. Research and Scholarship Policy (Including appendices 1-3)14.4. Undergraduate Program (Including appendix 1)


15) Reports of Special Committees

16) Annual Reports

16.1. Academic Review Committee

16.2. Governance

16.3. Graduate Studies

16.4. Information Technology and Infrastructure

16.5. Planning, Priorities and Budget Advisory

16.6. Research and Scholarship Policy

16.7. Student Appeals Board

16.8. Teaching and Learning Policy

16.9. Undergraduate Program


17) Student Awards- Distinguished Graduates and Deans Medals (IN CAMERA- available in BrockBox)

18) Other Business

19) Adjournment

https://brocku.ca/webfm_send/40908


(Circulated Prior to Approval)

MINUTES OF MEETING #640 (2015-2016)

SENATE

WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2016, 3:00 PM

DR. CHARLES A. SANKEY CHAMBER, MACKENZIE CHOWN COMPLEX PRESENT: Chair: Dr. Scott Henderson, Vice-Chair: Dr. Larry Savage Ex officio: Ms. Barb Davis, Dean Tom Dunk, Dr. Greg Finn, Mr. Faisal Hejazi, Mr. Brian Hutchings, Dr. Anna Lathrop, Dr. Gary Libben, Dr. Jack Lightstone,

Dean Carol Merriam, Interim Dean David Siegel, Mr. John Suk, Dean Peter Tiidus, Dr. Thomas Winger Full-time Teaching Staff/Professional Librarian Representatives: Senators Kate Bezanson, Irene Blayer, Poling Bork, Jonah Butovsky, Christene Carpenter-Cleland, Christine Daigle, Heather Gordon, David Hutchison, Nota Klentrou, Dan Malleck, Tanya Martini, Jane McLeod,

Christie Milliken, Shauna Pomerantz, Linda Rose-Krasnor, Barbara Sainty, John Sivell, Susan Sydor, Heather Whipple, Sakoieta’ Widrick, Vera Woloshyn Undergraduate Student Representatives: Senator Matt Campbell

Graduate Student Representatives: Senator Julia Polyck-O’Neill Board of Trustees Representatives: Senator Kristine Freudenthaler Alumni Association Representative: Senator James O’Brien University Secretariat: Chabriol Colebatch, Margaret Thompson (Recorder)

ALSO PRESENT: Patrick Foster, Gloria Gallagher, Carrie Kelly, James Mandigo, Diane Miller, Joe Robertson, and other members of the Brock community REGRETS: Senators Ejaz Ahmed, Amalia Banava, Jeff Boggs, Shirley Cheechoo, Maureen Connolly, Jarold Cosby, Mario De Divitiis, Sheng Deng, Fayez Elayan,

Bryan Giordano, Paul Hamilton, Jennifer Li, Neil McCartney, Laurie Morrison, Nigeria Goli Emiko Murphy, Sarah Nagib, Sam Piccolo, Michael Plyley,

Lynn Rempel, Sid Segalowitz, Erin Sharpe, Jeremy Steinhausen, Terrance Wade, David Whitehead, Barry Wright, Jonathan Younker

1. Call to Order

The Chair welcomed Senators and guests and called the meeting to order.

Senate

Minutes of the 640th Meeting of Senate May 11, 2016

-2-

___________________________________________________________________________

2. Approval of Agenda

MOVED (Blayer/Sainty) THAT the Agenda be approved.

CARRIED

3. Approval of Minutes [The Minutes of the 639th meeting of Senate held on April 13, 2016 had been posted with

the meeting materials.]

MOVED (Merriam/Daigle)

THAT the Minutes of the 639th meeting of Senate held on April 13, 2016

be approved.

CARRIED

4. Business Arising from the Minutes Professor Klentrou noted that following the previous meeting of Senate, the Planning,

Priorities and Budget Advisory Committee recognized that the motion presented to Senate by the Committee, and subsequently approved by Senate, was not accurate. She requested that a motion to amend the motion previously adopted be considered.

MOVED (Klentrou/Sydor) THAT the motion previously adopted by Senate on April 13, 2016 be

amended as follows (strike-out indicates deletion):

That the 2016-17 Budget supports the core academic mission of the

University.

CARRIED

5. Communications The Chair provided an oral update on an anonymous communication received regarding

the proposed Centre for Business Analytics. He noted that the issues raised had been examined, and it was determined that proper procedures had been followed.

6. Report of the Chair [The Report of the Chair dated May 5, 2016 had been posted with the meeting materials.]

Senate received the Report of the Chair for information. Of note, Dr. Henderson

acknowledged the sad passing of Dr. Jack Miller and referred Senators to the written reflection included in his Report.


-3-

___________________________________________________________________________

7. Report of the President and Vice-Chancellor Dr. Lightstone provided a brief oral update on preliminary information received

regarding the Ministry’s next phase to implement changes to the funding formula. Further details will be provided at a subsequent meeting.

The President related to Senators that a memorial service for colleague Dr. Jack Miller is

being planned for Monday, June 6 and details will be announced soon. 8. Report of the Provost and Vice-President, Academic [The Report of the Provost dated May 11, 2016 had been posted with the Agenda

materials, together with Appendix 1: Breadth Requirements Proposal Domain Descriptors dated October 3, 2014. Appendix 2: Breadth Requirement – Teaching and Learning Sub-Committee on Context Credits had been posted prior to the meeting.]

The Chair noted that there had been an oversight in the posting of the materials submitted

to the Secretariat Office within the appropriate timeframe and requested a motion to waive the five-day rule to receive a PowerPoint presentation.

MOVED (Sivell/Daigle) THAT the Five-Day Rule as outlined in FHB II: 7.1.3 be waived and the

presentation be received.

CARRIED

In response to Senate’s request to the Provost and Vice-President, Academic during the

previous meeting, Dr. Finn, by way of an overhead presentation titled “Breadth Requirement” reviewed the report of the Teaching and Learning Policy Sub-Committee on Context Credits.

Following the presentation on breath requirements, the Chair asked Senate for its advice on the actions to be taken regarding the proposals outlined in the Report. During discussion, Senator Savage, who was a member of the Teaching and Learning Policy Sub-committee, expressed concern that the presentation did not provide an accurate description of the sub-committee’s trajectory. He expanded on his concerns which included that the sub-committee came to a consensus that it did not support the proposals contained in today’s presentation, that there were other documents authored that also did not support these proposals, and the sub-committee had suggested that the issues regarding context credits be addressed by amending the language in the Faculty Handbook. Senator Savage further suggested that meetings of the sub-committee ought to resume to examine the matter of context credits to assist Senate in its deliberations.


-4-

___________________________________________________________________________

A comprehensive discussion ensued during which Senators provided input to the Chair of Senate regarding potential alternate actions to be taken with respect to Brock’s current policy on context credits. It was pointed out that both issues of core and context are under the purview of the Undergraduate Program Committee. It was suggested that a discussion of both items by Senate are warranted prior to any action being taken. MOVED (Savage/Sivell) THAT Senate delay taking action on the issue of breadth requirements until

Senate has had its iterative discussion on core credits.

CARRIED

On a separate matter, the Chair noted that Dr. James Mandigo, Brock’s new Vice-

Provost, Enrolment Management and International is in attendance. He requested that the Governance Committee examine a change to the FHB to include this position as an ex-officio voting member of Senate.

9. Report of the Vice-President, Research Dr. Libben presented an oral update on activities related to research grants and responded

to questions.

10. Report of the Academic Colleague [A Report from the Alternate Academic Colleague dated April 11, 2016 had been posted

with the meeting materials.] Senate received the Report of the Alternate Academic Colleague for information.

11. Report of the Actions of the Board of Trustees [A Board Brief to Senate from the meeting of the Board of Trustees held on May 5, 2016

had been posted with the meeting materials.] Senate received the Report of the Actions of the Board of Trustees for information. In

response to a question, Senator and Trustee Freudenthaler expanded on the rationale for the motions passed by the Board related to the projects identified to be submitted for funding under the provisions of the Post-Secondary Institutions Strategic Investment Fund Program. Senator Hutchings noted that, if Senate permitted, he could expand on the information by way of an overhead presentation.

MOVED (Rose-Krasnor/Gordon)

THAT the Five-Day Rule as outlined in FHB II: 7.1.3 be waived and the

presentation be received.

CARRIED


-5-

___________________________________________________________________________

Senator Hutchings reviewed the presentation that had been provided to the Board which contained detailed information regarding the two projects identified by the University as meeting the criteria of the Strategic Investment Fund program for post-secondary institutions recently announced by the Government of Canada and which had to be submitted by May 9, 2016.

A discussion ensued during which Senators provided additional comments. Of note,

Senator Widrick reminded Senate of the needs of the Indigenous education programs. Noting the time, the Chair suggested that the Report of the Undergraduate Program

Committee be presented prior to the other Committee Reports. MOVED (Sivell/Klentrou) THAT the Report of the Undergraduate Program Committee be considered

as item 13.1.

CARRIED

12. Unfinished Business from the Last Meeting - None

13. Reports of Standing Committees

13.1 Undergraduate Program Committee

[The Report of the Undergraduate Program Committee dated May 4, 2016 had been posted with the meeting materials.]

Senator Gordon presented the Report of the Undergraduate Program Committee.

a) FHB III: A.1 Approval of new Undergraduate Programs Revision MOVED (Gordon/Finn) THAT the revisions to FHB III A.1 Undergraduate Academic regulations

as outlined in the Report.

During discussion, Dr. Finn responded to questions related IQAP and the responsibilities of the Academic Review Committee.

CARRIED

b) FHB III: A.8.9 Program Approval

MOVED (Gordon/Campbell) THAT the revisions to FHB III A.8.9 Program Approval be approved as

outlined in the Report.


-6-

___________________________________________________________________________

CARRIED

c) FHB III: A.5.2.1 Formal Voluntary Withdrawal MOVED (Gordon/Campbell ) THAT the revision to FHB III A.5.2.1 pertaining to voluntary withdrawal

from Spring session courses be approved as outlined in the Report.

CARRIED

The Chair noted that the two-hour meeting limit had almost been reached and asked

that Senate consider a motion to extend the meeting. MOVED (Daigle/McLeod) THAT the meeting be extended to end at 5:15 p.m.

CARRIED

d) New Context Credit Course

Professor Gordon noted a correction to the proposed motion in the Report stating that

INDG 1F90 had previously been approved by Senate. The following motion was then presented:

MOVED (Gordon/Widrick) THAT INDG 2F01 be introduced as a context credit course in Humanities

as outlined on page 3 of the Appendix to the Report.

CARRIED

e) Women’s and Gender Studies

MOVED (Gordon/Bezanson) THAT the addition of WGST 2P97 (cross listed as INDG 2P97 and SOCI

2P97) to the course bank for 2016-17 be approved as outlined on pages 8,

44-45 of the Appendix to the Report.

CARRIED

f) Business

Professor Gordon suggested, and Senate concurred, that the three motions related to

Business be considered as an omnibus motion.


-7-

___________________________________________________________________________

MOVED (Gordon/Campbell) THAT motions a), b) and c) as outlined in item 6 of the Report regarding

Business be approved.

CARRIED

g) Omnibus Motion

It was requested, and Senate concurred, that the motions within items 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14 be grouped and presented as an omnibus motion. MOVED (Gordon/Hejazi)

THAT the motions as outlined in items 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Report

regarding Concurrent Education, Music, Applied Linguistics, Child and

Youth Studies, Communication, Popular Culture and Film, and Sociology

be approved.

CARRIED

h) Earth Sciences MOVED (Gordon/Campbell)

THAT Senate approves the addition of ERSC 3V94 to the course bank for

2015-16 as outlined in the Appendix of the Report.

CARRIED

It was suggested that the Report of the Graduate Studies Committee be presented next. MOVED (Daigle/Blayer) THAT the Report of the Graduate Studies Committee be considered as item

13.2.

CARRIED

13.2 Graduate Studies Committee

[The Report of the Graduate Studies Committee dated May 11, 2016 had been posted with the meeting materials.] Senator Daigle presented the Report for the information of Senate.


-8-

___________________________________________________________________________

a) Change in Degree Requirements - Accounting

MOVED (Daigle/Klentrou)

THAT the proposed changes to degree requirements for the Master of

Accountancy be approved as outlined in the Report.

CARRIED

b) Change in FHB 4.9 Graduate Program Handbook


THAT the proposed changes to FHB III: B.4.9 Graduate Program

Handbook be approved as outlined in the Report.

CARRIED

c) Change in FHB 7.13 Continuation in a Graduate Program


THAT the proposed changes to FHB III: B.7.13 Continuation in a Graduate

Program be approved as outlined in the Report.

In response to a question raised by a Senator, the Chair confirmed that a quorum was no longer present. The meeting was adjourned.

TO: Secretary BrockUniversitySenate FROM: ChristineDaigle,Chair SenateGraduateStudiesCommittee(SGSC)DATE: April29,2016

ReporttoSenate#640,May11,2016

1. FortheapprovalofSenate:a.ChangeinDegreeRequirements–AccountingMOVED(Daigle/)thattheproposedchangestodegreerequirementsfortheMasterofAccountancybeapproved.DegreeRequirementsTheMasterofAccountancyisnormallycompletedintwoterms(WinterandSpring).Studentsmustcompleteatotaloftenhalf-creditrequiredcoursesandelectives.RequiredCoursesMACC5P21StrategicPerformanceManagementMACC5P41AdvancedTopicsinTaxationMACC5P71AdvancedTopicsinAssuranceMACC5P71AdvancedAssuranceMACC5P91AdvancedTopicsinCorporateFinanceMACC5P11IntegrationandTeamManagementMACC5Y11IntegrationandTeamManagementMACC5P12IntegrationandAnalysisMACC5Y12IntegrationandAnalysisMACC5P51REAModelingandXBRLforFinancialReportingMACC5P61CorporateGovernanceGeneralCPAPathwayTheCPAPathwayisaccreditedbyCPAOntarioandisprimarilyfocusedonthebodyofknowledgerequiredfortheCPAPEPprogram.CompletionoftheMAcc(CPApathway)willprovidestudentswithadvancedstandinginCPAPEPtotheendofCapstone2.StudentsareencouragedtocompletetheCommonFinalExamination(CFE)intheSeptemberimmediatelyfollowingthecompletionoftheMAccdegree.

Inadditiontotherequiredcourses,studentsmustcompletetwothreehalf-creditcourseelectives.TheelectivecoursesarenormallyselectedfromothergraduatecoursesofferedintheGoodmanSchoolofBusiness.Requeststotakeelectivesfromupperyearundergraduateofferingsand/orgraduatecoursesoutsideoftheGoodmanSchoolofBusinessmayalsobeconsideredonacase-by-casebasis.StudentsintheCPAPathwaywhosuccessfullycompletethreeormorehalf-creditelectivesfromoneofthefunctionalareasofbusinesswillfulfilltherequirementsofaminorthatwillbenotatedontheirofficialtranscript.(Note:thiswillrequirestudentstakeanadditionalcourseovertherequiredcourseload.)Aminormaybepursuedin:BusinessAnalytics,Finance,HumanResourceManagement,OperationsManagementandMarketing.(Notethatcoursesmaynotbeofferedinagivenyearifthereisinsufficientstudentinterest.)Rationale:ThefirstofferingoftheCPA-accreditedMACCprogramwasofferedandtheMACC5Y11andMACC5Y12coursesaredesignedtocovertheCapstone1andCapstone2modulesofferedthroughCPACanada.Theworkloadrequiredforthetwocoursesissignificantandthetwocoursescurrentlyofferedasquarter-creditcoursesdonotallowenoughtimetocoverthelearningobjectivesrequired.WewanttoensurethestudentsaresuccessfulontheCharteredProfessionalAccountantsofCanadacommonfinalexam.b.ChangeinFHB4.9GraduateProgramHandbookMOVED(Daigle/)thattheproposedchangestoFHB4.9GraduateProgramHandbookbeapproved.4.9GraduateProgramHandbookItistheresponsibilityofeachgraduateprogramtomaintainanup-to-dateelectronicGraduateProgramHandbookforitsstudentsandfacultymembersthatoutlinesprogramspecificpoliciesandprocedures(e.g.how/whenprogressisevaluated,timelinestoguidethecompletionofthedegree,supervisorinformation).TheGraduateProgramHandbookshouldutilizeelectroniclinkstorefertorelevantinformationandpoliciesthatareoutlinedintheGraduateCalendarand/orFacultyHandbook.TheGraduateprogramHandbookshallbereviewedandupdatedbytheGraduateProgramCommitteeandtheFacultyDean/AssociateDeanofGraduateStudiesbyJune30thofeachcalendaryeartoensurethattherevisedProgramHandbookisavailabletostudentsandfacultybyAugust31ofthatyear.Rationale:Directoversightofthegraduateprogramresideswiththeacademicfaculty.c.ChangeinFHB7.13ContinuationinaGraduateProgramMOVED(Daigle/)thattheproposedchangestoFHB7.13ContinuationinaGraduateProgrambeapproved.

7.13ContinuationinaGraduateProgramGraduatestudentsmustachieveandmaintainminimumsatisfactoryacademicperformancetobeeligibletocontinueinagraduateprogram.Graduateprogramcommitteeswillreviewtheperformanceoftheirenrolledgraduatestudentsonaregularbasis,preferablyeachterm.Atminimum,graduateprogramswillensurethatthereisaformalmeetingofeachPhDsupervisorycommitteeatleastoncewithintheacademicyear(May-April).EachPhDsupervisorycommitteemustreportannuallyonthestudent’sprogressandtheGraduateProgramDirectormustforwardsuchreportstotheFacultyofGraduateStudies.Thereportwillformallydocumentthesupervisorycommittee’sassessmentoftheprogressofthestudentintheprogram.MinimumAcademicPerformanceandAcademicProbationGraduatestudentsmustmaintainaminimumcumulativeaverageofatleastaB-(70%)duringeachtermofstudy.IfagraduatestudentfallsbelowtheminimumcumulativeaveragethestudentwillbeautomaticallyplacedonacademicprobationforthesubsequenttermbytheFacultyofGraduateStudies.Additionallyagraduateprogrammayrecommendrequiredprogramwithdrawal.Aprobationarystudentmustachievetheminimumcumulativeaverage,normallyduringtheprobationaryterm,tobeeligibletocontinueasagraduatestudent.Ingraduateprogramswitharesearchexitrequirement(thesis,majoressay/researchpaper)satisfactoryacademicprogressduringtheresearchphasewillbedeterminedthroughacademicprogressreviewsbythegraduateprogramcommittee(normallyonceperterm)asoutlinedintheprogram'sGraduateHandbook.Anunsatisfactoryacademicprogressdecision,asdeterminedbytheGraduateProgramCommittee,mayresultinaprogram'sdecisiontoplacethestudentonacademicprobationforthesubsequenttermorarequestforrequiredprogramwithdrawal.RequiredProgramWithdrawalRequestsforrequiredprogramwithdrawalthataretheresultofastudent'slackofacademicprogress/performancemustbesubmittedinwritingbytheGraduateProgramdirectortotheDeanofGraduateStudies.EachrequestwillbereviewedandapprovedbytheDeanofGraduateStudiesinconsultationwiththeGraduateProgramDirectorandtheFacultyDean.Ifafailinggradeisawardedforamajoressay/researchpaperorthesis,thestudentwillbeautomaticallywithdrawnfromthegraduateprogrambytheFacultyofGraduateStudies.AcademicPerformance,ProbationandWithdrawalGraduatestudentsmustmaintainaminimumcumulativeaverageofatleastB-(70%)duringeachtermofstudy.Individualprogramsmaysethigherstandards.Ifagraduatestudentfallsbelowtheminimumcumulativeaverage,theFacultyofGraduateStudieswillautomaticallyplacethestudentonprobation.Normally,astudentwhosecumulativeaverageisbelowB-(70%)fortwoconsecutivetermswillbewithdrawnfromtheprogrambytheProgramCommittee.

Thegraduateprogramcommitteemustreviewall“nograduatecredit”grades(C’sandF’s)eachtermanddetermineifthestudentiseligibletoproceed.Studentswithtwoormore“nograduatecredit”gradeswillnotnormallybeallowedtocontinueintheprogram.Ifafailinggradeisawardedforamajorresearchpaperorthesis,thestudentwillbeautomaticallywithdrawnfromthegraduateprogrambytheFacultyofGraduateStudies.Program/ResearchProgress,ProbationandWithdrawalGraduateprogramcommitteeswillreviewtheperformanceoftheirenrolledgraduatestudentsonaregularbasis-preferablyeachterm.Programswillcommunicatetheresultsofthereviewtothestudentandsupervisor.Atminimum,graduateprogramswillensurethatthereisaformalmeetingofeachPhDsupervisorycommitteeatleastoncewithintheacademicyear(May-April).Inaddition,eachPhDgraduatestudentandgraduateprogrammustreportannually(everythreetermsofregisteredstudy)totheFacultyofGraduateStudiesonthestudent’sprogress,usingtheFGSPhDProgressReport.Eachgraduateprogrammustclearlyarticulateitsstandardsandtimelinesforsatisfactoryprogressinprogramandresearch.Allstudentsandsupervisorsmustfamiliarizethemselveswiththesestandardsandtimelines.TheProgramCommitteemayplaceastudentonprobationifprogramorresearchprogressisdeemedtobeunsatisfactory.Thetermsandconditionsoftheprobationmustbeclearlycommunicatedinwritingtothegraduatestudent.Astudentwhofailstoachieveandmaintainsatisfactoryprogressaftersuchaprobationaryperiodwillnormallybewithdrawn.Incasesofegregiousfailuretoachieveprogress,astudentmaybewithdrawnfromthegraduateprogramwithoutaprobationaryperiod.Rationale:Theproposedchangesclarifytheinformationcontainedinthesection.Mostelementsarethesamebutthereareimportantadditions.

Changes:• Minimumacademicperformanceingraduateprogramsacrossthe

universityisclearlydefinedandtheconsequencesoffailingtomaintainsatisfactorygradesindicated.

Additions:• Thesectionnowspecifiesthatgraduateprogramsmustarticulate

theirownstandardsforsatisfactoryprogressandthatstudentsmustacquaintthemselveswiththem.Thismakesitclearthatcriteriaforassessingsatisfactoryprogressareestablishedbyindividualprograms.

• ThenewlanguagenowembedstheFGSPhDProgressReport(launchedthisyear)intheprocessasthetooltobeusedforthereviewandassessmentofprogress.Eachprogramwillusetheirprogramspecificcriteriatodeterminewhethersatisfactoryprogressisachieved.

• Theprocessforprobationandwithdrawalisclarifiedanditisnowpossibletoproceeddirectlytowithdrawalincasesofegregiousfailuretoachieveprogress.Again,thiswillbedeterminedbyindividualprogramsinaccordancewiththecriteriaspecifiedintheirpoliciesandusingthePhDProgressReportinPhDprogramsandothermeansofreviewsinMAprograms.Anyrequestforwithdrawalwillnecessitatedocumentation.

Probationisamechanismwherebyastudentisinformedoftheirlackofsatisfactoryprogressandinformedofthemeasurestobetakentoputthemselvesbackontrack.Lettersofprobationsenttothestudentwilldelineateclearlythereasonsforbeingputonprobationaswellasthecorrectivemeasuresandtimelinestobemettocomeoffprobation.d.ChangestoFBH1–EstablishmentandReviewofGraduateProgramsMOVED(Daigle/)thattheproposedchangestoFHB1.EstablishmentandReviewofGraduateProgramsbeapproved.1 Establishment and Review of Graduate Programs 1.1 Statement of Principles A. The establishment and continuation of graduate programs should add to the academic quality of the undergraduate programs of the University and contribute to the research endeavours. Graduate programs must be consistent with the University's planning documents and resources may be re-allocated to Graduate Studies in the context of the approved University planning documents. B. Senate supports the principle of co-operation with other universities in graduate work at both the PhD and Master's level. 1.2 Program Approval A. The introduction of all new graduate degrees, degree programs and graduate diplomas is guided by the Internal Quality Assurance Process (FHB III.C.11) and must be approved by Senate upon the recommendation of the Academic Review Committee. B. All major modifications to existing graduate degrees and graduate programs, as well as the creation or deletion of fields in a graduate program is guided by the Internal Quality Assurance Process (FHB III.C.11) and must be approved by Senate upon the recommendation of the Academic Review Committee. Rationale:

The approval of new graduate programs falls under ARC’s responsibility as do major modifications to existing graduate programs. The changes reflect the IQAP and serve to reduce duplication and possible confusion within the handbook with respect to the introduction of new programs or modification to existing graduate programs. 2.FortheinformationofSenate:ThecalendarentriesforBusinessAdministration,Canadian-AmericanStudies,History,andPublicHealthhavebeenapproved.

3.FortheinformationofSenate:ThecyclicalreviewsforEconomicsandCriticalSociologywerediscussedandaresponsehasbeensenttoARC.4.FortheinformationofSenate:AttherequestoftheUndergraduateStudentAffairsCommittee(USAC),SGSCdiscussedthecontinuationoftheFallReadingWeekandpassedamotioninsupportofit.ThismotionhasbeenforwardedtotheChairofUSAC.5.FortheinformationofSenate:MembersofthecommitteediscussedgraduategradingstandardsandgradingsystemandreferredtotheSub-committeeonPolicyforrevisionstotheFacultyHandbookentryongraduateevaluation.

TO: Chabriol Colebatch, University Secretary & General Counsel Brock University

FROM: Professor Linda Rose-Krasnor Chair, Senate Governance Committee

DATE: May 4, 2016

REPORT TO SENATE 640, MAY 11, 2016

RECOMMENDATION ITEMS

1. FHB IV: 2.3.2 A – Advisory Committees for Associate Deans and Representation ofFree-floating Programs

MOVED (Rose-Krasnor / )

THAT the following amendments to FHB IV: 2.3.2 be recommended to the President (as indicated by red text):

2.3.2 Advisory Committees A. Prior to commencing a search or review process, and after consultation with the Chairs and Directors of academic units within the Faculty, the Dean shall select and chair an Advisory Committee made up of full-time tenured faculty members such that each Department, Centre, and Program Committee of a Program not housed in a Department or Centre from the appropriate Faculty is represented on the Committee. In the case of an Advisory Committee for an Associate Dean of Graduate Studies, the Dean shall select and Chair an Advisory Committee consisting of full-time tenured Faculty members such that each of the Academic Faculties is represented. Before the Advisory Committee is announced, potential members of the Committee must agree, as a condition of membership, that they will not be candidates for the position of Associate Dean.

Rationale:

The FHB wording for advisory committees for Deans was recently amended to ensure representation of faculty from free-floating programs was included. It is proposed that the same principle should apply to advisory committees for associate deans.

Senate Governance Committee – Report to Senate 640 – May 11, 2016

2. Board of Trustees – potential changes to FHB I

MOVED (Rose-Krasnor/ )

THAT Senate oppose a possible change in the reappointment process for the President and Vice-Chancellor, Vice-President, Academic and Provost, and Vice-President, Research, that would exclude faculty, staff, and student representatives from the reappointment committees.

Rationale

The Committee received a report from Joe Robertson, Chair of the Board of Trustees Governance/Nominating Committee and Immediate Past Chair, regarding potential amendments to Faculty Handbook I, attached as Appendix 1 to this report. The Governance/Nominating Committee is considering revising Faculty Handbook I to remove the appointment and reappointment provisions relating to the President, Vice-President, Research and Provost and Vice-President, Academic and place them in a stand-alone policy. The Chair of the Board’s Governance/Nominating Committee indicated that the Committee is not considering changes to the appointment process but is considering revisions to the review process for reappointment, as concerns had been raised regarding the confidentiality of the process and the ability of the current process to support full and frank feedback with regard to the performance of the incumbent.

One option being considered by the Board’s Governance/Nominating Committee is a reduction in the size of review committees to two individuals. The members of the Governance Committee of Senate expressed opposition to any potential exclusion of faculty, staff and student representatives from the review committees and passed the following motion:

THAT the Governance Committee appreciates the report from the Chair of the Board’s Governance/Nominating Committee and wishes to advise the Governance/Nominating Committee that the Governance Committee of Senate is opposed to a possible change in the reappointment process for the President and Vice-Chancellor, Vice-President, Academic and Provost, and Vice-President, Research, that would exclude faculty, staff, and student representatives from the reappointment committees.

One major reason for opposition to the proposed changes was that the removal of faculty, staff and student representatives contradicts the principle of the direct involvement of key stakeholder groups in the decision-making process. It also undermines the principle of shared governance that is fundamental to the academy. We also noted that a smaller reappointment committee does not necessarily ensure confidentiality and that the long-standing practice of inclusiveness within review committees would be sacrificed to accommodate those individuals who were afraid to give negative feedback to the committee. In addition, the proposed change appears to position reappointment as less important than appointment decisions, given that it would result in a smaller committee size without representation.

The Governance Committee further decided to recommend that Senate pass a similar motion in opposition to the proposed action by the Board.

2


Feedback as indicated in Appendix 1 and on the revised Board Bylaws was invited, as well as suggestions on the review process for reappointment for the President, Vice-President, Academic and Provost and Vice-President, Research. Senators are requested to provide feedback prior to June 8, 2016.

3. Revisions to FHB Resulting from Quality Council

MOVED (Rose-Krasnor/ )

THAT Senate approve the following changes to FHB II 9.13, 9.6 and 9.9

FHB II 9.13 Academic Review Committee 9.13.1 Terms of Reference The Academic Review Committee (ARC) is a special committee of Senate responsible for the coordination, monitoring and implementation of all aspects of the Internal Quality Assurance Process (IQAP). The ARC is directly accountable and responsible to Senate through the Provost and Vice-President, Academic, an ex officio member of Senate. Regular reports will be presented to Senate through the Provost and Vice-President, Academic with updates and/or recommendations for the consideration of Senate. The Senate Academic Review Committee: a) coordinates, monitors, implements all aspects of, and carries out revisions to, the IQAP; b) oversees, and monitors and reports on all aspects of cyclical program reviews at the undergraduate and graduate levels; c) oversees, monitors and reports on all aspects related to the introduction of new programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels; the IQAP from the initiation of a review or introduction of anew program to the final assessment report and recommendation to Senate; b) oversees cyclical reviews of programs at both the undergraduate and graduate levels d) oversees, monitors and reports on all aspects of major modifications to existing undergraduate and graduate programs; e) oversees, monitors and reports on all aspects of program discontinuation at the undergraduate and graduate levels; df) recommends to Senate, as required by the IQAP, new programs and approval of reviews for both undergraduate and graduate programs; dg) presents Final Assessment reports to Senate for consideration; eh) monitors progress regarding the implementation of the recommendations included in Final Assessment reports; fi) develops an annual work plan that will be presented to Senate during its first meeting of each academic year; gj) presents an Annual Report to Senate during the last meeting of each academic year; hk) consults with other Senate Committees and Faculty Deans as required to fulfill its mandate. 9.13.2 Appointments Members, whether elected members of Senate or are drawn from faculty at large, will be appointed by the Governance Committee of Senate-Elect through the regular appointment procedures for standing committees of Senate. Appointments will be recommended by the Governance Committee of Senate-Elect to Senate-Elect and be effective the day following the spring Convocation.

3


9.13.3. Term of Office Term of office for each member will be three years in order to reflect the nature of the review process and program development that would span more than one academic year. Committee membership will be staggered to provide continuity in the membership. Members may be reappointed to the Committee. For the first year (2010-11), three members will be appointed for a term of three years and six members for a term of two years. After two years, three members will be appointed for three years and three members for two years. Subsequently, each year three members will be appointed for three years. This will allow for appointments to be staggered to maintain some continuity in the committee membership.

9.13.4. Chair The Provost and Vice-President, Academic (or designate) will be the Committee Chair. As an ex officio member of Senate, the Vice-Provost and Associate Vice-President, Academic will act as Chair in the absence of the Provost and Vice-President, Academic.

9.13.5. Representation Each Faculty will be represented on the Committee with at least two members being elected Senators from the Full-time Teaching staff. There will be two student members, with at least one student who is an elected member of Senate.

9.13.6. Procedures When constituted, the ARC will develop its operating procedures, including In addition to confidentiality and conflict of interest guidelines, ARC’s operating procedures shall be guided by the IQAP. and report these to Senate. Due to confidentiality, meetings of the Committee will not normally be open to the University community, except by invitation.

9.13.7. Composition of the ARC (All voting, except where indicated) Ex officio: Provost and Vice-President, Academic: Chair Vice-Provost and Associate Vice-President, Academic; Vice-Chair Faculty Deans, as needed (for reviews pertinent to Programs in their Faculties) Dean of Graduate Studies (for all graduate programs)

Appointed members: Faculty of Applied Health Sciences Faculty of Business Faculty of Education Faculty of Graduate Studies Faculty of Humanities Faculty of Social Sciences Faculty of Mathematics and Science Graduate student Undergraduate student

Non-Voting Faculty Dean, as needed (for reviews pertinent to programs in their Faculty) Dean of Graduate Studies (for all graduate programs)

4


BUFA Observer (non-voting)

Administrative Support: Coordinator of Academic Reviews and Planning Quality Assurance Coordinator

Resource Personnel: Library, ITS, Institutional Analysis and PlanningStudent Services, others as required

FHB section II 9.6.1 – Graduate Studies Committee

c. the introduction of new graduate departments, schools, colleges and/or institutes;

d. the termination, curtailment or combination of existing graduate programs;

de. the introduction of new categories of graduate degrees;

FHB section II 9.9.1 – Undergraduate Program Committee

c) the introduction of new undergraduate departments, schools, collegesand/or institutes, and undergraduate program articulation agreements;

d) the termination, curtailment or combination of existing undergraduateprograms;

de) the undergraduate course offerings proposed for any academic year; including identification of curricular changes leading to duplication;

Rationale

The above changes reflect revisions to the Brock Institutional Quality Assurance Process, which were approved by the Quality Council on March 24, 2016. The report to Senate Governance from the Vice-Provost and AVP Academic, dated April 1, 2016, is attached as Appendix 2 to this report.

INFORMATION ITEMS

4. Senate Election Subcommittee

The Committee received a report from the Senate Election Subcommittee setting outissues relating to eligibility to serve on Senate and vote in Senate elections. The ElectionSubcommittee had raised concerns about how to interpret and apply the definition of “fulltime teaching staff” as set out in the Brock University Act and, in particular, the types ofteaching and research that are contemplated by the definition. The Committee supportedthe Chair’s suggestion that these issues be referred to the Governance-elect for furtherconsideration.

5. Governance Year End Report

The Committee reviewed and approved the Governance Year-End Report.

5


6. Task Force on Joint Board-Senate Integrated Planning Oversight Committee

The Committee received an update from the task force related to the Joint Board-SenateIntegrated Planning Oversight Committee. The Chair of Senate and the Chair of theSenate Governance Committee met with the current Board Chair and Chair-Elect to talkabout possibly revising the mandate and composition of the Joint Board-SenateIntegrated Planning Oversight Committee. It was agreed to postpone suggesting anyspecific revisions until the incoming President has assumed office but that the task forcewould continue to meet periodically over the summer to continue communicating, prior tosuggesting the best composition and mandate for a Joint Committee.

-----Appendix 1: Report to Senate Governance Committee from the Chair of theGovernance/Nominating Committee and Immediate Past Chair of the Board of Trusteesregarding update to Board Bylaws and Review of Faculty Handbook, datedApril 27, 2016

Appendix 2: Report to Senate Governance Committee from Vice-Provost and AVPAcademic regarding Revisions to FHB Resulting from Quality Council, datedApril 1, 2016

6

1

Senate

Report to Senate Governance Committee

Information Item

TOPIC: Update to Board Bylaws and Review of Faculty Handbook Section 1

April 27, 2016

Joe Robertson, Immediate Past Chair and

Chair, Governance/Nominating Committee of Board of Trustees

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Update to Board Bylaws

The Board of Trustees General Bylaws set out the fundamental rules about how the Board is governed. Since being drafted in 1965, the Bylaws have been updated several times on an ad hoc basis, but there is a concern that some of the bylaws may be outdated or may not reflect best practices. The Governance/Nominating Committee therefore set as one of its goals for 2015-2016 a comprehensive review of the bylaws, with the intention of having an updated set of bylaws approved by the end of the board term and in effect on July 1, 2016.

The Chair of the Governance/Nominating Committee worked with the University Secretary, Associate Secretary and Vice-President, Administration on clarifying, simplifying and modernizing the bylaws. The University Secretary also participated in a joint session with external counsel and other Ontario university secretaries who are currently revising their bylaws to understand the legislative requirements relating to university board governance. This collaborative approach enabled the review to take into consideration the approaches of other universities to their bylaws and also reduced the legal costs.

A significantly revised set of bylaws was presented to the Governance/Nominating Committee of the Board at its March 2016 meeting and the Committee gave in principle support for the revisions. The draft was subsequently sent out to external counsel and it is anticipated that a motion will be brought at the June Board meeting to approve the revised Bylaws.

The Bylaws set out how the Board functions and do not for the most part concern Senate. However, the Governance/Nominating Committee wanted to inform Senate as a courtesy and advise that as part of updating the Bylaws, it has accepted Senate’s recommendation to amend the Bylaws (and make the corresponding amendments to FHB I: 1.3.2 a) ii) which reference the bylaws) regarding the Election of Board Members (highlight indicates insertion):

ii) two faculty members elected by Senate for three-year terms, and the Chair ofSenate for a one-year term. If the Chair of Senate is ineligible to serve as anelected faculty representative on the Board of Trustees, the Vice-Chair of Senateshall serve on the Board in the place of the Chair. If the Vice-Chair of Senate isineligible to serve, the Chair of the Senate Governance Committee shall serve.

Appendix 1Senate Governance Report

2

Review of FHB I

The Faculty Handbook is the primary repository of Brock’s academic policies. The Faculty

Handbook was approved by Senate on October 18, 1967 with the stated goal “to make readily

available to members of Faculty a number of definitions, regulations, and policies necessary

to the official conduct of academic business.” It appears that it was distributed to faculty in

print as a guide to basic university procedures. Since then, the FHB has developed into a

comprehensive online resource covering all educational policy, from Senate bylaws to

academic regulations such as exam rules and research ethics.

However, Section 1 of the Faculty Handbook, which concerns “university government”, is

under the purview of the Board of Trustees. Senate may advise on Section I and provide

recommendations to the Board for amendments to it, but the Board has ultimate authority

with respect to any changes.

As part of the review of Board governance documents, the Governance/Nominating

Committee of the Board of Trustees is currently considering whether it is appropriate to

maintain Board procedures in the Faculty Handbook. The placement of Section 1 in what is

primarily a set of academic policies can cause confusion as to which governing body has

jurisdiction for these processes. In addition, the Board has received feedback from members

of the university community that the title, “Faculty Handbook” is perceived by some staff

and students are excluding them and only applicable to faculty.

As a result, it has been suggested that the provisions in Section I relating to appointment of

the President and Vice-Presidents, positions under the Board’s authority to appoint, may be

more appropriate contained in Board policies. This would make the policies subject to the

University’s policy management framework and ensure that the policies are regularly

reviewed and that there is appropriate consultation with stakeholders. If this option was

pursued, Senate could assume authority over Section I of the FHB and determine what

references to Board bylaws and policies to retain in the section.

Recognizing that Senate has, in recent years, put forward recommendations regarding Section

I, the Governance/Nominating Committee would like Senate’s input on this issue. In

discussions at the Governance/Nominating Committee, there was consensus that any change

to Section I would require consultation with Senate and that any policy that results from the

changes would require consultation with Senate.

It is understood that there has been interest at Senate in undertaking a comprehensive review

of the FHB and it was suggested that this review of FHB I may align with Senate’s own

interest in reviewing the FHB.

For ease of reference, the table below summarizes the provisions of FHB I.

Subsection Title Summary

3

1 The Board of

Trustees

Repeats provisions of Brock

University Act and Board

Bylaws re. composition of the Board, powers of the Board

etc.

2 The Chancellor Repeats provisions of Brock University Act re. Chancellor

3 The President

and

ViceChancellor

References Brock University Act and sets out process for

appointment/reappointment.

4 The Senate Repeats provisions of Brock University Act re. Senate.

6 Provost and VicePresident, Academic

References Brock University Act and sets out process for

appointment/reappointment.

7 Appointment/Re

appointment of a

Vice-Provost

Moved to Section IV – under purview of President

8 Appointment/Re appointment of a Vice-President,

Research

Sets out term of office and appointment/reappointment

process.

9 Deans Provides that authority to appoint deans is delegated to President but also sets out process for appointment/reappointment.

Includes provisions re. term of office, duties, obligation to conduct a review of the faculty.

Includes principles that Senate has recommended to the

President re. deans.

10 Associate Deans Moved to Section IV – under purview of President

11 Departmental

Chairs


12 Vice-President,

Administration

References Brock University Act, sets out term and duties

and outlines appointment/reappointment process.

13 Vice-President,

Advancement

References Brock University Act, sets out term and duties

and outlines appointment/reappointment process.

14 Appointment/Re appointment of the University Librarian

Stipulates that President shall make the appointment and

sets out term and duties and appointment/reappointment

process.

4

15 Associate

University

Librarians


16 Faculty

Association

Cites sections of the BUFA constitution.

17 Students’ Union Sets out mission statements of BUSU and GSA and lists the

current officers. Appears that BUSU wording has not been

updated since 1974 and GSA wording has not been updated

since 2009.

18 University

Committees

Lists university committees.

1

April 1, 2016

TO: Linda Rose-Krasnor, Chair, Governance Committee Heather Gordon, Chair, Undergraduate Program Committee Christine Daigle, Chair, Graduate Studies Committee Neil McCartney, Chair, Academic Review Committee

FROM: Greg Finn, Vice Provost and AVP, Academic Vice Chair, Academic Review Committee

DATE: April 1, 2016

RE: FHB changes resulting from the Quality Council’s approval of the revised Brock University Institutional Quality Assurance Process (IQAP).

Background: The Brock IQAP was initially approved at Senate 580 (May 26, 2010) and forwarded to the Quality Council for approval, as required in the Quality Assurance Framework document (http://www.brocku.ca/webfm_send/33713) of COU.

Following Quality Council approval a revised IQAP was approved at Senate 590 (June 6, 2011).

In March 2013, Brock was the first University to undergo an audit of its Quality Assurance process by the Quality Council.

In October 2013, the Quality Council provided Brock with the Auditor’s Final Report (http://www.brocku.ca/webfm_send/28698) which contained 8 recommendations and 17 suggestions for improvement to the Brock IQAP. The Quality Council required that the University provide a one-year follow-up response to the Auditor’s Report. Brock’s one-year follow-up response was approved by the Quality Council on December 18, 2014 (http://www.brocku.ca/webfm_send/34663). As part of this approval, the University was required to address further concerns raised by the Quality Council related to our responses to 3 of the Auditors initial recommendations.

Brock University

Niagara Region 1812 Sir Isaac Brock Way St. Catharines, ON L2S 3A1 Canada T 905 688 5550 x4528 F 905 684 2277

brocku.ca

Appendix 2 Senate Governance Report

2

In response to the Auditor’s Report and to reflect our own implementation experience over several years, a revised IQAP was submitted to the Quality Council for consideration. A copy of this IQAP draft was presented to Senate 622 (September 17, 2014) for information. Over multiple exchanges with the Quality Council since January 2015, the final changes were made to the IQAP and submitted to the Quality Council for approval on March 10, 2016. The revised Brock IQAP was approved by the Quality Council at its meeting of March 24, 2016, and as result the following revisions to the Faculty Handbook are being brought forward to Governance, SGSC, UPC and ARC. As the revisions are interconnected all changes are presented for the information of each committee. NOTE: Strikethrough text indicates deletions and highlighted text indicates insertions. 1) For the Consideration of Governance (3 motions)

Changes to the Terms of Reference to ARC, SGSC and UPC FHB II 9.13, 9.6

and 9.9

1.1 Moved ( / ) that FHB section II 9.13 be revised as follows:

FHB II 9.13 Academic Review Committee 9.13.1 Terms of Reference The Academic Review Committee (ARC) is a special committee of Senate responsible for the coordination, monitoring and implementation of all aspects of the Internal Quality Assurance Process (IQAP). The ARC is directly accountable and responsible to Senate through the Provost and Vice-President, Academic, an ex officio member of Senate. Regular reports will be presented to Senate through the Provost and Vice-President, Academic with updates and/or recommendations for the consideration of Senate. The Senate Academic Review Committee: a) coordinates, monitors, implements all aspects of and carries out revisions to the

IQAP; b) oversees, and monitors and reports on all aspects of cyclical program reviews at

the undergraduate and graduate levels; c) oversees, monitors and reports on all aspects related to the introduction of new programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels; the IQAP from the initiation of a review or introduction of anew program to the final assessment report and recommendation to Senate; b) oversees cyclical reviews of programs at both the undergraduate and graduate levels d) oversees, monitors and reports on all aspects of major modifications to existing

undergraduate and graduate programs;

3

e) oversees, monitors and reports on all aspects of program discontinuation at the undergraduate and graduate levels;

df) recommends to Senate, as required by the IQAP, new programs and approval of reviews for both undergraduate and graduate programs; dg) presents Final Assessment reports to Senate for consideration; eh) monitors progress regarding the implementation of the recommendations included in Final Assessment reports; fi) develops an annual work plan that will be presented to Senate during its first meeting of each academic year; gj) presents an Annual Report to Senate during the last meeting of each academic year; hk) consults with other Senate Committees and Faculty Deans as required to fulfill its mandate. 9.13.2 Appointments Members, whether elected members of Senate or are drawn from faculty at large, will be appointed by the Governance Committee of Senate-Elect through the regular appointment procedures for standing committees of Senate. Appointments will be recommended by the Governance Committee of Senate-Elect to Senate-Elect and be effective the day following the spring Convocation. 9.13.3. Term of Office Term of office for each member will be three years in order to reflect the nature of the review process and program development that would span more than one academic year. Committee membership will be staggered to provide continuity in the membership. Members may be reappointed to the Committee. For the first year (2010-11), three members will be appointed for a term of three years and six members for a term of two years. After two years, three members will be appointed for three years and three members for two years. Subsequently, each year three members will be appointed for three years. This will allow for appointments to be staggered to maintain some continuity in the committee membership. 9.13.4. Chair The Provost and Vice-President, Academic (or designate) will be the Committee Chair. As an ex officio member of Senate, the Vice-Provost and Associate Vice-President, Academic will act as Chair in the absence of the Provost and Vice-President, Academic. 9.13.5. Representation Each Faculty will be represented on the Committee with at least two members being elected Senators from the Full-time Teaching staff. There will be two student members, with at least one student who is an elected member of Senate. 9.13.6. Procedures When constituted, the ARC will develop its operating procedures, including In addition to confidentiality and conflict of interest guidelines, ARC’s operating

4

procedures shall be guided by the IQAP. and report these to Senate. Due to confidentiality, meetings of the Committee will not normally be open to the University community, except by invitation. 9.13.7. Composition of the ARC (All voting, except where indicated) Ex officio: Provost and Vice-President, Academic: Chair Vice-Provost and Associate Vice-President, Academic; Vice-Chair Faculty Deans, as needed (for reviews pertinent to Programs in their Faculties) Dean of Graduate Studies (for all graduate programs) Appointed members: Faculty of Applied Health Sciences Faculty of Business Faculty of Education Faculty of Graduate Studies Faculty of Humanities Faculty of Social Sciences Faculty of Mathematics and Science Graduate student Undergraduate student Non-Voting Faculty Dean, as needed (for reviews pertinent to programs in their Faculty) Dean of Graduate Studies (for all graduate programs) BUFA Observer (non-voting) Administrative Support: Coordinator of Academic Reviews and Planning Quality Assurance Coordinator Resource Personnel: Library, ITS, Institutional Analysis and PlanningStudent Services, others as required

Rationale: The updates reflect changes to address revisions in the IQAP and to reflect the development of a matured process since the ARC Terms of Reference were initially developed. 1.2 Moved ( / ) that FHB section II 9.6.1 be revised as follows:

…

c. the introduction of new graduate departments, schools, colleges and/or institutes;

5

d. the termination, curtailment or combination of existing graduate programs;

de. the introduction of new categories of graduate degrees;

…

Rationale: When the IQAP was initially approved by Senate in 2011 and with the creation of the ARC, the Terms of Reference for SGSC were modified moving responsibility for the introduction of new graduate programs to ARC. At that time an oversight resulted in the clause related to program termination not being deleted. Responsibility for the termination/discontinuation of existing graduate programs lies with ARC. This change brings the SGSC TOR in line with the IQAP. 1.3 Moved ( / ) that FHB section II 9.9.1 be revised as follows:

…

c) the introduction of new undergraduate departments, schools, colleges and/or institutes, and undergraduate program articulation agreements;

d) the termination, curtailment or combination of existing undergraduate programs;

de) the undergraduate course offerings proposed for any academic year; including identification of curricular changes leading to duplication;

…

Rationale: When the IQAP was initially approved by Senate in 2011 and with the creation of the ARC, the Terms of Reference for UPC were modified moving responsibility for the introduction of new undergraduate programs to ARC. At that time an oversight resulted in the clause related to program termination not being deleted. Responsibility for the termination/discontinuation of existing undergraduate programs lies with ARC. This change brings the UPC TOR in line with the IQAP.

2) For the Consideration of the Undergraduate Program Committee

(2 Motions) Changes to FHB III A.1, A.8.9 dealing with approval of new undergraduate programs

6

2.1 Moved ( / ) that FHB section III A.1 be revised as follows: FHB III A. UNDERGRADUATE ACADEMIC REGULATIONS 1. Approval of new Undergraduate Programs 1.1 Senate Authority Under the terms of the Brock Act, Senate has the power "to determine the courses of study and standards of admissions to the University and continued membership therein, and qualifications for degrees and diplomas". 1.2 Approval Process All new undergraduate degrees, and new major programs to be offered under the aegis of existing degrees must be approved by Senate upon the recommendation of the Undergraduate Program Committee. degree programs or programs of specialization must be approved by Senate upon the recommendation of the Academic Review Committee reflecting the criteria outlined in the Institutional Quality Assurance Process. (FHB III C.11). 1.3 Required Documentation/Information for All New Programs A. Appropriate Nomenclature: An explanation for the name of the degree and/or major. B. Financial Viability: The "Costing of new or Significantly Revised Programs" form must be completed and included as part of the submission. C. Student Demand: Evidence that there is a demand for the new degree/program on the part of potential students. This may include projected enrolment levels (and the bases for those projections), application statistics, projected origins of student demand (e.g., domestic or international), and the duration of the projected demand. D. Societal Need: Evidence that there is a need for graduates of the proposed degree/major on the part of society. This may include the probably availability of positions upon graduation (e.g., by letters from potential employers or governmental agencies). In the case of professional programs, their congruence with the regulatory requirements of the profession must be assessed. E. Duplication: If the proposed degree/major has duplicative similarities to existing programs in Ontario or Canada, reasons for such duplication. F. Library Resources: Certification from the Library that adequate Library resources are available to offer the program. G. Information Technology: If significant IT resources will be required to offer the new degree/major, certification from the Director of ITS that adequate resources will be available is required. H. Decana/Co-operating Department(s)/Centre(s): The Dean of the appropriate Faculty must certify that the new degree/major is an appropriate and desirable addition to the academic program of the Faculty and any co-operating department(s)/centre(s) must certify that they are prepared to participate in the offering of the new degree/major. I. Program Structure: A detailed description of the proposed degree/major and the proposed Calendar Entry. This should include an outline of how the program is

7

designed, structured and will be delivered so that graduates may demonstrate achievement, in ways appropriate to the values and ambitions of Brock University. J. Learning Objectives: The proposed undergraduate degree learning expectations (UDLEs) and a statement on how the proposed program is consistent with Brock's mission and the academic plans of the Faculty and the Department/Centre (including their teaching and research strengths). K. Program name: An explanation of the appropriateness of the program name and degree designation (if a new degree) to program content and if it is consistent with current usage in the discipline and practices at Brock. L. Admission Requirements: A statement on the appropriateness of the proposed admission requirements (e.g., achievement and preparation) for the learning objectives of the institution and the program. M. Curriculum: An outline of the appropriateness of the program's structure and curriculum for its UDLEs. N. Teaching: An outline of the mode(s) of delivery (including, where applicable, distance or on-line deliver) and how these are appropriate to the program's UDLEs. O. Evaluation of Student Progress: An explanation as to how the proposed methods for the evaluation of student progress are appropriate for the program. P. Human Resources: Assurances that the number, quality and academic expertise of the faculty in the area of the proposed program are sufficient to meet the demands of the program. Where appropriate, the availability of support staff and of teaching and laboratory assistants should be indicated. Q. Academic Integration: An evaluation of the probability that graduates of the

proposed program will be strategically advantaged to pursue successful subsequent (second, third or professional cycle etc.,) programs, whether at Brock or other institutions of higher learning and/or research both in our regional and nationally/internationally

Rationale:

The changes reflect the IQAP and serve to reduce duplication and possible confusion within the handbook with respect to the approval process for new undergraduate programs.

2.2 Moved ( / ) that FHB section III A.8.9. be revised as follows:

FHB III A.8.9 Program Approval 8.9.1 Introduction of New Programs A. All new undergraduate degrees and new major programs to be offered under the aegis of existing degrees must be approved by Senate upon the recommendation of the Undergraduate Program Committee. A. The introduction of all new undergraduate degrees, degree programs or programs of specialization is guided by the Internal Quality Assurance Process (FHB III.C.11) and must be approved by Senate upon the recommendation of the Academic Review Committee.

8

B. All changes to existing major and combined major programs, and all new combined major programs, must be approved by Senate upon the recommendation of the Undergraduate Program Committee.

B. All major modifications to existing major and combined major programs and all new combined major programs are guided by the Internal Quality Assurance Process (FHB III.C.11) and must be approved by Senate upon recommendation of the Academic Review Committee. C. Minor changes to existing major and combined major programs must be approved by Senate upon the recommendation of the Undergraduate Program Committee. 8.9.3 Cross-Disciplinary Programs: Guidelines for Establishment A. The Undergraduate Program Committee should examine the following (B to H) and make recommendations to Senate for approval in principle of such cross-disciplinary programs. B. Consideration must be given to the type of program Brock is able to offer compared to similar programs existing elsewhere, often in their own "Department", to ensure that the program offered is of comparable nature and equivalent quality. (Note: this is not, however, to preclude innovation and development of entirely new programs at Brock.) C. There must be a suitable administrative structure if a program does not appear to fall under the control of an existing Faculty or Department. This would also ensure that there is a group of faculty identified as responsible for the students. There are several models at Brock to choose from, e.g., Environmental Policy Institute (which has both a director and a small permanent staff of its own plus co-operating Departments and a council to decide on policy), or Labour Studies (which has a Director chosen from among cooperating faculty). Thus, a structure appropriate to an individual program must be recommended to Senate. D. Any such new program must be compatible with the space, equipment, staff and financial resources of the University, and have been discussed with participating Departments. E. Above all, they must have the enthusiastic support of participating faculty and include, where possible, team teaching of courses specific to the new programs. F. A special problem for new programs is library resources. Most cross-disciplinary programs are in areas of existing faculty interest, so that basic holdings are available. The Committee on Information Technology and Infrastructure should suggest how the present formula for departmental grants might be extended to cover new cross-disciplinary programs which may or may not have courses in their own right. G. Any such new programs must be compatible with the staffing plans of the Department and/or Faculties concerned. H. Where justified, and after careful examination, some deviation from the course pattern set out in FHB III: 6.7 - 6.11 may be allowed. I. The Undergraduate Program Committee shall be responsible for approval of final calendar statements for new cross-disciplinary programs, and for ensuring that

9

there is final agreement by participating Departments. If, as a result of disagreement at this stage, major program changes result, the Undergraduate Program Committee should ensure that that altered program is consistent with items B to H above.

Rationale:

The approval of new undergraduate programs falls under ARC’s responsibility as do major modifications to existing programs. The changes reflect the IQAP and serve to reduce duplication and possible confusion within the handbook with respect to the introduction of new programs or major modifications to existing undergraduate programs.

3) For the Consideration of the Graduate Studies Committee (1

Motion)

Changes to FHB III.B.1 dealing with the approval process for new graduate

programs.

3.1 Moved ( / ) that FHB section III B.1. be revised as follows:

1 Establishment and Review of Graduate Programs 1.1 Statement of Principles A. The establishment and continuation of graduate programs should add to the academic quality of the undergraduate programs of the University and contribute to the research endeavours. Graduate programs must be consistent with the University's planning documents and resources may be re-allocated to Graduate Studies in the context of the approved University planning documents. B. Senate supports the principle of co-operation with other universities in graduate work at both the PhD and Master's level. 1.2 Program Approval A. The introduction of all new graduate degrees, degree programs and graduate diplomas is guided by the Internal Quality Assurance Process (FHB III.C.11) and must be approved by Senate upon the recommendation of the Academic Review Committee. B. All major modifications to existing graduate degrees and graduate programs, as well as the creation or deletion of fields in a graduate program is guided by the Internal Quality Assurance Process (FHB III.C.11) and must be approved by Senate upon the recommendation of the Academic Review Committee.

Rationale:

10

The approval of new graduate programs falls under ARC’s responsibility as do major modifications to existing graduate programs. The changes reflect the IQAP and serve to reduce duplication and possible confusion within the handbook with respect to the introduction of new programs or modification to existing graduate programs.

4) For the Consideration of the Academic Review Committee (2

Motions)

Changes to FHB III.C.11 The Institutional Quality Assurance Process. 4.1 Moved ( / ) that FHB section III C.11. be revised as follows:

FHB III.C.11 – Institutional Quality Assurance Process (IQAP). A continuous process of academic review is critical to the discharge of Senate’s responsibility in determining the educational policy for Brock and maintaining high academic and program standards. In this context, the University’s academic review policy is subject to the authority of Senate through its Academic Review Committee (ARC), a special committee of Senate responsible for the coordination, monitoring and implementation of all aspects of the Internal Quality Assurance Process (IQAP). The processes by which existing academic programs are reviewed, modified, or discontinued and new programs introduced are outlined in the IQAP. The IQAP functions are dictated by the Quality Assurance Framework of the Council of Ontario Universities (COU). The Ontario Universities Council for Quality Assurance (the Quality Council) is the body charged by COU to approve the initial IQAP and oversee, coordinate and audit the quality assurance process within each Ontario University (see: http://www.oucqa.ca/ ). Any subsequent changes or revisions to the IQAP are subject to approval by Senate and the QC. Quality Council approval of new programs and the results of cyclical reviews of existing programs is required prior to any program submissions to the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities for funding. Brock’s IQAP will apply to the consideration of all graduate and undergraduate academic programs, including any offered jointly or in collaboration with other institutions. The IQAP replaces:

the previous internal system in place for the review of existing or introduction of new undergraduate programs, overseen and audited by the Undergraduate Program Review and Audit Committee of COU; and,

the previous external system in place for the cyclical review of existing and introduction of new graduate programs, overseen by the Ontario Council on Graduate Studies (OCGS).

11

Link to current Institutional Quality Assurance Processes (IQAP)

Rationale:

A preamble has been added to this section which introduces the IQAP.

4.2 Moved ( / ) that the Academic Review Committee recommends that

the revised Brock University Institutional Quality Assurance Process (IQAP) dated March 24, 2016, as approved by the Quality Council, be approved by Senate.

Rationale:

As indicated in the background section above, following receipt of the Quality Council Auditor’s Final Report in October of 2013 and to reflect our own implementation experience, revisions to the previously approved IQAP have been carried out. Appendix A provides a marked up version of the revised IQAP showing all changes made to the June 2011 Senate approved IQAP. Appendix B provides a clean version of the revised IQAP.

Brock University

Institutional Quality Assurance Processes

(May 18, 2011JanuaryMarch 2016)

Quality Assurance Planning Committee Greg Finn

Marilyn Rose Pat BeardSenate Academic Review Committee

Initial Approval Dates: Senate (#590 Continued) - June, 2, 2011 Quality Council – May 16, 2011

Approval Dates of Revisions: Senate (# XXX – Quality Council –March 24, 2016

Next Revision: Fall 2020

NOTE: revision of this IQAP is subject to ratification by the Quality Council.

An electronic version of this IQAP along with various documentation that support the Quality Assurance process at Brock University can be accessed through the Quality Assurance website located at: http://www.brocku.ca/vp-academic/quality-assurance.

Brock IQAP May 12, 2011Brock University QC Approved IQAP March 24, 2016.docBrock University IQAP March 10, 2016.docBrock University IQAP September 29, 2015.doc. Page 2 of 44

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. OVERVIEW ........................................................................................... 4

1.1. Program .................................................................................. 5 1.2. New Program ........................................................................... 5 1.3. Major Modifications ..................................................................... 6 1.4. Joint and Inter- Institutional Degrees .............................................. 7 1.5. Expedited Approvals ................................................................... 7 1.6. Certificates and Diplomas ............................................................ 8

2. CYCLICAL REVIEWS .................................................................................. 10

2.1. General Framework .................................................................. 10 2.1.1. Non Department/Centre Based Programs ............................... 10 2.1.2. Accreditation Reviews ..................................................... 11

2.2. Timeframe ............................................................................. 11 2.3. Process Summary ..................................................................... 12 2.4. Manual .................................................................................. 13 2.5. Evaluation Criteria ................................................................... 13

2.5.1. Objectives ................................................................. 13 2.5.2. Admission Requirements ................................................. 14 2.5.3. Curriculum ................................................................. 14 2.5.4. Teaching and Assessment ................................................ 14 2.5.5. Resources .................................................................. 14 2.5.6. Quality Indicators ......................................................... 14 2.5.7. Quality Enhancement .................................................... 15 2.5.8. Additional Graduate Program Criteria ................................. 15

2.6. Schedule ............................................................................... 15 2.7. Preparation of Self Study ............................................................ 16 2.8. The Review Committee .............................................................. 16 2.9. List of Interviewees .................................................................. 17 2.10. Site Visit and Report ................................................................ 18 2.11. Comments/Responses .............................................................. 19

2.11.1. Academic Unit Response ............................................... 19 2.11.2. UPC/SGSC Response .................................................... 20 2.11.3. Decanal Response ....................................................... 20

2.12. Final Assessment Report ........................................................... 20 2.13. Quality Council Submission ........................................................ 21 2.14. Publication of Results ............................................................... 21 2.15. Monitoring of Review Results ...................................................... 21 2.16. Report to Board of Trustees ....................................................... 21

3. NEW PROGRAM APPROVALS .......................................................................... 22

3.1. General Framework .................................................................. 22 3.2. Timeframe .............................................................................. 22 3.3. Process Summary ..................................................................... 22 3.4. Statement of Intent .................................................................. 24 3.5. Evaluation Criteria ................................................................... 24

3.5.1. Objectives ................................................................. 25 3.5.2. Admission Requirements ................................................. 25


3.5.3. Structure .................................................................... 25 3.5.4. Program Content .......................................................... 25 3.5.5. Mode(s) of Delivery ....................................................... 25 3.5.6. Assessment of Teaching and Learning .................................. 25 3.5.7. Student Demand .......................................................... 26 3.5.8. Societal Need ............................................................. 26 3.5.9. Resources for all Programs ............................................... 26 3.5.10. Resources for Graduate Programs Only ............................... 26 3.5.11. Resources for Undergraduate Programs Only ........................ 26 3.5.12. Quality and Other Indicators ........................................... 27 3.5.13. Program Duplication ..................................................... 27 3.5.14. Fields in a Graduate Program (optional) .............................. 27

3.6. Program Proposal Brief .............................................................. 27 3.7. Reviewers .............................................................................. 27 3.8. List of Interviewees .................................................................. 28 3.9. Site Visit and Report ................................................................. 29 3.10. Proponents Response ................................................................ 30 3.11. UPC/SGSC Response ................................................................ 30 3.12. Decanal Response .................................................................... 30 3.13. Program Proposal Brief Revision ................................................... 30 3.14. Assessment ............................................................................ 30 3.15. Publication of Results ............................................................... 31 3.16. Report to Board of Trustees ....................................................... 31 3.17. Subsequent Processes ............................................................... 31

4. MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING PROGRAMS ........................................................... 32

4.1. Request for Major Modification ..................................................... 32 4.2. Assessment ............................................................................ 32

5. APPROVAL AND REVIEW OF JOINT PROGRAMS ....................................................... 34 6. PROGRAM DISCONTINUATION ......................................................................... 36

6.1. Request for Program Discontinuation ............................................... 36 6.2. Assessment ............................................................................ 36 6.3. Communication ....................................................................... 36

Acronyms ARC – Senate Academic Review Committee AVPA – Associate Vice President, Academic COU – Council of Ontario Universities FAR – Final Assessment Report GDLE – Graduate Degree Level Expectations IA&P – Institutional Analysis and Planning IQAP – Internal Quality Assurance Processes MTCU – Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities OCAV – Ontario Council of Academic Vice Presidents PPB – Program Proposal Brief RMM – Request for a Major Modification QAF – Quality Assurance Framework QC – Quality Council SGSC – Senate Graduate Studies Committee SOI – Statement of Intent


UDLE – Undergraduate Degree Level Expectations UPC – Senate Undergraduate Program Committee


1. OVERVIEW 1.

Senate is Brock University's chief academic decision-making body. It determines the educational policy of the institution and monitors the academic quality of all programs. Senate also has a major role in ensuring the operating budget’s consistency with the educational policy. A continuous process of quality assurance related to existing and new programs is critical to the discharge of these responsibilities. The University's procedures and guidelines governing academic review are set out in this document, the Internal Quality Assurance Process (IQAP). The processes described in this IQAP are necessitated by the Council of Ontario Universities (COU). The COU established a Quality Assurance Framework (QAF) for all Ontario universities and an agency to administer that framework: the Ontario Universities Council for Quality Assurance (or Quality Council (QC)). The Quality Council oversees, coordinates and audits the quality assurance processes within each Ontario University (see: http://www.oucqa.ca/). The QC has three major functions. First, the council approved the initial IQAP developed by each university in Ontario; now, all changes or revisions to any IQAP must also be approved by the QC. Second, the council receives Final Assessment Reports for each is charged with the approval of results of cyclical reviews of existing programs. Third, the council is charged with the approval of new program proposals prior to submission to the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (MTCU) for funding. In this context, Senate established a special committee to administer the University's IQAP: the Academic Review Committee (ARC). The IQAP describes all of the processes by which existing academic programs are reviewed, modified or termintedterminated, and by which new programs are introduced, at the University. Hence, ARC is responsible for the coordination, monitoring and implementation of all aspects of these processes. ARC is directly accountable and responsible to Senate through the Provost and Vice-President, Academic, an ex officio member of Senate. ARC regularly reports to Senate through the Provost with updates and/or recommendations for the consideration of Senate. The mandate of the Academic Review Committee can be found at: http://www.brocku.ca/university-secretariat/facultyhandbook/section2#_genIndex46. As Brock University's chief academic decision-making body, Senate is responsible for determining the educational policy of the institution and for maintaining high academic and program standards and has a major role in ensuring that resources are sufficient for both current and new initiatives (The Brock University Act, Article 13, i and j). A continuing process of academic review is critical to the discharge of these responsibilities. In this context, the University’s academic review policy is subject to the authority of Senate through its Academic Review Committee (ARC).

The review of existing academic programs, and the introduction of new programs, is a self-regulatory process conforming to the principles of the Quality Assurance Framework developed by COU, and is subject to periodic audit by the Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance - “Quality Council” (see http://www.cou.on.ca/Related-Sites/The-Ontario-Universities-Council-on-Quality-Assura.aspx).

Formatted: No bullets or numbering


Responsibility for the conduct of academic reviews, major modifications to existing programs and the evaluation of new academic programs lies with the Provost and Vice-President, Academic. T and the Provost shall be the “authoritative contact” between Brock University and the Quality Council.

Brock’s Internal Quality Assurance Processes (IQAP) will apply to the consideration of all graduate and undergraduate academic programs (see definition below), delivered in either a face-to-face or hybrid or online setting, including any offered jointly or in collaboration with other institutions. All graduate diploma programs diplomas and certificates that include credit courses, including graduate diploma programs, are covered by this policy. The IQAP is subject to approval by the Quality Council when it is initiated and, thereafter, when it is revised. The IQAP replaces:

the previous internal system in place for the review of existing undergraduate programs, overseen and audited by the Undergraduate Program Review and Audit Committee (UPRAC) of COU; and,

the previous external system in place for the cyclical review and introduction of new graduate programs, overseen by the Ontario Council on Graduate Studies (OCGS).

Throughout this document, the following definitions will apply:

1.1. Program (e.g., a major, honours, pass)

An identified set and sequence of courses, and/or other units of study, research and practice, with defined learning outcomes, within an area of disciplinary or interdisciplinary study, which is completed in full or partial fulfillment of the requirements for the awarding of a degree, and is recorded on the student’s academic record.

1.1.1.2. New Programs

Any degree, degree program, or program of specialization, currently approved by Senate or equivalent governing body, which has not been previously approved for that institution by the Quality Council, its predecessors, or any intra-institutional approval processes that previously applied. A change of name, only, does not constitute a new program; nor does the inclusion of a new program of specialization where another with the same designation already exists (e.g., a new honours program where a major with the same designation already exists). To clarify, a ‘new program’ is brand-new: that is to say, the program has substantially different program requirements and substantially different learning outcomes from those of any existing approved programs offered by the institution. Examples of what constitutes a ‘new program’ are provided in the Quality Assurance Guide. [http://oucqa.ca/resources-publications/guide-to-quality-assurance-processes/http://www.cou.on.ca/Related-Sites/The-Ontario-Universities-Council-on-Quality-Assura/Policies/Quality-Assurance-Framework---Guide.aspx]

Not-for-credit and for-credit undergraduate diploma certificate programs are not subject to approval or audit by the Quality Council.


All new programs (undergraduate and graduate) are subject to the procedure governing new program proposals and subject to external approval by the Quality Council. The approval process for new programs requires external consultants. The New Program Approval Protocol applies to new undergraduate degrees, undergraduate specializations and majors (for which a similar specialization/major is not already approved), graduate degrees and diplomas, collaborative graduate programs and new fields in a graduate program. However, the protocols for these approvals vary as follows:

The Protocol for New Degree Program Approvals applies to new undergraduate degrees, undergraduate honours specializations and majors (for which a similar specialization/major is not already approved), graduate degrees, joint degrees and intra/inter-institutional degree programs (dual credential, collaborative and combined degrees) when a new parent program at the University is being proposed in conjunction with the intra/inter-institutional degree). New degree programs require external (Quality Council) approval.

The Protocol for New Programs with Expedited Approvals applies to new for-credit undergraduate certificates, graduate diplomas, new fields to existing graduate degrees, and joint degrees and intra/inter-institutional degree programs (dual credential, joint, and conjoint degrees) when a parent program already exists.

Those changes not identified as major are, by default, minor and will be dealt with through the internal Senate processes in this regard – which is to say through the Senate Undergraduate Program Committee or the Senate Graduate Studies Committee.

The introduction of new minors, concentrations or options, within a program (which do not require Quality Council approval) are handled internally through the annual calendar submission process, overseen by the Senate Undergraduate Program Committee (UPC) or Senate Graduate Studies Committee (SGSC), respectively.

1.2.1.3. Major Modifications

The Quality Assurance Framework defines major modifications as changes including one or more of the following program changes:

(a) requirements for the program that differ significantly from those existing at the time of the previous cyclical program review;

(b) significant changes to the learning outcomes; (c) significant changes to the faculty engaged in delivering the program and/or to

the essential physical resources as may occur, for example, where there have been changes to the existing mode(s) of delivery.

Application of the QAF criteria listed above will determine when proposed changes are considered “major.” In addition, Brock considers other kinds of changes to be substantive and to require submission to ARC for review as major modifications. For example:


(a) deletion or merging of programs; (b) renaming of programs; (c) changes in admission or progression requirements; (d) substantial alterations to a program (in terms of approved requirements,

learning objectives outcomes and/or required resources) which effectively reorganize the program, impact another Faculty, or result in significant additional resource requirements;

(e) changes to program content that affect the learning outcomes but do not meet the threshold for a “new program”;

(f) changes in program regulations with broad implications; (g) changes to the faculty delivering the program (e.g., a large proportion of the

faculty retires; new hires alter the areas of research and teaching interests); (h) changes that run counter to the University’s academic plan(s); (i) the introduction of a new option (e.g., new research-related exit requirement,

course-only option at the master’s level) in a graduate program; (j) the offering of an existing program substantially online where it had previously

been offered in face-to-face mode (or vice versa); (k) changes to the bridging options for college diploma graduates; (l) significant change in the laboratory/seminar/tutorial components of a program

or to full- or part-time program options; (m) the introduction or deletion of a work experience, co-op option, internship or

practicum, or portfolio as a program requirement; (n) the creation, deletion or re-naming of a field in a graduate program; and (o) other changes that may result in additional or reduced resource requirements.

Major modifications to existing programs do not require submission of a Proposal Brief to the Quality Council except when the University requests endorsement of the Quality Council, through the expedited review process. Rather, there will be internal expedited reviews (i.e., do not involve the use of external reviewers).(Section 1.5)

Modifications to existing minors, concentrations and options (which do not require Quality Council approval) are handled internally through the annual calendar submission process, overseen by the Senate Undergraduate Program CommitteeUPC or Senate Graduate Studies CommitteeSGSC, respectively.

The institutional arbiter in defining what constitutes a major as opposed to a minor program change will be the Provost in consultation with ARC. Major modifications must be reported to the Quality Council (QC) and to the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (MTCU) annually.

1.3.1.4. Joint and Inter-Institutional Degrees

For the purposes of this document:

(a) joint degree programs are programs of study offered in conjunction with another institution in which successful completion of the requirements is confirmed by a single degree document;

(b) dual credential programs are programs of study offered by Brock and one or more universities or by Brock and a college or institute, including Institutes of Technology and Advanced Learning, in which successful completion of the


requirements is confirmed by a separate and different degree/diploma document being awarded by each of the participating institutions; and

(c) conjoint programs are programs of study, offered by a postsecondary institution that is affiliated, federated or collaborating with Brock University for which a single degree document signed by both institutions is awarded.

For all inter-institutional programs in which all partners are institutions within Ontario, the Quality Council’s standard for New Program Approval and Cyclical Program Review Processes will apply to all elements of the program regardless of which partner offers them, including Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology and Institutes of Technology and Advanced Learning. For joint and collaborative programs in which some partners are institutions outside of Ontario, the elements of the programs contributed by the out-of-province partner will be subject to the quality assurance processes in their respective jurisdictions. The Quality Council will maintain a directory of bodies whose post-secondary assurance processes are recognized and accepted as being comparable to our own. In cases where such recognition is not available, the Quality Council will determine, on a case-by-case basis, the appropriate action to be taken on quality assurance if the collaboration is to be permitted to proceed.

1.4.1.5. Expedited Reviews Approvals

In cases of expedited reviews, Brock the Reviews OfficeOffice of the AVPA submits a Senate approved proposal brief and together with the rationale for the change or new program to the Quality Council. The proposal is reviewed based only on applicable elements of the quality assurance criteria that would be employed for a full review. The appraisal and approval processes are significantly reduced.

The Quality Assurance Framework allows for expedited approval in the following situations:

(a) a proposal for a new graduate Collaborative Program; (b) a proposal for a new for-credit Graduate Diploma. Note that Graduate diploma

programs require Quality Council Expedited Approval (no external reviewers required) prior to their adoption. Once approved, such programs will be incorporated into the university’s schedule for cyclical reviews as part of the parent program;

(c) an institution requests endorsement of the Quality Council to declare a new Field in a graduate program;

(d) major modifications to an existing program for which the institution requests Quality Council review.

The process for Quality Council appraisal is as follows:

The Quality Council’s Appraisal Committee reviews the submission, conferring with the University and receiving further information as needed. The Appraisal Committee then decides:

That the University proceeds with the proposed changes/new programs.

OR


That it consult further with the University over details of interest or concern regarding the proposed changes/new programs. Normally, these subsequent consultations will be brief and affirmative in their outcome.

1.5.1.6. Certificates and Diplomas

Certificates (comprised of undergraduate level credits) are awarded at the undergraduate level only. Diplomas (comprised of graduate-level credits) are awarded only at the graduate level.


Table 1 - Summary of Approval Level Required For New Programs and Changes to Existing Programs Proponents considering the introduction of a new, joint dual or collaborative program should consult with the Office of the AVPA early in the development stage of the program for clarification on the level of approval required. A new, joint, dual or collaborative program may fit the criteria for a new program, in which case it would be subjected to external review and QC approval. Articulation agreements are not generally within the scope of the IQAP and would not require external review or QC approval. Program Type ARC Senate External Reviewers QC Approval

New Undergraduate Programs

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Undergraduate Certificates, Minors

No Yes, via UPC No No

Major Modifications1 Yes Yes No Yes, if requested3

Joint Programs Yes Yes Yes Yes Dual Credential Programs4

Yes Yes Maybe Yes3

Conjoint Programs4 Yes Yes Maybe Yes3 Graduate Collaborative Programs

Yes Yes No Yes3

New Graduate Programs

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Graduate Diploma Yes Yes No Yes3 Graduate Field2 Yes Yes No Yes3 NOTES: 1 - The University may submit major modifications to existing programs to the Quality Council for an Expedited Review. 2 - If a graduate program wishes to advertise that a field has been approved by the Quality Council, it must be submitted for an Expedited Review. 3 - Follows the Expedited Review Process 4 – Approval process when an existing parent program exists. If a new parent program is being proposed the process follows that of a new program.


II)2 CYCLICAL REVIEWS

2. CYCLICAL REVIEWS 1.6.2.1. General Framework

Programs in the University will be subject to an academic review on a periodic basis such that all will be reviewed over a period of eight years. The process will be scheduled in such a way as to review the academic unit responsible for a program (or group of programs) concurrently with the program review. Where both exist, the undergraduate program will be reviewed at the same time as the graduate program. Many factors contribute to the collegial and scholarly life of the unit, including the academic and administrative complement, research and scholarly activity, infrastructure, and governance. These all bear on the quality of academic programs and the broad educational experience of students. Reviews are thus intended to ensure and improve quality in all of these aspects.

For the purposes of this review policyIQAP, a program is defined as a set of courses, with defined learning outcomes, approved by Senate to constitute all or part of the requirements for a degree designation offered by Brock University.

For those units that are subject to accreditation reviews, the accreditation review may fulfill most of the requirements of this IQAP. In each case, the Academic Review Committee (ARC) will monitor the accreditation review in order to insure that all of the components of Brock’s review process are met. In cases where there are discrepancies or gaps, ARC will require the submission of additional information.1

The unit or university officer responsible for the accreditation exercise will, in consultation with the appropriate Dean and the Reviews Office, submit a draft Final Assessment Report for ARC’s consideration.

The Academic Review Committee (ARC) shall oversee academic reviews. The Terms of Reference and composition of ARC are set out in Faculty Handbook II: 9.13 (see http://www.brocku.ca/university-secretariat/facultyhandbook/section2#_genIndex49 .

Academic Reviews shall be carried out under the general supervision of the Provost and Vice-President, Academic and the appropriate Deans. For undergraduate reviews, the appropriate Dean(s) shall be the Dean(s) of the Faculty (or Faculties) within which the academic unit resides. For graduate reviews, the appropriate Deans shall be both the Dean of Graduate Studies and the Dean(s) of the relevant Faculty (or Faculties). Cyclical academic reviews are mandated by the Quality Council required under the Quality Assurance Framework. The Provost, as the authoritative contact with the QC, ensures that the reviews are conducted in a timely manner and communicates the results, upon completion of each review, to the Council.

1 Currently, the following accreditation reviews are recognized: a) for the Faculty of Business, the five-year reviews required to maintain accreditation by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) International;

b) for the pre-service and in-service programs offered by the Faculty of Education (including all concurrent pre-service programs), the regular accreditation reviews conducted by the Ontario College of Teachers; and c) For the Department of Nursing, the accreditation program of the Canadian Association of Schools of Nursing.


A listing of programs offered by Brock University which are subject to the cyclical review process, as defined in this IQAP, can be found on the University’s Quality Assurance website at: http://www.brocku.ca/vp-academic/quality-assurance.

2.1.1. Non-Department/Centre based Programs All non-Department/Centre based programs, i.e. those operated at the Faculty level, e.g. Bachelor of Arts in General Humanities, Applied Health Sciences Graduate Program, etc., are subject to cyclical reviews.

The cyclical review of discipline based programs, e.g. Policing and Criminal Justice, Applied Health Sciences Graduate Program, Interdisciplinary PhD in Humanities, will follow the same process and standards applicable to Department/Centre based programs as outlined in the IQAP. The cyclical review of non-discipline based programs, e.g. Bachelor of Arts in General Humanities, Bachelor of Arts in Social Sciences, Bachelor of Science, Integrated Studies, will be subject to the same process and standards applicable to Department/Centre based programs as outlined in the IQAP. The only modification to the IQAP necessary to review such non-discipline based program will involve the makeup of the review team for the program. As discipline specific reviewers for this type of program may not be easily identified, the composition of the review team will consist of two internal reviewers with knowledge of interdisciplinary programs and one external reviewer with expertise in interdisciplinary studies. Details of the review of non-discipline based programs will be coordinated between the Dean(s) of the host Faculty(s) and the Office of the AVPA at the time the program is confirmed for review. For such non-discipline based programs, the identification of specific learning outcomes is required and will reflect the program of study being followed and the needs of the individual learner. Mapping the curriculum of such programs to a ‘standard’ may not be feasible and as a result such programs will have identified very broad program level learning outcomes, linked to degree level expectations, which will be augmented by the actual course level learning outcomes comprising the program of study being followed. 2.1.2. Accreditation Reviews The Quality Assurance Framework indicates that the Brock University IQAP may allow for and specify the substitution or addition of documents or processes associated with the accreditation of a program, for components of the institutional program review process, when it is fully consistent with the requirements established in the Framework. A record of substitutions or additions and the grounds on which it was made, will be eligible for audit by the Quality Council. Well in advance of the accreditation review, the Office of the AVPA will be provided with a copy of the accreditation review template to compare with the Brock IQAP. The AVPA, in consultation with ARC and the Dean(s), will review the guidelines for the accreditation process, the degree of alignment with the IQAP, and determine what


additional materials or processes may be necessary to ensure compliance with the IQAP. The outcome of the comparison and discussion may be that: 1) The accreditation review will be accepted as meeting all the criteria for a cyclical

program review. The final report of the accrediting body will be submitted to ARC and a FAR drafted for Senate’s consideration; or,

2) The accreditation review will be accepted as meeting most of the criteria for a cyclical program review. The program will be required to submit some supplementary information directly to ARC along with the final report of the accrediting body, to aid in drafting a FAR for Senate’s consideration; or,

3) The accreditation review will not sufficiently meet the requirements of the cyclical program review and the IQAP process will proceed as scheduled.

For those units that are subject to accreditation reviews, the accreditation review may fulfill most of the requirements of the IQAP. In each case, the ARC will monitor the accreditation review in order to ensure that all of the components of Brock’s review process are met. In cases where components of the IQAP are not covered by the accreditation review, ARC will require the submission of additional information.2

The Unit or University officer responsible for the accreditation exercise will, in consultation with the appropriate Dean and the Office of the AVPA, submit a draft Final Assessment Report for ARC’s consideration.

2.2. TimelineTimeframe

Ideally, program review is an ongoing process that begins two years in advance of a site visit, for which a unit prepares a Self Study, and continues through to the next review eight years in the future. The process begins with the Provost confirming with the Deans the list of programs to be reviewed. A detailed timeline and summary of the process follows.

December: The Provost confirms units to be reviewed in the coming year. January-February: Orientation sessions for departments/programs with upcoming reviews. January- February: Reviews Office provides units with current data as a starting point for development of self studies. March-June: units begin to develop their self studies. July-October: Reviews Office forwards additional data as available and administers student surveys for reviews that are pending. October 1st: units forward proposed reviewers to Reviews Office. Mid-November: November 1st count date information made available to units for reviews. 2 Currently, the following accreditation reviews are recognized:

a) for the Goodman School of Business, the five-year reviews required to maintain accreditation by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) International;


Formatted: No bullets or numbering, Don't adjust spacebetween Latin and Asian text, Don't adjust space betweenAsian text and numbers


November-December: Reviews Office sends survey data to units. January 1-8: Submission of briefs to ARC; Reviews Office begins to schedule and make arrangements for reviews.

1.7.2.3. Process Summary

Two Years in Advance of the Program Review (e.g. during the 2015-2016 academic year) January 2016

Provost, in consultation with the Dean(s), shall confirm the programs to be reviewed.

February Provost reports to Senate the Schedule of Program Reviews two years in advance of the site visit.

March Unit Heads of confirmed programs contacted. Lead Author of Unit Self Study identified.

March-April Student Survey instruments developed by IA&P in consultation with unit.

One Year in Advance of the Program Review (e.g. 2016-2017) May-June 2016

Student Survey Instruments for program finalized with IA&P.

Oct. - Nov Student Surveys administered by IA&P. October Orientation session for all units scheduled for review in the next academic year.

Unit begins work on the Self Study.

November IA&P provides unit with current and historical data as a starting point for development of the Self Study.

January 2017

IA&P provides Unit with student survey results. Self Study development continues. IA&P forwards additional data as available.

April ARC readers assigned for review of draft Self Study.

Year of Program Review (e.g. 2017-2018) May 2017 Self Study development continues.

June-Oct Draft Self Study reviewed by ARC reader. September 1 Unit submits list of proposed reviewers, including a brief profile of each nominee,

to the Office of the AVPA. Unit submits list of names of those individuals to be interviewed by the reviewers to the Office of the AVPA.

2 weeks Reviewers ranked by Dean(s). 2 weeks Provost selects reviewers in consultation with the Dean(s). Reviewers contacted by the Office of the AVPA and upon confirmation logistics for

the site visit developed. Office of the AVPA sets up schedule for site visit. October 15 Self Study submitted to the Office of the AVPA. Oct - Dec ARC considers the Self Study, lead author and Dean(s) attend ARC meeting where

Self Study is discussed. Identification of required changes/additions/modifications to be completed by Unit before re-submission to ARC.

ARC approves Self Study. On approval of the Self Study, the membership of the review team will be

communicated to the unit and the relevant Dean(s). Self Study Sent to Reviewers. November Internal Reviewers Orientation. Jan– Apr 2018

Site Visit, timing dependent on reviewersavailability.

Reviewers’ Report submitted to the Office of the AVPA, 4 weeks after site visit. Timing varies for each unit, dependent on date for the site visit.


Upon receipt, Reviewers’ Report is sent to the Unit, UPC and/or SGSC for response. Responses due 4 weeks after receipt. Dean(s) provided with copy of Reviewers’ Report.

Dean(s) responds on receipt of Unit and UPC/SGSC responses. Draft Final Assessment Report (FAR) developed, based on internal responses. ARC considers Draft FAR. Dean(s) and Unit representative attend ARC meeting,

modifications/changes made.

1st Year following Program Review (e.g. 2018-2019) May – Dec 2018

Revised FAR considered by ARC (Dean(s) and Unit representative attend ARC meeting). Draft FAR circulated to Unit, Dean(s) and other units, as needed, for comment. ARC recommends Revised FAR to Senate for approval.

Upon Approval

FAR posted on the VP, Academic website.

Upon Approval

FAR forwarded to Quality Council.

June 2019 Report on program reviews/changes sent to the Board of Trustees for information.

One, two and three years after FAR Approval by Senate April 1 2020 Dean submits Annual FAR Implementation Report(s). May-June FAR Implementation Reports reviewed by ARC. September ARC reports annually to Senate on Status of Implementation.

Four Years after FAR Approval by Senate (e.g. 2022-2023) April 1, 2023 Unit submits “Four-Year Report” on academic review to ARC. Apr-May ARC approves Four-Year Report. May-June Four-Year Report submitted to Senate for Approval. Upon Approval Four-Year Report posted on the Provost website. Upon Approval Four-Year Report sent to Quality Council. June 2023 Four-Year Report sent to Board of Trustees for information.

Schedule of program reviews for upcoming academic year is presented to Senate (January) Department/Centre/Program prepares its self study and submits the self study and a list of proposed reviewers (at least four external reviewers and two internal reviewers) to the Reviews Office, along with a brief profile of each nominee Provost, in consultation with the relevant Dean(s) rank orders the proposed reviewers. The Reviews Office contacts selected reviewers in rank order and begins to organize site visits. Reviews Office sends self study to the relevant Dean(s) for review. After consultation with the unit the Dean(s) submits the self study to ARC. ARC consults with the Dean(s) and identifies any required changes/additions to the self study. If required, the unit re-submits the self study to ARC. ARC approves or requests further changes to the self study. Reviews Office sets up schedule for site visit, two days in length, with all reviewers attending at same time. Reviewers submit their report to ARC within four weeks of site visit. Unit responds to ARC re: the Reviewers’ Report, as does the Senate Undergraduate Program Committee (UPC) for undergraduate programs or the Senate Graduate Studies Committee (SGSC) for graduate programs. Dean(s) will respond after receipt of unit/senate committee response.

Formatted: No bullets or numbering, Don't adjust spacebetween Latin and Asian text



ARC considers Reviewers’ Report and responses from the Unit, UPC or SGSC, and the relevant Dean(s), who join ARC for this discussion. ARC, in consultation with the unit under review, develops the Final Assessment Report, including an Executive Summary, Implementation Plan, and Monitoring Plan and submits that report to Senate for approval. ARC distributes the approved Final Assessment Report to the Centre or Department, and the Quality Council. The Executive Summary and Implementation Plan are posted on the Brock web site.

2.4. Manual

The Reviews OfficeOffice of the AVPA shall publish and make availablepublishes an Academic ReviewSelf Study Manual that will provide administrative details with respect to review policies and practices (see http://www.brocku.ca/vp-academic/quality-assurance ).

This The manual shall provides guidance on the preparationconduct of rigorous, objective and searching reflective self Self studies Studies and serves to reinforce the potential benefits that can accrue from an effective self Self studiesStudy. It will also identify responsibilities for the collection, aggregation and distribution of institutional data and outcome measures required for self Self studiesStudies, and specify the format required for the self study. In the instance of a discrepancy between the IQAP and the Manual, the IQAP will take precedence.

1.8.2.5. Evaluation CriteriaVALUATION CRITERIA

The self studySelf Study for the review of existing undergraduate or graduate programs shall must address each of the evaluation criteria set out below.

1.8.1.2.5.1. Objectives

Program is consistent with the institution’s mission and academic plans. Program requirements and learning outcomes are clear, appropriate and align

with the Faculty’s statement of the undergraduate Undergraduate Degree Level Expectations (UDLE) and/or graduate Graduate Degree Level Expectations (GDLE). Explicit learning outcomes, for both undergraduate and graduate programs being reviewed, mapped to the program curricula, must be developed by the unit and included in the Self Study document.

To assist in developing this aspect of their Self Study units are directed and encouraged to contact the Centre for Pedagogical Innovation to seek assistance in facilitating the completion of the required curriculum map. Evidence of this consultation and facilitation must be clearly indicated in the Self Study.

1.8.2.2.5.2. Admission Requirements

Admission requirements are appropriately aligned with the learning outcomes established for completion of the program.

1.8.3.2.5.3. Curriculum

The curriculum reflects the current state of the discipline or area of study.

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 cm, Don't adjust space betweenLatin and Asian text, Don't adjust space between Asian textand numbers


Evidence of any significant innovation or creativity in the content and/or delivery of the program relative to other such programs.

Mode(s) of delivery to meet the program’s identified learning outcomes are appropriate and effective.

1.8.4.2.5.4. Teaching and Assessment

Methods for assessing student achievement of the defined learning outcomes and degree level expectations are appropriate and effective.

Appropriateness and effectiveness of the means of assessment, especially in the students’ final year of the program, in clearly demonstrating achievement of the program learning objectives and the institution’s (or the Program’s own) statement of Degree Level Expectations.

1.8.5.2.5.5. Resources

Appropriateness and effectiveness of the academic unit’s use of existing human, physical and financial resources in delivering its program(s). In making this assessment, reviewers must recognize the institution’s autonomy to determine priorities for funding, space, and faculty allocation.

1.8.6.2.5.6. Quality Indicators

While there are several widely-used quality indicators or proxies for reflecting program quality, units are encouraged to include available measures of their own which they see as best achieving that goal.

Outcome measures of student performance and achievement are of particular interest, but there are also important input and process measures which are known to have a strong association with quality outcomes. Indicators that may be used, where relevant, include the following: a. Faculty Complement: clearly identify core and participating faculty, their

qualifications, research and scholarly record; class sizes; percentage of classes taught by permanent or non-permanent (contractual) faculty; assignments and qualifications of part-time or temporary faculty;

b. Current Students: applications and registrations; retention rates; time-to-completion; final-year academic achievement; graduation rates; course evaluations; and

c. Graduates: rates of graduation, employment six months and two years after graduation, postgraduate study, "skills match" and alumni reports on program quality when available.

1.8.7.2.5.7. Quality Enhancement

Initiatives taken to enhance the quality of the program and the associated learning and teaching environment. This will include the disposition of concerns and recommendations raised in previous reviews, and areas identified through the conduct of the self studySelf Study that require attention and/or that hold promise for enhancement.

Attention will also be paid to those academic services that directly contribute to the academic quality of the program(s) under review.

1.8.8.2.5.8. Additional Graduate Program Criteria


Evidence that students’ time-to-completion is both monitored and managed in relation to the program’s defined length and program requirements.

Quality and availability of graduate supervision, supervisory capacity. Definition and application of indicators that provide evidence of faculty,

student and program quality, for example: a. Faculty: funding, honours and awards, and commitment to student

mentoring; b. Students: admission averages, scholarly output, success rates in provincial

and national scholarships, competitions, awards and commitment to professional and transferable skills;

c. Program: evidence of a program structure and faculty research that will ensure the intellectual quality of the student experience.

Sufficient graduate level courses that students will be able to meet the requirement that two-thirds of their course requirements be met through courses at this level.

2.6. Schedule

The Provost and Vice-President, Academic, in consultation with the Deans, shall determine an eight-year schedule for the review of all programs and shall identify the academic units responsible for those programs. Under very exceptional circumstances, a Dean may request, in writing, either the review of a particular program or a delay in a scheduled review.

The Provost and Vice-President, Academic, in consultation with the Deans, shall confirm by December January 31st annually , two years in advance of the site visit, the programs to be reviewed during the subsequent academic year and shall present report this that information to the January February meeting of Senate.

By March 1st, the academic unit will have identified a lead author and shall establish a committee, comprised of faculty, staff and students, to develop its Self Study. The composition of the Committee shall be reported to the Dean(s) and the AVPA.

In October, one year in advance of the site visit, Annually in January-February, the Office of the Provost AVPA will conduct an orientation session for those responsible for self Self studies Studies in academic units and programs designated to be reviewed in the subsequent year. This session will include a review n examination of the process, the required contents of the self studySelf Study document and the nature of the data being provided to inform the review process.

Also in January-February, the Reviews Office will provide each academic unit with current data as a starting point for the development of that unit’s self studyIn January Institutional Analysis and Planning (IA&P) will provide the unit with student and alumni survey results. Following the November 1 headcount report, IA&P will provide each academic unit with historical and current data as a starting point for inclusion and analysis in the unit’s Self Study.

By March 1st, the academic unit shall establish a committee to document its self study. The composition the Committee shall be reported to the Academic Reviews Office.


2.7. Preparation of the Self Study

The self studySelf Study prepared by the unitUnit provides the foundational document by which the reviewers will undertake their evaluation of the academic quality of the programs offered. As such, the Self Study should be broad-based, reflective, forward-looking and will include a critical analysis of the unitUnit and the academic programs offered. Although prepared by a committee, the self study shall be developedUnder the leadership of a Lead Author a committee comprised of faculty, staff and students, in consultation with all faculty, staff and students associated with the program, prepares an effective Self Study that meets the above goal. in consultation with all of the faculty and staff members associated with the unit, and with students. The input of others deemed to be relevant and useful, such as graduates of the program, representatives of industry, the professions, practical training programs, and employers may must also be included.

At the end of the academic year immediately preceding the year of the scheduled site visit, a member of ARC will be identified as the main reader of the unit’s Self Study. The reader serves as a conduit to ARC and works with the lead author to ensure that the Self Study addresses all of the evaluation criteria contained in Section 2.5 of the IQAP. It is expected that the Unit will consult with the relevant Dean(s) during the development of the Self Study. Prior to submission to the Office of the AVPA, a copy of the Self Study will be provided to the relevant Dean(s).

The completed Self Study is to be submitted to the Office of the AVPA by October 15. The lead author, or a unit representative, and the relevant Dean(s) attend ARC meetings where the Self Study is discussed.

The self studySelf Study shall be confidential to the Reviewers, Deans, ARC and the Reviews Office of the AVPA and others as appropriate.

1.9.2.8. The Review Committee

For each review there shall be established a Review Committee which shall normally consist of:

either one or two external reviewers for an undergraduate program review, two external reviewers for reviews of graduate programs (at least one of whom will be from outside Ontario), and two external reviewers for the integrated review of an undergraduate and graduate program (one from outside Ontario); and

one internal reviewer who is a Brock faculty member from outside the discipline Faculty (or interdisciplinary group) engaged in the program. This faculty member is not required to have knowledge of the discipline, should beneed not be someone familiar with the operation of the program under review (butshould be at “arm’s length”) and have and have experience with in program development and delivery. He/she shall actively participates fully in the review; however the main task of writing the Reviewers’ Report shall fall to the external


reviewers. In advance of the site visit, all internal reviewers will be invited to an orientation session.

Additional discretionary members may be assigned to the Review Committee where ARC so decides. Such additional members might be appropriately qualified and experienced individuals selected from industry or the professions, and/or, where consistent with the institution’s own policies and practices, student members.

Reviewers shall be at “arm’s length” from the program and to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, the reviewers should not:

o be a close friend or relative of a member of the unit undergoing the review; o have been a research supervisor of a member of the unit, within the past

six years; o have been a graduate student of a member of the unit within the past six

years; o have collaborated with a member of the unit within the past six years or

have plans to collaborate with them in the immediate future; or o have been a visiting scholar/teacher in the unit in the past six years,

Full disclosure of all past affiliation(s) is required to assist in the reviewer selection and to ensure an “arm’s length” relationship. The reviewers will be associate or full professors, or the equivalent, with program management experience.

By October 1st, the academic unit shall develop a list of at least four potential external and two potential internal reviewers By September 1st,the Unit shall develop and submit to the Office of the AVPA a list of at least six potential external reviewers and four potential internal reviewers, along with a brief profile on their area of expertise and qualifications for the task (if known). From this list the Dean(s) will be asked to provide a ranking of the nominees. Subsequently, the from which the Provost, in consultation with the Dean(s), shall make the final selectionselect a final Review Committee. On approval of the Self Study by ARC, the membership of the review team will be communicated to the Unit and the relevant Dean(s).

1.10.2.9. List of Interviewees

Prior to the completion of Self StudyBy September 1st, the academic unit shall prepare and submit, to the Office of the AVPA, a list of names for the Reviews Office of those individuals to be interviewed by the reviewers. The Office of the AVPA will coordinate the scheduling of meetings between those identified by the Unit and the reviewersfor the site visit.

Interviewees shall include: the Provost and Vice-President, Academic; the relevant Dean(s); Chair/Director all faculty associated with the unit Unit (including cross-appointed and limited

term faculty, if appropriate);


administrative staff associated with the unitUnit; a representative sample of students associated with the program (with no faculty

present); representatives of the Library; faculty from cognate disciplines; for units with Co-op programs, representatives of the Co-op Office; the Provost; the relevant Dean(s); and, others as deemed appropriate.

1.11.2.10. Site Visit and Report

The Reviews OfficeOffice of the AVPA shall forward the approved Self Study and any related materials to the reviewers.

The reviewers shall conduct an on-site visit, preferably at the same time. The length of the on-site visit will normally be two days but three days when required (e.g., for larger units or for combined reviews), with a portion of the second/third day allocated to preliminary preparation of their report.

The Reviews OfficeOffice of the AVPA, in consultation with the relevant Dean(s), shall provide an on-site orientation for the Reviewers. The purpose of this orientation is to ensure that the reviewers:

1. Understand their role and obligations; 2. Identify and commend the program’s notably strong and creative attributes; 3. Describe the program’s respective strengths, areas for improvement and

opportunities for enhancement; 4. Recommend specific steps to be taken to improve the program, distinguishing

between those the program can itself take and those that require external action;

5. Recognize the University’s autonomy to determine priorities for funding, space, and faculty allocation; and,

6. Respect the confidentiality required for all aspects of the review process. reviewers and shall provide them with guidelines for the conduct of the review.

In accordance with the evaluation criteria outlined above (Section II.E2.5), the reviewers will be invited to:

assess, from an external point of view, the validity of the Self Study as an analysis of the program and its current condition; and,

provide an external perspective on the program in terms of its comparability with similar programs elsewhere, its stature on a national scale, and its success in producing excellent graduates.;

recommend actions that will improve the program; and recommend an Outcome Category.

An Outcome Category is assigned individually to each program at the conclusion of the review as follows:

Good Excellent Quality with National

The program is of excellent quality with strong student demand and a national or international reputation for producing high quality graduates.

Formatted: Indent: Left: 2 cm, Hanging: 0.5 cm, Outlinenumbered + Level: 7 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at:1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 4.25 cm + Indent at: 4.89cm

Formatted: Font: 10 pt


Prominence (Category 1)

Few changes are required. There will be a commitment to maintain the leadership role of the program and perhaps enhance program strength.

Good Quality (Category 2)

The program shows academic vigour and continuing student demand. The program is progressive and produces good quality graduates. With attention to minor weaknesses, it will maintain its place as a standard program of the University.

Good Quality With Concerns (Category 3)

The program shows continuing vitality. The review has identified weaknesses that must be addressed. There is confidence that implementation of the action plan will address the reviewers’ concerns and move the program to Category 2Good Quality status. There will be a commitment to maintain program strength.

Non-Viable The program has shown fundamental deficiencies and little academic vitality over an extended period. No realistic plan is available to improve the program to Category 2Good Quality. The program will be recommended for closure.

Within four weeks of the site visit, The the reviewers shall submit their report to the Reviews OfficeOffice of the AVPA, normally within four weeks of the site visit .

The report should be organized as follows:

Learning Objectives: Are the learning objectives clear, concise and appropriate? Has the unit provided evidence to show that they have been met and has it adequately described the methods used to measure that achievement?Executive Summary

Delivery: Is the program delivered in a way that ensures the learning objectives will be met?Outcome Category (See above)

External Perspective: How does this program compare to programs elsewhere?Outline of the Visit

Program Strengths Feedback on each of the Evaluation Criteria within Section 2.5 of the IQAP Other Issues Recommendations: What changes would improve the program?

a) Outcome Category Recommendation. CConfidential Recommendations/Comments: relating to personnel issues or

other matters involving specific individuals. This is an optional section to be used only if recommendations and/or comments of a confidential nature are deemed necessary by the reviewers. This section will only be released to the Dean(s), the academic unit and ARC.

A report template is available and is provided to the reviewers to assist in drafting their report. The Reviewers’ Report will not be treated as a public document, however any and all recommendations shall be treated as public information. Also, if deemed warranted by the reviewers, they may submit confidential recommendations and/or comments




Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.27 cm, No bullets or numbering,Tab stops: Not at 1.27 cm


relating to personnel issues or other matters specifically involving individuals. These will be treated as confidential to the Dean(s), the academic unit and ARC.

The Reviews Office of the AVPA will distribute copies of the Reviewers’ Report to the academic Unit, the Dean(s), academic unit, ARC, and either the Senate Undergraduate Program CommitteeUPC and/or the Senate Graduate Studies CommitteeSGSC (as appropriate), with the exclusion of any confidential recommendations/comments (as per 6.f above) as appropriate.

1.12.2.11. Comments/Responses

2.11.1. Academic Unit Response

The academic unit unit shall develop a response, normally within four weeks of receiving the report, to the comments, observations and recommendations contained in the Reviewers’ Report and shall submit that response to the Office of the AVPAappropriate Dean(s), who shall then submit it to ARC.

If the reviewers have submitted confidential commentsrecommendations (as per 6.f above), the unit response, if any, to those comments will be treated as confidential to the Dean(s) and ARC.

2.11.2. UPC/SGSC CommentsResponse

The UPC or SGSC shall be invited to provide comment on the Reviewers’ Report and shall submit any such comments to ARC the Office of the AVPA (normally within three four weeks of receiving the report). In formulating their response to the Report, UPC and SGSC shall address the reviewer’s recommendations and how they align with respect to current policies, procedures and guidelines of the University. As well UPC and SGSC are to address the broader implications that implementation of the specific recommendations, which lie outside the evaluation criteria (Section 2.5) used by ARC in its assessment of the program, would have on the institution as a whole.

2.11.3. Decanal Response

Upon receipt, copies of the Unit response and the responses from UPC and/or SGSC, as appropriate, will be forwarded to the Dean(s).

After consultation with the Provost and Vice-President, Academic and the academic unit, the relevant Dean(s) shall submit to the Academic Reviews CommitteeOffice of the AVPA his/her/their responses to:

the recommendations advanced by the Reviewersreviewers; and the unit’s response to the Reviewers’ Report.

This response will also describe:

any changes in organization, policy or governance that would be necessary to meet the recommendations;

the resources, financial and otherwise, that would be provided required in supporting the implementation of selected recommendations; and

a proposed timeline for the implementation of any of those recommendations.


1.13.2.12. Final Assessment Report

1. After examining all materials submitted by the department/centreunit, the Dean(s), and the appropriate Senate Committee (UPC or SCGS). ), ARC shall prepare a draft Final Assessment Report. This report will:

identify the significant strengths of the program; assign an outcome category identify opportunities for program improvement and enhancement; set out and prioritize the recommendations that are selected for

implementation;summarize responses to each recommendation; identify and explain the circumstances relating to any recommendations that

will not be implemented; set out and prioritize the recommendations that are selected for

implementation; include an Implementation Plan that identifies:

who will be responsible for approving the recommendations set out in the Final Assessment Report;

who will be responsible for providing any resources made necessary by those recommendations;

who will be responsible for acting on those recommendations; and the timelines for acting on and monitoring the implementation of those

recommendations. At each meeting where ARC considers the draft FAR for a given cyclical review, a representative of that unit and the relevant Dean(s) shall be invited to attend and to participate in the discussion and address any questions raised.

Prior to the FAR being forwarded to Senate for approval, the Unit, Dean(s) and any other academic or administrative offices identified in the implementation plan of the FAR will be asked to review and provide comment to ARC.

The Final Assessment Report (excluding confidential information) shall be submitted to Senate for consideration.

1.14.2.13. Quality Council Submission

After approval of the Final Assessment Report by Senate, the Reviews OfficeOffice of the AVPA will submit all required documentation to the Quality Council.

1.15.2.14. Publication of Results

Following Senate approval, of the Final Assessment ReportFAR will be posted by Senate, the Reviews Office will post it on the Vice President, AcademicUniversity Quality Assurance website. Other documents (Self Study, Reviewers’ Report and responses to the Reviewers’ report) will not be made publically accessible.

Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.4 cm

Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.4 cm, No bullets or numbering


1.16.2.15. Monitoring of Review Results

Annually following Senate approval of the FAR, each Dean shall provide to ARC a FAR Implementation Report describing the status in implementing recommendations for their respective units that have undergone a cyclical review. At a fall meeting of Senate ARC will report on the FAR Implementation Reports received and post them on the University Quality Assurance website.

Within four years of the date of Senate approval of the Final Assessment Report, the unit will submit to ARC a report on documenting the implementation of the various recommendations noted in the Final Assessment Report.

SubsequentlyUpon approval, ARC will report to Senate on the progress of the implementation of the Review recommendations and will post the unit’sFour-Year Reports received and post them implementation monitoring report on the Vice President, AcademicUniversity Quality Assurance’s website.

1.17.2.16. Report to Board of Trustees

The Provost and Vice-President, Academic shall report annually to the Board of Trustees the results of all program reviews.


2.3. NEW PROGRAM REVIEWS APPROVALS

2.1.3.1. General Framework

The review and assessment of new programs to be introduced by the University is mandated by the Quality Council and as such, all new programs will be subject to an academic assessment prior to being offered. The Provost, as the authoritative contact with the Quality Council, communicates the results of the assessment process to the Quality Council upon Senate’s approval of the new program. In addition, the Provost also forwards any new program proposals, approved by the Quality Council, to MTCU.All new programs will be subject to an academic assessment prior to being offered.

For the purposes of this IQAP, a new program is defined in For the identification of “new programs”, see the definitionsSection 1.2 above.

ARC shall oversee these reviewsappraisal of new programs. The Terms of Reference and composition of ARC are set out in Faculty Handbook II: 9.13.(see: http://www.brocku.ca/university-secretariat/facultyhandbook/section2#_genIndex46

The review appraisal of new programs shall be carried out under the general supervision of the Provost and Vice-President, Academic and the appropriate Deans. For new undergraduate programs, the appropriate Dean(s) shall be the Dean(s) of the Faculty (or Faculties) within which the academic unitproposed program will resides. For new graduate programs, the appropriate Deans shall be both the Dean of Graduate Studies and the Dean(s) of the relevant Faculty (or Faculties).


A Statement of Intent (SOI) can be submitted at any time by any group of individuals intending to introduce a new program. The timeframe from submission of the SOI to approval by Senate will take on the order of 18 months. Proponents are advised to plan their submission accordingly.

October 1: Deadline for the Submission of Statement of Intent to ARC. ARC responds within four weeks of the submission of a Statement of Intent. Approved Statements of Intent will expire after 24 months if a Program Proposal Brief is not received. February/March: Unit submits a Program Proposal Brief to ARC for consideration. March/April: External Review of Proposed Program May/June: Submission of Reviewers Report and Revised Program Proposal Brief to ARC May/August: ARC reports to Senate and sends Final Proposal Brief to Quality Council September/October: Preparation of Calendar copy.

2.2.3.3. Process Summary Department/Centre/Program prepares a Statement of Intent and submits it to ARC. ARC determines whether the program meets the appropriate criteria and whether resources will be found to mount the program. If the Statement of Intent is approved by ARC, the Department/Centre/ Program prepares a Draft Program Proposal Brief and submits the Brief to ARC. At the same time, the unit submits a list of proposed reviewers (at least four potential external reviewers) to the Reviews Office, along with a brief profile of each nominee.




ARC approves or requests changes to the Brief and the Provost selects reviewers. Program Proposal Brief is sent to UPC or SGSC for comment. Reviews Office contacts selected reviewers in rank order and begins to organize site visits. Program Proposal Brief is sent to Reviewers. Reviews Office sets up schedule for site visit, with all reviewers attending at same time. Reviewers submit their report to the Reviews Office within four weeks of site visit. Copies sent to Dean(s), Department/Centre, and UPC or SGSC. Unit responds to ARC re: the Reviewers’ Report, as does UPC or SGSC. Subsequently, the Dean(s) submit a response to ARC. Unit, in consultation with the Dean, submits a Revised Program Proposal Brief to ARC. ARC considers the Revised Program Proposal in the context of the Reviewers’ Report and the responses from the unit and UPC or SGSC, with input from the relevant Dean(s). If further changes are required, the unit will submit a Final Program Proposal Brief to ARC. ARC reports to Senate on the Final Program Proposal Brief and seeks Senate approval to go forward to the Quality Council for final approval. ARC forwards the Final Program Proposal Brief, together with supporting documentation, to the Quality Council. At this point, Brock may announce its intention to offer the program, provided that clear indication is given that approval by the Quality Council is pending and that no offers of admission will be made until and unless the program is approved by the Council. Subsequent to receiving the Quality Council’s response, ARC reports to the Undergraduate Program Committee or Senate Graduate Studies Committee, which will review the new program’s calendar copy and bring the final calendar copy forward to Senate for final institutional approval for commencement of the program.

Phase I – Statement of Intent Phase Anytime Proponent prepares a Statement of Intent (SOI) and submits it to the Office of

the AVPA. SOI is posted on the University Quality Assurance website, for a 21 day

consultation period, with notice sent to the University community requesting comments.

4 weeks following the posting period

Proponents and Dean(s) attend ARC meeting where SOI is considered. The Proponents will be asked to address comments received during the posting period.

ARC determines whether the program meets the appropriate criteria and confirms the resources (financial, human and physical) required for the program are identified and committed/confirmed.

On the basis of its evaluation of the SOI, ARC will: i. request the Proponents to revise and resubmit the SOI; or, ii. approve the SOI with the Proponents directed to develop a Program

Proposal Brief (PPB); or, iii. reject the SOI.

Upon Approval PPB developed by Proponents. NOTE: The time from approval of the SOI to submission of the PPB will vary for each individual program. Approved SOIs will expire 24 months after approval if a PPB is not submitted.

Phase II – Program Proposal Brief Phase Upon Approval of the SOI

PPB developed by Proponents. During development of the PPB the Proponents consult with the relevant Dean(s).

Within 2 years of SOI approval

Proponent submits PPB to the Office of the AVPA. Proponent submits: 1) a list of proposed reviewers (external and internal),


including a brief profile of each nominee; and 2) a list of interviewees, to the Office of the AVPA.

2 weeks Reviewers are ranked by the Dean(s) . 2 weeks Provost selects reviewers in consultation with the Dean(s) . Reviewers contacted by the Office of the AVPA and upon confirmation

logistics for site visit developed. PPB sent to the relevant Dean(s) by the Office of the AVPA for review and

comment (SOI and any comments received during the posting period are provided).

ARC considers the PPB. Proponent and Dean(s) attend ARC meeting where PPB is discussed. Identification of required changes/ additions/modifications to be completed by Proponents.

On the basis of its evaluation of the PPB, ARC will: i. approve the PPB; or, ii. request the Proponents to revise the PPB for resubmission; or, iii. Reject the PPB.

On approval of the PPB, the membership of the review team will be communicated to the Proponents and the relevant Dean(s).

Office of the AVPA sets schedule for site visit. PPB forwarded to Reviewers. November Internal Reviewer Orientation. Jan – Apr Site Visit, timing dependent on Reviewers’ availability. Feb - May Reviewers’ Report submitted to the Office of the AVPA, 4 weeks after site

visit. Upon receipt, the Office of the AVPA forwards Reviewers’ Report to the Proponents, Dean(s), UPC and/or SGSC. Timing varies for each review, dependent on date for the site visit. Proponent, UPC or SGSC submit responses to the Reviewers’ Report to the Office of the AVPA, within 4 week of receipt. Dean(s) responds on receipt of Proponents and UPC/SGSC responses. Proponents in consultation with the Dean(s) submits a revised PPB to ARC ARC considers the revised PPB, in the context of the Reviewers’ Report and the responses from UPC, SGSC with input from the relevant Dean(s). (Dean(s) and Proponent attend ARC meeting). On the basis of its evaluation of the PPB ARC will:

i. request the Proponents to revise and resubmit the PPB; or, ii. approve the PPB and recommend to Senate for approval; or, iii. reject the PPB.

If further changes are required, the Proponents will submit a revised PPB to the Office of the AVPA for approval. ARC submits to Senate the final PPB and seeks Senate approval to go forward to the Quality Council for final approval. Proponents prepare a draft calendar submission for UPC or SGSC.

Upon Approval ARC forwards the final PPB, together with supporting documentation to the Quality Council.

Upon Approval Subsequent to receiving the Quality Council’s response, ARC reports to UPC or SGSC, which will review the new program’s calendar copy and bring the final calendar copy forward to Senate for approval and commencement of the program.

Program added to the list of programs for cyclical review. Upon Approval Once the Quality Council has approved the program to commence, the

program will be submitted to MTCU for approval and funding (if eligible)

2.3.3.4. Statement of Intent

Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.17 cm, Outline numbered +Level: 9 + Numbering Style: i, ii, iii, … + Start at: 1 +Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 5.08 cm + Indent at: 5.71 cm

Formatted: Tab stops: Not at 1.9 cm


Any unit or group of units intending to introduce a new program must first submit a Statement of Intent (SOI) to ARC the Office of the AVPA.and receive approval to proceed to the next step (preparation of a Program Proposal Brief).

A Statement of Intent shall include: a brief description of the program, clearly stating the purpose, structure and

pedagogical rationale, including a rationalean explanation for the degree nomenclature;

details of the existing and new resources, especially space needs, required to mount the program;

an explanation as to how the program fits with the University’s academic plan; evidence of consultation with all academic units affected; evidence of consultation regarding space needs for the proposed program; evidence of student demand including projected enrollments;and evidence of societal need; evidence that any duplicative similarities to existing programs, internally,

provincially or nationally, are justifiable for reasons of public funding; certification from the relevant Dean(s) that the new degree/major is an

appropriate and desirable addition to the academic programs of the University. For new undergraduate programs, the relevant Dean(s) shall be the Dean(s) of the Faculty (or Faculties) within which the program will reside. For new graduate programs, the appropriate Deans shall be both the Dean of Graduate Studies and the Dean(s) of the relevant Faculty (or Faculties); and,

any participating department(s)/centre(s) must provide evidence indicating the extent to which they are prepared to contribute (see Manual).

For programs intending to commence in September of any given year, the SOI must be submitted at least 18 months in advance, i.e. by March 1st, in order to ensure sufficient time for completion of the review process.The deadline for the submission of a Statement of Intent shall be October 1st (for programs intended to commence the following September). Statements of Intent can be submitted at any time.

On receipt of a SOI for a New Program, it will be posted for a 21 day consultation phase to the University community.

Normally, within four weeks of the close of the consultation phase, the program Proponents will be invited to attend an ARC meeting to present the SOI and address comments received as a result of the consultation phase.

On the basis of its evaluation of the SOI, ARC will:

i. request Proponents to revise and resubmit the SOI; or, ii. approve the SOI with the Proponents directed to develop a Program


If the SOI is rejected by ARC, the Proponents must wait 24 months before resubmitting the SOI.


Approved SOIs will expire 24 months after approval if a PPB is not submittedARC shall provide a response to any Statement of Intent within four weeks of its submission to the ARC.

2.4.3.5. Evaluation Criteria

If the Statement of Intent is approved by ARC, the unit(s) shall prepare (by February 1st for programs intended to commence the following September) a Program Proposal Brief which will address the following criteria:


Consistency of the program with the institution’s mission and academic plans. Clarity and appropriateness of the program’s requirements and associated

learning outcomes in addressing the institution’s undergraduate or graduate Degree Level Expectations.

Appropriateness of degree nomenclature. NOTE: Proponents are advised that a curriculum map that links course learning outcomes to articulated program learning outcomes mapped to the DLEs must be included in the Proposal Brief. As part of this process, Proponents must also document and demonstrate the methods by which the performance level of students, based on the learning outcomes, will be assessed.


Appropriateness of the program’s admission requirements for the learning outcomes established for completion of the program.

Sufficient explanation of alternative requirements, if any, for admission into a graduate, second-entry or undergraduate program, such as minimum grade point average, additional languages requirements or portfolios, along with how the program assesses and recognizes prior work or learning experience.

2.4.3.3.5.3. Structure

Appropriateness of the program's structure and regulations to meet specified program learning outcomes and degree level expectations.

For graduate programs, a clear rationale for program length that ensures that the program requirements can be reasonably completed within the proposed time period.

2.4.4.3.5.4. Program Content

Ways in which the curriculum addresses the current state of the discipline or area of study.

Identification of any unique curriculum or program innovations or creative components.

For research-focused graduate programs, clear indication of the nature and suitability of the major research requirements for degree completion.

Evidence that each graduate student in the program is required to take a minimum of two-thirds of the course requirements from among graduate level courses (see Manual).

2.4.5.3.5.5. Mode(s) of Delivery


The appropriateness of the proposed mode(s) of delivery in meeting the program’s intended learning outcomes and Degree degree Level level Expectationsexpectations.

2.4.6.3.5.6. Assessment of Teaching and Learning

Appropriateness of the proposed methods for the assessment of student achievement of the intended program learning outcomes and Degree degree Level level Expectationsexpectations.

Completeness of plans for documenting and demonstrating the level of performance of students, consistent with the institution’s statement of its Degree degree Level level Expectationsexpectations.

2.4.7.3.5.7. Student Demand

Evidence that there is a demand for the new degree/program on the part of potential students. This may will include projected enrolment levels (and the bases for those projections), application statistics, projected origins of student demand (e.g., domestic or international), and the duration of the projected demand.

2.4.8.3.5.8. Societal Need

Evidence that there is a need for graduates of the proposed degree/major on the part of society. This may include the probable availability of positions upon graduation (e.g., by letters from potential employers or governmental agencies). In the case of professional programs, their congruence with the regulatory requirements of the profession must be assessed.

2.4.9.3.5.9. Resources for All Programs

Adequacy of the administrative unit’s planned utilization of existing human, physical and financial resources, and any institutional commitment to supplement those resources, to support the program.

Clearly identified core and participating faculty complement delivering the program.

Participation of a sufficient number and quality of faculty who are competent to teach and/or supervise in the program.

Evidence that there are adequate resources to sustain the quality of scholarship produced by undergraduate students as well as graduate students’ scholarship and research activities, including library support, information technology support and laboratory access.

2.4.10.3.5.10. Resources for Graduate Programs Only

Evidence that faculty have the current and relevant research or professional/clinical expertise needed to sustain the program, promote innovation and foster an appropriate intellectual climate.

Where appropriate to the program, evidence that financial assistance for students will be sufficient to ensure adequate quality and numbers of students.

Evidence of how supervisory loads will be distributed, and the qualifications and appointment status of faculty who will provide instruction and supervision.

2.4.11.3.5.11. Resources for Undergraduate Programs Only


Evidence of and planning for adequate numbers and quality of: faculty and staff to achieve the goals of the program; or plans and the commitment to provide the necessary resources in step with

the implementation of the program; planned/anticipated class sizes; provision of supervision of experiential learning opportunities (if required);

and, the role of adjunct and part-time faculty.

2.4.12.3.5.12. Quality and Other Indicators

Definition and use of indicators that provide evidence of quality of the faculty (e.g., qualifications, research/scholarly activity or creative work, innovation and scholarly record; appropriateness of collective faculty expertise to contribute substantively to the proposed program). Evidence of a program structure and faculty research that will ensure the intellectual quality of the student experience.

3.5.13. Program Duplication The Proponents must provide convincing evidence that any duplicative similarities to existing programs in Ontario/Canada are justifiable for reasons of public funding.

3.5.14. Fields in a Graduate Program (optional) If a graduate program wishes to have a Quality Council endorsed field, the following statement is required: The master’s program comprises the following fields:… [list, as applicable] The PhD program comprises the following fields: … [list , as applicable]

2.5.3.6. Program Proposal Brief

If the Statement of Intent is approved by ARC, the unit(s) shall prepare (by February 1st for programs intended to commence the following September)

a Program Proposal Brief. The Office of the AVPA publishes a Program Proposal Brief Manual that will provide administrative details with respect to review policies and practices (see http://www.brocku.ca/vp-academic/quality-assurance).

The manual provides guidance on the preparation of rigorous, objective and reflective Program Proposal Brief and serves to reinforce the potential benefits that can accrue from an effective Brief. The Manual specifies the format required for the Brief and the contents to be included. In the instance of a discrepancy between the IQAP and the PPB Manual, the IQAP will take precedence. The academic unitProponents shall submit the Program Proposal BriefPPB to the Academic Review CommitteeOffice of the AVPA. Upon receipt and prior to its


consideration by ARC, the PPB shall be forwarded to the relevant Dean(s) for review and comment. After consideration, the Committee ARC shall:

i. either approve the Brief PPB; or, ii. advise request the unit Proponent of revisions to be madeto revise the

PPB for re-submission; or, iii. reject the PPB.

. Proponents of a new program and the relevant Dean(s) shall be invited to attend the ARC meetings where the PPB is discussed.

The Brief PPB will be treated as confidential to the relevant Dean(s), the reviewers, and ARC, the Office of the AVPA and others as appropriate.

2.6.3.7. Reviewers

When a Program Proposal Brief is approved by ARC, a Review Committee will be identified. It is expected that the external review of the proposed new program will occur no later than March/April (for programs intended to commence the following September).At the time of submission of a PPB the Proponents will provide the Office of the AVPA with a list of six potential external reviewers and four potential internal reviewers to undertake the appraisal, along with a brief profile on their area of expertise and qualifications for the task (if known). From this list the Dean(s) will be asked to provide the Provost with a ranking of the nominees prior to the Provost making the final selection of the Review Committee.


either one or two external reviewers for a new undergraduate program, or two

external reviewers for a new graduate program (at least one of whom will be from outside Ontario); and

one internal reviewer who is a Brock faculty member from outside the Faculty (or interdisciplinary group) proposing the program. This faculty member need not be someone familiar with the operation of the proposed program (still at “arm’s length”) but will have experience with program development and delivery. He/she actively participates in the review; however the main task of writing the Reviewers’ Report shall fall to the external reviewers. In advance of the site visit the Internal Reviewer shall be invited to an orientation session.

The Review Committee shall normally consist of at least: one external reviewer for a new undergraduate program; and two such reviewers for new graduate programs, at least one of whom will be from outside Ontario.

Additional discretionary members may be assigned to the Review Committee where ARC so decides. Such additional members might be appropriately qualified and experienced people selected from industry or the professions.

Reviewers shall be at “arm’s length” from the participants in the proposed program and to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, the reviewers should not:


be a close friend or relative of a member of the unit undergoing the reviewparticipant in the proposed program;

have been a research supervisor of a member of the unitparticipant in the proposed program, within the past six years;

have been a graduate student of a member of the unitparticipant in the proposed program within the past six years;

have collaborated with a member of the unitparticipant of the proposed program within the past six years or have plans to collaborate with them in the immediate future; or,

have been a visiting scholar/teacher in the unit in the past six years,.

Full disclosure of all past affiliation(s) is required to assist in the selection and to ensure an “arm’s length” relationship. The reviewers will normally be associate or full professors, or the equivalent, with program management experience.

The external review of a new graduate program proposal must incorporate an on- site visit. The external review of a new undergraduate program proposal will normally be conducted on site. Once confirmed the membership of the Review Committee will be communicated to the Proponents and the relevant Dean(s).


Prior to the completion ofAt the time of submission of the BriefPPB, the academic unitProponents shall prepare and submit, to the Office of the AVPA, a list of names for the Reviews Office of those individuals to be interviewed by the reviewers. The Office of the AVPA will coordinate the scheduling of meetings between those individuals identified and the reviewers during the site visit.

Interviewees shall include:

the Provost and Vice-President, Academic; the relevant Dean(s); all faculty to be associated with the proposed program (including

cross-appointed and limited term faculty, if appropriate); administrative staff to be associated with the program; if possible, a representative sample of students who might be

associated with the program; representatives of the Library; faculty from cognate disciplines; the Provost; the relevant Dean(s), and others as deemed appropriate.



The Reviews OfficeOffice of the AVPA shall forward the approved Brief PPB and any related materials to the reviewers.

The Reviews OfficeOffice of the AVPA, in consultation with the academic unitProponents and the relevant Dean(s), shall establish a time frame for the review.

The reviewers shall conduct an on-site visit, preferably at the same time. The length of the on-site visit normally will be two days, with a portion of the second day allocated to preliminary preparation of their report. In consultation with the relevant Dean(s), the Office of the AVPA shall provide an on-site orientation session for all reviewers and provide them with guidelines for the conduct of the review.

The reviewers will normally provide a joint report that appraises the standards and quality of the proposed program and addresses the criteria set out in Section III.E3.5 above, including the associated faculty and material resources. They will also be invited to acknowledge any clearly innovative aspects of the proposed program together with recommendations on any essential or otherwise desirable modifications to it. The reviewers may submit recommendations and/or comments relating to personnel issues or other matters specifically involving individuals that will be treated as confidential.

The reviewers shall submit their report to the Reviews OfficeOffice of the AVPA, normally within four weeks of the site visit. The reviewers’ Reviewers’ report Report is a public documentwill remain confidential to . However, if deemed warranted by the reviewers, they may submit recommendations and/or comments relating to personnel issues or other matters specifically involving individuals, that will be treated as confidential to the Proponents, the Dean(s), academic unit, the Provost and ARC.

The Reviewers’ report Report should be organized according to the evaluation criteria listed in Section III.E3.5 above, with particular attention to learning objectivesoutcomes, modes of delivery, and suggested improvements to the program. A report template is available and is provided to the reviewers to assist in drafting their report.

The Upon receipt the Reviewers’ Report the Reviews OfficeOffice of the AVPA will distribute copies of the Reviewers Report to:

the Proponents; the relevant Dean(s); either the UPC (for undergraduate programs) or the SGSC (for graduate

programs)the academic unit; the relevant Dean(s);the Academic Reviews Committee; and ARCeither the Senate Undergraduate Program Committee (for

undergraduate programs) or the Senate Graduate Studies Committee (for graduate programs).

2.9.3.10. Academic UnitProponents Response

The academic unit shall develop a response, normally within Within four weeks of receiving the Reviewers’ reportReport the Proponents shall develop a response, to the comments, observations and recommendations contained in the Reviewers Report report and shall submit that response ARCto the Office of the AVPA.


The unit Proponents response will be treated as a public document. However, if the reviewers have submitted confidential comments (as per 5 above), the unit Proponents response, if any, to those comments will be treated as confidential to the Dean(s) and the Academic Review CommitteeARC.

2.10.3.11. UPC/SGSC Response

Within four week of receiving the Reviewers’ Report The UPC or SGSC shall be invited to provide comment on anydevelop a response to of the comments, observations and recommendations contained in the Reviewers’ Report report and shall submit such a response to ARCthe Office of the AVPA. In formulating their response to the Report, UPC and SGSC shall address the reviewer’s recommendations and how they align with respect to current policies, procedures and guidelines of the University. As well UPC and SGSC are to address the broader implications that implementation of the specific recommendations, which lie outside the evaluation criteria (Section 3.5) used by ARC in its assessment of the program, would have on the institution as a whole.

3.12. Decanal Response

The Office of the AVPA will forward the Proponents and UPC/SGSC responses to the relevant Dean(s), who, aAfter consultation with the Provost and Vice-President, Academic, and the academic unit, the relevant Dean(s) shall submit to ARC the Office of the AVPA his/her/their responses to:

the recommendations advanced by the Reviewers; and the unit’s response to the Reviewers’ Report; and will describe:


the resources, financial and otherwise, that would be provided in supporting the implementation of selected recommendations; and


3.13. Program Proposal Brief Revision

The Proponents, in consultation with the relevant Dean(s), undertake a revision of the PPB, taking into consideration the Reviewers’ Report and all responses received. The changes incorporated in the PPB in response to the comments received should be clearly identified in the revised document. The revised PPB is submitted to the Office of the AVPA.

2.11.3.14. Assessment

ARC considers the revised PPB, in the context of the Reviewers’ Report and the responses received to the report. The Proponents and the relevant Dean(s) attend the ARC meeting where the revised PPB is discussed.


On the basis of its evaluation of the PPB, ARC will:

i. request the Proponents to revise and resubmit the PPB: or, ii. approve the PPB and recommend to Senate for approval; or, iii. reject the PPB.

If further changes are required, the Proponents will resubmit the revised PPB to the Office of the AVPA.

ARC submits to Senate the final PPB and seeks Senate approval of the new program. Upon Senate approval, the Office of the AVPA will forward the final PPB, together with supporting documentation to the QC for approval. At this time the Proponents should prepare a draft calendar submission for the new program to be forwarded to UPC or SGSC for consideration.

At this point Brock may announce its intention to offer the program, provided that clear indication is given that approval by the QC is pending and that no offers of admission will be made until and unless the program is approved by the QC.

After examining all materials submitted by the department/centre, Dean(s), and the appropriate Senate Committee (UPC or SCGS), ARC shall recommend (to Senate) either: that the proposal meets the University’s quality assurance standards and should be submitted to the Quality Council for approval; or that the proposal requires further modification. In the event of 1.a), following approval by Senate, the Reviews Office will submit all appropriate documentation to the Quality Council.


Following approval of the proposal by Senate, the Reviews Office will post the final Program Proposal Brief will be posted(including an executive summary) on the Vice-President, AcademicUniversity Quality Assurance website.


The Provost and Vice-President, Academic shall report annually to the Board of Trustees on all new programs approved by Senate and the Quality Council during the preceding year.

3.17. Subsequent Processes

After a new program is approved (by both the Quality Council and Senate) to commence, the program must begin within twenty-four months of the date of Senate approval.


At the end of four years of operationFour years after admitting its first students, a new program must submit to ARC a progress report reflecting its Program Proposal Brief as approved by Senate and the Quality Council. The first cyclical review for any new program will occur no later than eight years of the date of the program’s initial enrolment in accordance with the University’s academic review schedule.


3.4. MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING PROGRAMS

3.1.4.1. Statement of IntentRequest for Major Modification

Any unit or group of units intending to propose major modification(s) to an existing program must first submit a Statement of Intent Request for Major Modification to ARC. Also, sShould UPC or SCGS determine that a proposal received as part of the Calendar construction process constitutes a major modification, it shall refer that proposal to ARC for its consideration. Proponents are reminded that for Major Modifications requiring an expedited review (See IQAP Section 1.5), the Request must address the applicable elements of the quality assurance evaluation criteria employed for a full review as defined in Section 3.5.

A Statement of IntentRequest for Major Modification will reference the evaluation criteria for new programs (see Section III.E above) as appropriate and shall include:

a brief detailed description of the changes to the program; a the pedagogical rationale for the changes being proposed; impact of changes on students; details of the resource implications (if any) of the changes; an explanation as to how the revised program would fit with the University’s

academic plan; evidence of consultation with all affected academic units; and certification from the relevant Dean(s) that the proposed changes are

appropriate and desirable revisions to the academic program of the University and a commitment that the modification will be appropriately resourced. For undergraduate programs, the relevant Dean(s) shall be the Dean(s) of the Faculty (or Faculties) within which the program resides. For graduate programs, the appropriate Deans shall be both the Dean of Graduate Studies and the Dean(s) of the relevant Faculty (or Faculties).

A Statement of IntentRequest for Major Modification can be submitted at any time. However, departmentsDepartments/ centres Centres should be aware of internal University Calendar calendar deadlines.

Where possible ARC shall provide a response to the unit within four weeks of receipt of a submissionthe request. to ARC. The Committee shall either approve the Statement or advise the unit of revisions to be made for re-submission.A representative of the program requesting a Major Modification and the relevant Dean(s) will be invited to attend the ARC meeting where the request is discussed.

3.2.4.2. Assessment

After examiningARC will examine and evaluate all materials submitted by the departmentDepartment/centreCentre related to the Request for a Major Modification., and attending to the evaluation criteria for new programs (III.E.), On the basis of its evaluation of the Request, ARC shall will:

i. recommend to Senate that the Request be approved, based on the Request meeting the University’s quality assurance standards; or,


ii. direct the Department/Centre to revise and resubmit the Request to ARC for subsequent evaluation; or,

iii. reject the Request. In the event that the Request is rejected by ARC, the Proponents must wait 24 months before resubmitting the Request for consideration. Final approval of the Request for a Major Modification lies with recommend (to Senate) either:

that the proposal meets the University’s quality assurance standards; or that the proposal requires further modification.

In the event of 1.a), final approval will be approval by Senate.


4.5. V. APPROVAL AND REVIEWS OF JOINT PROGRAMS OFFERED BY TWO OF MORE INSTITUTIONS

For programs offered jointly with another/other Ontario universities, the procedure is thatThe introduction of new and the review of existing joint programs and other inter-institutional programs shall be governed by the IQAPs of the participating institution(s) granting the degree. Partner institutions may, but are not required, to use joint IQAPs (which require the same approval process as IQAPs for individual institutions). Whether a joint, or separately approved IQAP is used, or whether the separate institutions prefer to build their joint processes into their separate IQAPs, the following are suggested for inclusion in the IQAP related to both new program approval and cyclical program reviews. The Provost will work with the partner institution’s counterpart office to ensure that the requirements of both institution’s quality assurance policies and procedures will be met such that duplication is reduced and streamlines the process as much as possible. Specifically:

one individual (normally the Director or equivalent of the joint program) will prepare a

Self Study following the template of his/her university, in consultation with faculty, staff and students at the other institution(s). The Self Study/Program Proposal Brief clearly explains how input was received from faculty, staff and students at each partner institution.

The review team will be chosen in consultation with both/all partners, and the

“internal” reviewer can come from each partner institution, or be chosen to represent all partnersThere will be a single Self Study, for cyclical reviews, or single Program Proposal Brief for new program approvals.

The review visit will include both/all campuses.The selection of reviewers involves

participation by each partner institution.

The response to the review can be written by the Director of the joint program in consultation with the appropriate Chairs and Deans at both/all participating institutions, and then sent through the regular process at both/all universities.Where applicable, selection of the “internal” reviewer requires joint input:

o If practical it would include one internal from each partner institution; and o It could give preference to an internal reviewer who is from another Joint

program, preferably with the same partner institution

If deemed more appropriate, separate responses could be prepared, one for each participating institution, to follow the normal process at each universityThe site visit involves all partner institutions and preferably all sites (with exceptions noted below). Reviewers shall consult with faculty, staff and students at each partner institution as part of the site visit.

For programs joint with other universities outside Ontario, Brock will follow the review

process for Ontario universitiesFeedback on the Reviewers’ Report is solicited from participating units in each partner institution, including the Dean(s)..


This would not necessarily require a site visit to the other university, provided that the Quality Council has determined that the partner university is also subject to an appropriate quality review process in its own jurisdictionPreparation of a Final Assessment Report and an Implementation Plan requires input from each partner..

However Brock would obtain information about the components of the program

completed outside Ontario as appropriate, and include this in the review within OntarioThere is a single Final Assessment Report and Implementation Plan which goes through the appropriate governance process at each partner institution.

In the case of partnerships to offer degree or diploma programs conjointly with other

kinds of post-secondary institutions such as colleges or institutes, Brock will take the lead in the review process and the principles enshrined herein will pertain as relevantThe Final Assessment Report and Implementation Plan are posted on each university’s respective website

Partner institutions agree on an appropriate monitoring process for the Implementation Plan.

NOTE: For all inter-institutional programs in which all partners are institutions within Ontario, the Quality Council’s standard for New Program Approval and Cyclical Program Review Processes will apply to all elements of program regardless of which partner offers them, including Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology and Institutes of Technology and Advanced Learning. For joint and collaborative programs in which some partners are institutions outside of Ontario, the elements of the programs contributed by the out-of-province partner will be subject to the quality assurance processes in their respective jurisdictions. The Quality Council will maintain a directory of bodies whose post-secondary assurance processes are recognized and accepted as being comparable to our own. In cases where such recognition is not available, the Quality Council will determine, on a case-by-case basis, the appropriate action to be taken on quality assurance if the collaboration is to be permitted to proceed.


5.6. VI – PROGRAM DISCONTINUATION

6.1. Request for Program Discontinuation

A Request for Program Discontinuation can be submitted at any time to ARC. However, the academic unit should be aware of internal University calendar deadlines.

A Request for Program Discontinuation shall include:

name of the program name of the academic unit date of submission rationale for the proposed discontinuation details of the resource implications termination Plan and timing for discontinuation

A phased closure plan and timeline for the program discontinuation, taking into account the requirements of those students currently enrolled in the program to allow them to meet requirements for graduation and how resources of the program (human, physical and fiscal) will be redistributed.

evidence and documentation of consultation certification from the relevant Dean(s) that the proposed discontinuation is

appropriate and in line with the strategic direction of the Faculty. For undergraduate programs, the relevant Dean(s) shall be the Dean(s) of the Faculty (or Faculties) within which the program resides. For graduate programs, the relevant Deans shall be the Dean of Graduate Studies and the Dean(s) of the relevant Faculty (or Faculties).

On receipt of a Request for Program Discontinuation by ARC, it will be posted for a 21 day consultation phase to the University community.

Normally within 4 weeks of the close of the consultation phase, a representative of the proposing unit and the relevant Dean(s) will be invited to attend an ARC meeting to present the request and address the comments received during the consultation.

6.2. Assessment

After examining all materials received ARC shall:

i. recommend to Senate that the program be discontinued; ii. direct the Proponents to revise and resubmit the Request for Program

Discontinuation; or, iii. reject the Request.

6.3. Communication

Upon Senate’s approval of the Request for Program Discontinuation, the decision will be posted on the University Quality Assurance website and communicated to the Quality Council.

Brock University


(March 2016)

Senate Academic Review Committee


Approval Dates of Revisions: Senate (# XXX – Quality Council –March 24, 2016

Next Revision: Fall 2020

NOTE: revision of this IQAP is subject to ratification by the Quality Council.


Brock University QC Approved IQAP March 24, 2016.doc. Page 2 of 36

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. OVERVIEW ............................................................................................ 4

1.1. Program ................................................................................... 5 1.2. New Program ............................................................................ 5 1.3. Major Modifications ...................................................................... 6 1.4. Joint and Inter- Institutional Degrees ............................................... 7 1.5. Expedited Approvals .................................................................... 7 1.6. Certificates and Diplomas ............................................................. 8

2. CYCLICAL REVIEWS ................................................................................... 10

2.1. General Framework ................................................................... 10 2.1.1. Non Department/Centre Based Programs ............................... 10 2.1.2. Accreditation Reviews ...................................................... 11

2.2. Timeframe .............................................................................. 11 2.3. Process Summary ...................................................................... 12 2.4. Manual ................................................................................... 13 2.5. Evaluation Criteria ..................................................................... 13

2.5.1. Objectives .................................................................. 13 2.5.2. Admission Requirements ................................................. 14 2.5.3. Curriculum .................................................................. 14 2.5.4. Teaching and Assessment ................................................ 14 2.5.5. Resources ................................................................... 14 2.5.6. Quality Indicators .......................................................... 14 2.5.7. Quality Enhancement ..................................................... 15 2.5.8. Additional Graduate Program Criteria ................................. 15

2.6. Schedule ................................................................................. 15 2.7. Preparation of Self Study ............................................................. 16 2.8. The Review Committee ............................................................... 16 2.9. List of Interviewees ................................................................... 17 2.10. Site Visit and Report ................................................................. 18 2.11. Comments/Responses ............................................................... 19

2.11.1. Academic Unit Response ................................................ 19 2.11.2. UPC/SGSC Response ..................................................... 20 2.11.3. Decanal Response ........................................................ 20

2.12. Final Assessment Report ............................................................ 20 2.13. Quality Council Submission ......................................................... 21 2.14. Publication of Results ................................................................ 21 2.15. Monitoring of Review Results ....................................................... 21 2.16. Report to Board of Trustees ........................................................ 21

3. NEW PROGRAM APPROVALS ........................................................................... 22

3.1. General Framework ................................................................... 22 3.2. Timeframe ............................................................................... 22 3.3. Process Summary ...................................................................... 22 3.4. Statement of Intent ................................................................... 24 3.5. Evaluation Criteria ..................................................................... 24

3.5.1. Objectives .................................................................. 25 3.5.2. Admission Requirements ................................................. 25 3.5.3. Structure ..................................................................... 25 3.5.4. Program Content .......................................................... 25 3.5.5. Mode(s) of Delivery ........................................................ 25 3.5.6. Assessment of Teaching and Learning ................................... 25 3.5.7. Student Demand ........................................................... 26


3.5.8. Societal Need .............................................................. 26 3.5.9. Resources for all Programs ................................................ 26 3.5.10. Resources for Graduate Programs Only ............................... 26 3.5.11. Resources for Undergraduate Programs Only ......................... 26 3.5.12. Quality and Other Indicators ............................................ 27 3.5.13. Program Duplication ...................................................... 27 3.5.14. Fields in a Graduate Program (optional) .............................. 27

3.6. Program Proposal Brief ............................................................... 27 3.7. Reviewers ............................................................................... 27 3.8. List of Interviewees ................................................................... 28 3.9. Site Visit and Report .................................................................. 29 3.10. Proponents Response ................................................................. 30 3.11. UPC/SGSC Response ................................................................. 30 3.12. Decanal Response ..................................................................... 30 3.13. Program Proposal Brief Revision .................................................... 30 3.14. Assessment ............................................................................. 30 3.15. Publication of Results ................................................................ 31 3.16. Report to Board of Trustees ........................................................ 31 3.17. Subsequent Processes ................................................................ 31

4. MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING PROGRAMS ............................................................ 32

4.1. Request for Major Modification ...................................................... 32 4.2. Assessment .............................................................................. 32

5. APPROVAL AND REVIEW OF JOINT PROGRAMS ........................................................ 34 6. PROGRAM DISCONTINUATION .......................................................................... 36

6.1. Request for Program Discontinuation ................................................ 36 6.2. Assessment .............................................................................. 36 6.3. Communication ........................................................................ 36

Acronyms ARC – Senate Academic Review Committee AVPA – Associate Vice President, Academic COU – Council of Ontario Universities FAR – Final Assessment Report GDLE – Graduate Degree Level Expectations IA&P – Institutional Analysis and Planning IQAP – Internal Quality Assurance Processes MTCU – Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities OCAV – Ontario Council of Academic Vice Presidents PPB – Program Proposal Brief RMM – Request for a Major Modification QAF – Quality Assurance Framework QC – Quality Council SGSC – Senate Graduate Studies Committee SOI – Statement of Intent UDLE – Undergraduate Degree Level Expectations UPC – Senate Undergraduate Program Committee


1. OVERVIEW

Senate is Brock University's chief academic decision-making body. It determines the educational policy of the institution and monitors the academic quality of all programs. Senate also has a major role in ensuring the operating budget’s consistency with the educational policy. A continuous process of quality assurance related to existing and new programs is critical to the discharge of these responsibilities. The University's procedures and guidelines governing academic review are set out in this document, the Internal Quality Assurance Process (IQAP). The processes described in this IQAP are necessitated by the Council of Ontario Universities (COU). The COU established a Quality Assurance Framework (QAF) for all Ontario universities and an agency to administer that framework: the Ontario Universities Council for Quality Assurance (or Quality Council (QC)). The Quality Council oversees, coordinates and audits the quality assurance processes within each Ontario University (see: http://www.oucqa.ca/). The QC has three major functions. First, the council approved the initial IQAP developed by each university in Ontario; now, all changes or revisions to any IQAP must also be approved by the QC. Second, the council receives Final Assessment Reports for each cyclical review of existing programs. Third, the council is charged with the approval of new program proposals prior to submission to the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (MTCU) for funding. In this context, Senate established a special committee to administer the University's IQAP: the Academic Review Committee (ARC). The IQAP describes all of the processes by which existing academic programs are reviewed, modified or terminated, and by which new programs are introduced, at the University. Hence, ARC is responsible for the coordination, monitoring and implementation of all aspects of these processes. ARC is directly accountable and responsible to Senate through the Provost and Vice-President, Academic, an ex officio member of Senate. ARC regularly reports to Senate through the Provost with updates and/or recommendations for the consideration of Senate. The mandate of the Academic Review Committee can be found at: http://www.brocku.ca/university-secretariat/facultyhandbook/section2#_genIndex46. Responsibility for the conduct of academic reviews, major modifications to existing programs and the evaluation of new academic programs lies with the Provost. The Provost shall be the “authoritative contact” between Brock University and the Quality Council.

Brock’s IQAP will apply to the consideration of all graduate and undergraduate academic programs (see definition below), delivered in either a face-to-face or hybrid or online setting, including any offered jointly or in collaboration with other institutions. All graduate diploma programs that include credit courses, are covered by this policy. The IQAP replaces:







1.2. New Program

Any degree, degree program, or program of specialization, currently approved by Senate or equivalent governing body, which has not been previously approved for that institution by the Quality Council, its predecessors, or any intra-institutional approval processes that previously applied. A change of name, only, does not constitute a new program; nor does the inclusion of a new program of specialization where another with the same designation already exists (e.g., a new honours program where a major with the same designation already exists). To clarify, a ‘new program’ is brand-new: that is to say, the program has substantially different program requirements and substantially different learning outcomes from those of any existing approved programs offered by the institution. Examples of what constitutes a ‘new program’ are provided in the Quality Assurance Guide. [http://oucqa.ca/resources-publications/guide-to-quality-assurance-processes/]

Not-for-credit and for-credit undergraduate certificate programs are not subject to approval or audit by the Quality Council.



The Protocol for New Programs with Expedited Approvals applies to new graduate diplomas, new fields to existing graduate degrees, and joint degrees and intra/inter-institutional degree programs (dual credential, joint, and conjoint degrees) when a parent program already exists.



1.3. Major Modifications







learning outcomes and/or required resources) which effectively reorganize the program, impact another Faculty, or result in significant additional resource requirements;








Major modifications to existing programs do not require submission of a Proposal Brief to the Quality Council except when the University requests endorsement of the Quality Council, through the expedited review process. (Section 1.5)


Modifications to existing minors, concentrations and options (which do not require Quality Council approval) are handled internally through the annual calendar submission process, overseen by the UPC or SGSC, respectively.


1.4. Joint and Inter-Institutional Degrees



(b) dual credential programs are programs of study offered by Brock and one or more universities or by Brock and a college or institute, including Institutes of Technology and Advanced Learning, in which successful completion of the requirements is confirmed by a separate and different degree/diploma document being awarded by each of the participating institutions; and



1.5. Expedited Approvals

In cases of expedited reviews, the Office of the AVPA submits a Senate approved proposal brief together with the rationale for the change or new program to the Quality Council. The proposal is reviewed based only on applicable elements of the quality assurance criteria that would be employed for a full review. The appraisal and approval processes are significantly reduced.


(a) a proposal for a new graduate Collaborative Program;


(b) a proposal for a new for-credit Graduate Diploma. Note that Graduate diploma programs require Quality Council Expedited Approval (no external reviewers required) prior to their adoption. Once approved, such programs will be incorporated into the university’s schedule for cyclical reviews as part of the parent program;




That the University proceed with the proposed changes/new programs.

OR That it consult further with the University over details of interest or concern regarding the proposed changes/new programs. Normally, these subsequent consultations will be brief and affirmative in their outcome.

1.6. Certificates and Diplomas





Yes Yes Yes Yes





Yes Yes Maybe Yes3


Yes Yes No Yes3


Yes Yes Yes Yes



2. CYCLICAL REVIEWS 2.1. General Framework


For the purposes of this IQAP, a program is defined as a set of courses, with defined learning outcomes, approved by Senate to constitute all or part of the requirements for a degree designation offered by Brock University.

The Academic Review Committee (ARC) shall oversee academic reviews. The Terms of Reference and composition of ARC are set out in Faculty Handbook II: 9.13 (see http://www.brocku.ca/university-secretariat/facultyhandbook/section2#_genIndex49.

Academic Reviews shall be carried out under the general supervision of the Provost and the appropriate Deans. For undergraduate reviews, the appropriate Dean(s) shall be the Dean(s) of the Faculty (or Faculties) within which the academic unit resides. For graduate reviews, the appropriate Deans shall be both the Dean of Graduate Studies and the Dean(s) of the relevant Faculty (or Faculties). Cyclical academic reviews are required under the Quality Assurance Framework. The Provost, as the authoritative contact with the QC, ensures that the reviews are conducted in a timely manner and communicates the results, upon completion of each review, to the Council. A listing of programs offered by Brock University which are subject to the cyclical review process, as defined in this IQAP, can be found on the University’s Quality Assurance website at: http://www.brocku.ca/vp-academic/quality-assurance.


The cyclical review of discipline based programs, e.g. Policing and Criminal Justice, Applied Health Sciences Graduate Program, Interdisciplinary PhD in Humanities, will follow the same process and standards applicable to Department/Centre based programs as outlined in the IQAP. The cyclical review of non-discipline based programs, e.g. Bachelor of Arts in General Humanities, Bachelor of Arts in Social Sciences, Bachelor of Science, Integrated Studies, will be subject to the same process and standards applicable to


Department/Centre based programs as outlined in the IQAP. The only modification to the IQAP necessary to review such non-discipline based program will involve the makeup of the review team for the program. As discipline specific reviewers for this type of program may not be easily identified, the composition of the review team will consist of two internal reviewers with knowledge of interdisciplinary programs and one external reviewer with expertise in interdisciplinary studies. Details of the review of non-discipline based programs will be coordinated between the Dean(s) of the host Faculty(s) and the Office of the AVPA at the time the program is confirmed for review. For such non-discipline based programs, the identification of specific learning outcomes is required and will reflect the program of study being followed and the needs of the individual learner. Mapping the curriculum of such programs to a ‘standard’ may not be feasible and as a result such programs will have identified very broad program level learning outcomes, linked to degree level expectations, which will be augmented by the actual course level learning outcomes comprising the program of study being followed. 2.1.2. Accreditation Reviews The Quality Assurance Framework indicates that the Brock University IQAP may allow for and specify the substitution or addition of documents or processes associated with the accreditation of a program, for components of the institutional program review process, when it is fully consistent with the requirements established in the Framework. A record of substitutions or additions and the grounds on which it was made, will be eligible for audit by the Quality Council. Well in advance of the accreditation review, the Office of the AVPA will be provided with a copy of the accreditation review template to compare with the Brock IQAP. The AVPA, in consultation with ARC and the Dean(s), will review the guidelines for the accreditation process, the degree of alignment with the IQAP, and determine what additional materials or processes may be necessary to ensure compliance with the IQAP. The outcome of the comparison and discussion may be that: 1) The accreditation review will be accepted as meeting all the criteria for a cyclical




2.2. Timeframe

Ideally, program review is an ongoing process that begins two years in advance of a site visit, for which a unit prepares a Self Study, and continues through to the next review eight years in the future. The process begins with the Provost confirming with


the Deans the list of programs to be reviewed. A detailed timeline and summary of the process follows.

2.3. Process Summary











January 2017



















Upon Approval


Upon Approval





2.4. Manual

The Office of the AVPA publishes a Self Study Manual that will provide administrative details with respect to review policies and practices (see http://www.brocku.ca/vp-academic/quality-assurance).

The manual provides guidance on the preparation of rigorous, objective and reflective Self Studies and serves to reinforce the potential benefits that can accrue from an effective Self Study. It will also identify responsibilities for the collection, aggregation and distribution of institutional data and outcome measures required for Self Studies, and specify the format required. In the instance of a discrepancy between the IQAP and the Manual, the IQAP will take precedence.

2.5. Evaluation Criteria

The Self Study for the review of existing undergraduate or graduate programs must address each of the evaluation criteria set out below.

2.5.1. Objectives

Program is consistent with the institution’s mission and academic plans.


Program requirements and learning outcomes are clear, appropriate and align with the Faculty’s statement of the Undergraduate Degree Level Expectations (UDLE) and/or Graduate Degree Level Expectations (GDLE). Explicit learning outcomes, for both undergraduate and graduate programs being reviewed, mapped to the program curricula, must be developed by the unit and included in the Self Study document.


2.5.2. Admission Requirements


2.5.3. Curriculum

The curriculum reflects the current state of the discipline or area of study. Evidence of any significant innovation or creativity in the content and/or

delivery of the program relative to other such programs. Mode(s) of delivery to meet the program’s identified learning outcomes are

appropriate and effective.

2.5.4. Teaching and Assessment Methods for assessing student achievement of the defined learning outcomes

and degree level expectations are appropriate and effective. Appropriateness and effectiveness of the means of assessment, especially in

the students’ final year of the program, in clearly demonstrating achievement of the program learning objectives and the institution’s (or the Program’s own) statement of Degree Level Expectations.

2.5.5. Resources


2.5.6. Quality Indicators







2.5.7. Quality Enhancement

Initiatives taken to enhance the quality of the program and the associated learning and teaching environment. This will include the disposition of concerns and recommendations raised in previous reviews, and areas identified through the conduct of the Self Study that require attention and/or that hold promise for enhancement.


2.5.8. Additional Graduate Program Criteria








2.6. Schedule

The Provost, in consultation with the Deans, shall determine an eight-year schedule for the review of all programs and shall identify the academic units responsible for those programs. Under very exceptional circumstances, a Dean may request, in writing, either the review of a particular program or a delay in a scheduled review.

The Provost, in consultation with the Deans, shall confirm by January 31st, two years in advance of the site visit, the programs to be reviewed and shall report this information to the February meeting of Senate.


In October, one year in advance of the site visit, the Office of the AVPA will conduct an orientation session for those responsible for Self Studies in academic units and


programs designated to be reviewed in the subsequent year. This session will include a review of the process, the required contents of the Self Study document and the nature of the data being provided to inform the review process.

In January Institutional Analysis and Planning (IA&P) will provide the unit with student and alumni survey results. Following the November 1 headcount report, IA&P will provide each academic unit with historical and current data as a starting point for inclusion and analysis in the unit’s Self Study.


The Self Study prepared by the Unit provides the foundational document by which the reviewers will undertake their evaluation of the academic quality of the programs offered. As such, the Self Study should be broad-based, reflective, forward-looking and will include a critical analysis of the Unit and the academic programs offered. Under the leadership of a Lead Author a committee comprised of faculty, staff and students, in consultation with all faculty, staff and students associated with the program, prepares an effective Self Study that meets the above goal.The input of others deemed to be relevant and useful, such as graduates of the program, representatives of industry, the professions, practical training programs and employers must also be included.



The Self Study shall be confidential to the Reviewers, Deans, ARC and the Office of the AVPA and others as appropriate.

2.8. The Review Committee



one internal reviewer who is a Brock faculty member from outside the Faculty (or interdisciplinary group) engaged in the program. This faculty


member is not required to have knowledge of the discipline, need not be someone familiar with the operation of the program under review should be at “arm’s length” and have experience in program development and delivery. He/she actively participates in the review; however the main task of writing the Reviewers’ Report shall fall to the external reviewers. In advance of the site visit, all internal reviewers will be invited to an orientation session.







Full disclosure of all past affiliation(s) is required to assist in reviewer selection and to ensure an “arm’s length” relationship. The reviewers will be associate or full professors, or the equivalent, with program management experience.

By September 1st,the Unit shall develop and submit to the Office of the AVPA a list of at least six potential external reviewers and four potential internal reviewers, along with a brief profile on their area of expertise and qualifications for the task (if known). From this list the Dean(s) will be asked to provide a ranking of the nominees. Subsequently, the Provost, in consultation with the Dean(s), shall select a final Review Committee. On approval of the Self Study by ARC, the membership of the review team will be communicated to the Unit and the relevant Dean(s).

2.9. List of Interviewees

By September 1st, the unit shall prepare and submit, to the Office of the AVPA, a list of names of those individuals to be interviewed by the reviewers. The Office of the AVPA will coordinate the scheduling of meetings between those identified by the Unit and the reviewersfor the site visit.

Interviewees shall include: Chair/Director all faculty associated with the Unit (including cross-appointed and limited term

faculty, if appropriate); administrative staff associated with the Unit;


a representative sample of students associated with the program (with no faculty present);

representatives of the Library; faculty from cognate disciplines; for units with Co-op programs, representatives of the Co-op Office; the Provost; the relevant Dean(s); and, others as deemed appropriate.

2.10. Site Visit and Report

The Office of the AVPA shall forward the approved Self Study and any related materials to the reviewers.


The Office of the AVPA, in consultation with the relevant Dean(s), shall provide an on-site orientation for the Reviewers. The purpose of this orientation is to ensure that the reviewers:





6. Respect the confidentiality required for all aspects of the review process.

In accordance with the evaluation criteria outlined above (Section 2.5), the reviewers will be invited to:


provide an external perspective on the program in terms of its comparability with similar programs elsewhere, its stature on a national scale, and its success in producing excellent graduates.


Excellent Quality

The program is of excellent quality with strong student demand and a national or international reputation for producing high quality graduates. Few changes are required. There will be a commitment to maintain the leadership role of the program and perhaps enhance program


strength. Good Quality


Good Quality With Concerns

The program shows continuing vitality. The review has identified weaknesses that must be addressed. There is confidence that implementation of the action plan will address the reviewers’ concerns and move the program to Good Quality status. There will be a commitment to maintain program strength.

Non-Viable The program has shown fundamental deficiencies and little academic vitality over an extended period. No realistic plan is available to improve the program to Good Quality. The program will be recommended for closure.

Within four weeks of the site visit, the reviewers shall submit their report to the Office of the AVPA,


Executive Summary Outcome Category (See above) Outline of the Visit Program Strengths Feedback on each of the Evaluation Criteria within Section 2.5 of the IQAP Other Issues Recommendations Confidential Recommendations/Comments

A report template is available and is provided to the reviewers to assist in drafting their report. The Reviewers’ Report will not be treated as a public document, however any and all recommendations shall be treated as public information. Also, if deemed warranted by the reviewers, they may submit confidential recommendations and/or comments relating to personnel issues or other matters specifically involving individuals. These will be treated as confidential to the Dean(s), the academic unit and ARC.

The Office of the AVPA will distribute copies of the Reviewers’ Report to the academic Unit, the Dean(s), ARC, and UPC and/or SGSC (as appropriate), with the exclusion of any confidential recommendations/comments as appropriate.

2.11. Comments/Responses

2.11.1. Academic Unit Response The academic unit shall develop a response, within four weeks of receiving the report, to the comments, observations and recommendations contained in the Reviewers’


Report and shall submit that response to the Office of the AVPA, who shall then submit it to ARC.

If the reviewers have submitted confidential recommendations, the unit response, if any, will be treated as confidential to the Dean(s) and ARC.

2.11.2. UPC/SGSC Response The UPC or SGSC shall be invited to provide comment on the Reviewers’ Report and shall submit any such comments to the Office of the AVPA (normally within four weeks of receiving the report). In formulating their response to the Report, UPC and SGSC shall address the reviewer’s recommendations and how they align with respect to current policies, procedures and guidelines of the University. As well UPC and SGSC are to address the broader implications that implementation of the specific recommendations, which lie outside the evaluation criteria (Section 2.5) used by ARC in its assessment of the program, would have on the institution as a whole.

2.11.3. Decanal Response Upon receipt, copies of the Unit response and the responses from UPC and/or SGSC, as appropriate, will be forwarded to the Dean(s).

After consultation with the Provost and the academic unit, the relevant Dean(s) shall submit to the Office of the AVPA his/her/their responses to:

the recommendations advanced by the reviewers; and the unit’s response to the Reviewers’ Report.



the resources, financial and otherwise, that would be required in supporting the implementation of selected recommendations; and


2.12. Final Assessment Report

After examining all materials submitted by the unit, the Dean(s), and the appropriate Senate Committee (UPC or SCGS), ARC shall prepare a draft Final Assessment Report. This report will:

identify the significant strengths of the program; assign an outcome category identify opportunities for program improvement and enhancement; summarize responses to each recommendation; identify and explain the circumstances relating to any recommendations that










2.13. Quality Council Submission

After approval of the Final Assessment Report by Senate, the Office of the AVPA will submit all required documentation to the Quality Council.

2.14. Publication of Results

Following Senate approval, the FAR will be posted on the University Quality Assurance website. Other documents (Self Study, Reviewers’ Report and responses to the Reviewers’ report) will not be made publically accessible.

2.15. Monitoring of Review Results


Within four years of the date of Senate approval of the Final Assessment Report, the unit will submit to ARC a report documenting the implementation of the various recommendations noted in the Final Assessment Report.

Upon approval, ARC will report to Senate on Four-Year Reports received and post them on the University Quality Assurance website.

2.16. Report to Board of Trustees

The Provost shall report annually to the Board of Trustees the results of all program reviews.


3. NEW PROGRAM APPROVALS

3.1. General Framework

The review and assessment of new programs to be introduced by the University is mandated by the Quality Council and as such, all new programs will be subject to an academic assessment prior to being offered. The Provost, as the authoritative contact with the Quality Council, communicates the results of the assessment process to the Quality Council upon Senate’s approval of the new program. In addition, the Provost also forwards any new program proposals, approved by the Quality Council, to MTCU.

For the purposes of this IQAP, a new program is defined in Section 1.2.

ARC shall oversee the appraisal of new programs. The Terms of Reference and composition of ARC are set out in Faculty Handbook II: 9.13.(see: http://www.brocku.ca/university-secretariat/facultyhandbook/section2#_genIndex46

The appraisal of new programs shall be carried out under the general supervision of the Provost and the appropriate Deans. For new undergraduate programs, the appropriate Dean(s) shall be the Dean(s) of the Faculty (or Faculties) within which the proposed program will reside. For new graduate programs, the appropriate Deans shall be both the Dean of Graduate Studies and the Dean(s) of the relevant Faculty (or Faculties).

3.2. Timeframe
















Proponent submits PPB to the Office of the AVPA. Proponent submits: 1) a list of proposed reviewers (external and internal), including a brief profile of each nominee; and 2) a list of interviewees, to the Office of the AVPA.
















3.4. Statement of Intent

Any unit or group of units intending to introduce a new program must first submit a Statement of Intent (SOI) to the Office of the AVPA.

A Statement of Intent shall include: a description of the program, clearly stating the purpose, structure and

pedagogical rationale, including an explanation for the degree nomenclature; details of the existing and new resources, especially space needs, required to

mount the program; an explanation as to how the program fits with the University’s academic plan; evidence of consultation with all academic units affected; evidence of consultation regarding space needs for the proposed program; evidence of student demand including projected enrollments; evidence of societal need; evidence that any duplicative similarities to existing programs, internally,



any participating department(s)/centre(s) must provide evidence indicating the extent to which they are prepared to contribute.

For programs intending to commence in September of any given year, the SOI must be submitted at least 18 months in advance, i.e. by March 1st, in order to ensure sufficient time for completion of the review process.







Approved SOIs will expire 24 months after approval if a PPB is not submitted.



If the Statement of Intent is approved by ARC, the unit(s) shall prepare a Program Proposal Brief which will address the following criteria:

3.5.1. Objectives






Sufficient explanation of alternative requirements, if any, for admission into a graduate, second-entry or undergraduate program, such as minimum grade point average, additional language requirements or portfolios, along with how the program assesses and recognizes prior work or learning experience.

3.5.3. Structure



3.5.4. Program Content




Evidence that each graduate student in the program is required to take a minimum of two-thirds of the course requirements from among graduate level courses.

3.5.5. Mode(s) of Delivery

The appropriateness of the proposed mode(s) of delivery in meeting the program’s intended learning outcomes and degree level expectations.

3.5.6. Assessment of Teaching and Learning

Appropriateness of the proposed methods for the assessment of student achievement of the intended program learning outcomes and degree level expectations.


Completeness of plans for documenting and demonstrating the level of performance of students, consistent with the institution’s statement of its degree level expectations.

3.5.7. Student Demand

Evidence that there is a demand for the new degree/program on the part of potential students. This will include projected enrolment levels (and the bases for those projections), application statistics, projected origins of student demand (e.g., domestic or international), and the duration of the projected demand.

3.5.8. Societal Need

Evidence that there is a need for graduates of the proposed degree/major on the part of society. This may include the availability of positions upon graduation (e.g., by letters from potential employers or governmental agencies). In the case of professional programs, their congruence with the regulatory requirements of the profession must be assessed.

3.5.9. Resources for All Programs





3.5.10. Resources for Graduate Programs Only




3.5.11. Resources for Undergraduate Programs Only





3.5.12. Quality and Other Indicators




3.6. Program Proposal Brief

The Office of the AVPA publishes a Program Proposal Brief Manual that will provide administrative details with respect to review policies and practices (see http://www.brocku.ca/vp-academic/quality-assurance).

The manual provides guidance on the preparation of rigorous, objective and reflective Program Proposal Brief and serves to reinforce the potential benefits that can accrue from an effective Brief. The Manual specifies the format required for the Brief and the contents to be included. In the instance of a discrepancy between the IQAP and the PPB Manual, the IQAP will take precedence. The Proponents shall submit the PPB to the Office of the AVPA. Upon receipt and prior to its consideration by ARC, the PPB shall be forwarded to the relevant Dean(s) for review and comment. After consideration, ARC shall:

i. approve the PPB; or, ii. request the Proponent to revise the PPB for re-submission; or, iii. reject the PPB.

Proponents of a new program and the relevant Dean(s) shall be invited to attend the ARC meetings where the PPB is discussed.

The PPB will be treated as confidential to the relevant Dean(s), the reviewers, ARC, the Office of the AVPA and others as appropriate.

3.7. Reviewers

At the time of submission of a PPB the Proponents will provide the Office of the AVPA with a list of six potential external reviewers and four potential internal reviewers to undertake the appraisal, along with a brief profile on their area of expertise and


qualifications for the task (if known). From this list the Dean(s) will be asked to provide the Provost with a ranking of the nominees prior to the Provost making the final selection of the Review Committee.







be a close friend or relative of a participant in the proposed program; have been a research supervisor of a participant in the proposed program,

within the past six years; have been a graduate student of a participant in the proposed program within

the past six years; have collaborated with a participant of the proposed program within the past

six years or have plans to collaborate with them in the immediate future; or, have been a visiting scholar/teacher in the unit in the past six years.


The external review of a new graduate program must incorporate an on-site visit. The external review of a new undergraduate program proposal will normally be conducted on site. Once confirmed the membership of the Review Committee will be communicated to the Proponents and the relevant Dean(s).


At the time of submission of the PPB, the Proponents shall prepare and submit, to the Office of the AVPA, a list of names of those individuals to be interviewed by the reviewers. The Office of the AVPA will coordinate the scheduling of meetings between those individuals identified and the reviewers during the site visit.



all faculty to be associated with the proposed program (including cross-appointed and limited term faculty, if appropriate);

administrative staff to be associated with the program; if possible, a representative sample of students who might be associated with

the program; representatives of the Library; faculty from cognate disciplines; the Provost; the relevant Dean(s), and others as deemed appropriate.


The Office of the AVPA shall forward the approved PPB and any related materials to the reviewers.

The Office of the AVPA, in consultation with the Proponents and the relevant Dean(s), shall establish a time frame for the review.


The reviewers will normally provide a joint report that appraises the standards and quality of the proposed program and addresses the criteria set out in Section 3.5 above, including the associated faculty and material resources. They will also be invited to acknowledge any clearly innovative aspects of the proposed program together with recommendations on any essential or otherwise desirable modifications to it. The reviewers may submit recommendations and/or comments relating to personnel issues or other matters specifically involving individuals that will be treated as confidential.

The reviewers shall submit their report to the Office of the AVPA, normally within four weeks of the site visit. The Reviewers’ Report will remain confidential to the Proponents, the Dean(s), the Provost and ARC.

The Reviewers’ Report should be organized according to the evaluation criteria listed in Section 3.5 above, with particular attention to learning outcomes, modes of delivery, and suggested improvements to the program. A report template is available and is provided to the reviewers to assist in drafting their report.

Upon receipt the Reviewers’ Report the Office of the AVPA will distribute copies of the Report to:

the Proponents; either the UPC (forundergraduate programs) or the SGSC (for graduate

programs);


the relevant Dean(s); and ARC.

3.10. Proponents Response

Within four weeks of receiving the Reviewers’ Report the Proponents shall develop a response to the comments, observations and recommendations contained in the report and shall submit that response to the Office of the AVPA.

The Proponents response will be treated as a public document. However, if the reviewers have submitted confidential comments, the Proponents response, if any, to those comments will be treated as confidential to the Dean(s) and ARC.

3.11. UPC/SGSC Response

Within four week of receiving the Reviewers’ Report UPC or SGSC shall develop a response to the comments, observations and recommendations contained in the report and submit such a response to the Office of the AVPA. In formulating their response to the Report, UPC and SGSC shall address the reviewer’s recommendations and how they align with respect to current policies, procedures and guidelines of the University. As well UPC and SGSC are to address the broader implications that implementation of the specific recommendations, which lie outside the evaluation criteria (Section 3.5) used by ARC in its assessment of the program, would have on the institution as a whole.


The Office of the AVPA will forward the Proponents and UPC/SGSC responses to the relevant Dean(s), who, after consultation with the Provost, shall submit to the Office of the AVPA his/her/their responses to:







3.14. Assessment









Following approval by Senate, the final Program Proposal Brief will be posted on the University Quality Assurance website.


The Provost shall report annually to the Board of Trustees on all new programs approved by Senate and the Quality Council during the preceding year.


After a new program is approved (by both the Quality Council and Senate) to commence, the program must begin within twenty-four months of the date of Senate approval. Four years after admitting its first students, a new program must submit to ARC a progress report reflecting its Program Proposal Brief as approved by Senate and the Quality Council. The first cyclical review for any new program will occur no later than eight years of the date of the program’s initial enrolment in accordance with the University’s academic review schedule.


4. MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING PROGRAMS

4.1. Request for Major Modification

Any unit or group of units intending to propose major modifications to an existing program must first submit a Request for Major Modification to ARC. Should UPC or SCGS determine that a proposal received as part of the Calendar construction process constitutes a major modification, it shall refer that proposal to ARC for its consideration. Proponents are reminded that for Major Modifications requiring an expedited review (See IQAP Section 1.5), the Request must address the applicable elements of the quality assurance evaluation criteria employed for a full review as defined in Section 3.5.

A Request for Major Modification shall include:

a detailed description of the changes to the program; the pedagogical rationale for the changes being proposed; impact of changes on students; details of the resource implications (if any) of the changes; an explanation as to how the revised program would fit with the University’s



A Request for Major Modification can be submitted at any time. However, Departments/Centres should be aware of internal University calendar deadlines.

Where possible ARC shall provide a response to the unit within four weeks of receipt of the request. A representative of the program requesting a Major Modification and the relevant Dean(s) will be invited to attend the ARC meeting where the request is discussed.

4.2. Assessment

ARC will examine and evaluate all materials submitted by the Department/Centre related to the Request for a Major Modification. On the basis of its evaluation of the Request, ARC will:



iii. reject the Request.


In the event that the Request is rejected by ARC, the Proponents must wait 24 months before resubmitting the Request for consideration. Final approval of the Request for a Major Modification lies with Senate.


5. APPROVAL AND REVIEW OF JOINT PROGRAMS OFFERED BY TWO OF MORE INSTITUTIONS

The introduction of new and the review of existing joint programs and other inter-institutional programs shall be governed by the IQAPs of the participating institution(s) granting the degree. Partner institutions may, but are not required, to use joint IQAPs (which require the same approval process as IQAPs for individual institutions). Whether a joint, or separately approved IQAP is used, or whether the separate institutions prefer to build their joint processes into their separate IQAPs, the following are suggested for inclusion in the IQAP related to both new program approval and cyclical program reviews. The Provost will work with the partner institution’s counterpart office to ensure that the requirements of both institution’s quality assurance policies and procedures will be met such that duplication is reduced and streamlines the process as much as possible. Specifically:

The Self Study/Program Proposal Brief clearly explains how input was received from

faculty, staff and students at each partner institution.

There will be a single Self Study, for cyclical reviews, or single Program Proposal Brief for new program approvals.

The selection of reviewers involves participation by each partner institution.

Where applicable, selection of the “internal” reviewer requires joint input:



The site visit involves all partner institutions and preferably all sites (with exceptions noted below). Reviewers shall consult with faculty, staff and students at each partner institution as part of the site visit.

Feedback on the Reviewers’ Report is solicited from participating units in each partner

institution, including the Dean(s).

Preparation of a Final Assessment Report and an Implementation Plan requires input from each partner.

There is a single Final Assessment Report and Implementation Plan which goes through

the appropriate governance process at each partner institution.

The Final Assessment Report and Implementation Plan are posted on each university’s respective website


NOTE: For all inter-institutional programs in which all partners are institutions within Ontario, the Quality Council’s standard for New Program Approval and Cyclical Program Review Processes will apply to all elements of


program regardless of which partner offers them, including Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology and Institutes of Technology and Advanced Learning. For joint and collaborative programs in which some partners are institutions outside of Ontario, the elements of the programs contributed by the out-of-province partner will be subject to the quality assurance processes in their respective jurisdictions. The Quality Council will maintain a directory of bodies whose post-secondary assurance processes are recognized and accepted as being comparable to our own. In cases where such recognition is not available, the Quality Council will determine, on a case-by-case basis, the appropriate action to be taken on quality assurance if the collaboration is to be permitted to proceed.


6. PROGRAM DISCONTINUATION










6.2. Assessment




6.3. Communication


To: Chabriol Colebach, University Secretary

From: Lynn Rempel, Chair, Undergraduate Student Affairs Committee Date: May 2, 2016

Undergraduate Student Affairs Committee

REPORT TO SENATE 640, May 11, 2016

The Committee Held its meeting on April 28, 2016 1. For Senate Approval – Revision to the Faculty Handbook - Undergraduate Scholarships, Bursaries and Awards: FHB III: A. 14

MOVED: (Rempel/ ) THAT Senate approve the revisions to the FHB section on Awards (FHB III: A.14) Rationale A significant investment was made in the 2016-17 budget for Scholarships, Bursaries and Awards that raised entrance scholarship amounts and enhanced certain other bursaries and awards to support undergraduate recruitment (both domestic and international).

A further investment is being requested for the 2017-18 budget to both cover the costs associated with the approved changes made in 2016-17, and to support further enhancements to Scholars Award and international award renewals. Part of the Scholarship, Bursaries and Awards strategy, includes recommendations for revisions to the Faculty Handbook.

Revisions are proposed to the FHB section on Awards (FHB III: A.14) which will:

Acknowledge and retain Senate’s authority in the awarding and renewal of scholarships;

2

Provide adequate flexibility for addressing changing enrolment needs in a competitive environment;

Attract and recognize high-achieving students; Support student retention.

Appendixes: 1. https://brocku.ca/webfm_send/40555

2. https://brocku.ca/webfm_send/40556

2. For Senate Approval - Continuation of Fall Break

MOVED: (Rempel/ ) THAT Senate adopt the continuation of Fall Break during the week following Thanksgiving. Rationale: The fall break motion was presented at the April 13 meeting of Senate and was referred to the Senate Graduate Studies Committee for consultation. The Senate Graduate studies committee forwarded comments to USAC in support of the continuation of Fall Break.

The three-year study conducted by Kelly Pilato indicated that students believed that Fall Break reduced their school-related stress. Responses indicated that the perception of reduced stress was slightly stronger each year. Although about one-third perceived that their workload and stress increased prior to the break, most students reported the effect to be neutral. Less than 30% of respondents indicated that stress and workload increased after the break. Most students believed that the Thanksgiving week is the best time for the break. Qualitative analysis of focus group data generally suggested that the Fall Break decreased stress, even with the compressed exam schedule, helped with time management, and that it provided an important opportunity to return home to family and friends.

Appendixes:

1. https://www.brocku.ca/webfm_send/40190

2. https://www.brocku.ca/webfm_send/40191



https://www.brocku.ca/webfm_send/40190

3

1

MEMORANDUM

To: Secretary of Senate

Brock University From: Neil McCartney, Chair

Senate Academic Review Committee Date: May 4, 2016


The following is submitted to Senate in accordance with the requirements of the IQAP (Institutional Quality Assurance Processes):

1. For Senate Approval – Discontinuation of two Programs

MOVED (Finn/ ) That the Request to Discontinue the BSc Physical Geography/Co-op and the BA Human Geography/Co-op offered by the Department of Geography be approved. Rationale: ARC has considered the Request for the Discontinuation of the BSc Physical Geography/Co-op and the BA Human Geography/Co-op, offered by the Department of Geography, and herewith submits the Request (see Appendix A) for the approval of Senate.

2. For Senate Approval – FHB Changes Section III.C.11

Background: The Brock IQAP was initially approved at Senate 580 (May 26, 2010) and forwarded to the Quality Council for approval, as required in the Quality Assurance Framework document (http://www.brocku.ca/webfm_send/33713) of COU. Following Quality Council approval a revised IQAP was approved at Senate 590 (June 6, 2011). In March 2013, Brock was the first University to undergo an audit of its Quality Assurance process by the Quality Council. In October 2013, the Quality Council provided Brock with the Auditor’s Final Report (http://www.brocku.ca/webfm_send/28698) which contained 8 recommendations and 17 suggestions for improvement to the Brock IQAP. The Quality Council required that the University provide a one-year follow-up response to the Auditor’s Report. Brock’s one-year follow-up response was approved by the Quality Council on December 18, 2014 (http://www.brocku.ca/webfm_send/34663). As part of this approval, the University was required to address further concerns raised by the Quality Council related to our responses to 3 of the Auditors initial recommendations.

http://www.brocku.ca/webfm_send/33713)



2

In response to the Auditor’s Report and to reflect our own implementation experience over several years, a revised IQAP was submitted to the Quality Council for consideration. A copy of this IQAP draft was presented to Senate 622 (September 17, 2014) for information. Over multiple exchanges with the Quality Council since January 2015, the final changes were made to the IQAP and submitted to the Quality Council for approval on March 10, 2016. The revised Brock IQAP was approved by the Quality Council at its meeting of March 24, 2016, and as result revisions to the Faculty Handbook are being brought forward to Governance, SGSC, UPC and ARC. MOVED (Finn / ) That FHB section III C.11. be revised as follows: FHB III.C.11 – Institutional Quality Assurance Process (IQAP). A continuous process of academic review is critical to the discharge of Senate’s responsibility in determining the educational policy for Brock and maintaining high academic and program standards. In this context, the University’s academic review policy is subject to the authority of Senate through its Academic Review Committee (ARC), a special committee of Senate responsible for the coordination, monitoring and implementation of all aspects of the Internal Quality Assurance Process (IQAP). The processes by which existing academic programs are reviewed, modified, or discontinued and new programs introduced are outlined in the IQAP. The IQAP functions are dictated by the Quality Assurance Framework of the Council of Ontario Universities (COU). The Ontario Universities Council for Quality Assurance (the Quality Council) is the body charged by COU to approve the initial IQAP and oversee, coordinate and audit the quality assurance process within each Ontario University (see: http://www.oucqa.ca/ ). Any subsequent changes or revisions to the IQAP are subject to approval by Senate and the QC. Quality Council approval of new programs and the results of cyclical reviews of existing programs is required prior to any program submissions to the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities for funding. Brock’s IQAP will apply to the consideration of all graduate and undergraduate academic programs, including any offered jointly or in collaboration with other institutions. The IQAP replaces:

• the previous internal system in place for the review of existing or introduction of new undergraduate programs, overseen and audited by the Undergraduate Program Review and Audit Committee of COU; and,

• the previous external system in place for the cyclical review of existing and introduction of new graduate programs, overseen by the Ontario Council on Graduate Studies (OCGS).

Link to current Institutional Quality Assurance Processes (IQAP)

http://www.oucqa.ca/

3

Rationale: A preamble has been added to this section which introduces the IQAP.

MOVED (Finn/ ) That the Academic Review Committee recommends that the revised Brock University Institutional Quality Assurance Process (IQAP) dated March 24, 2016, as approved by the Quality Council, be approved by Senate. Rationale: As indicated in the background section above, following receipt of the Quality Council Auditor’s Final Report in October of 2013 and to reflect our own implementation experience, revisions to the previously approved IQAP have been carried out. Appendix B provides a clean version of the revised IQAP which will be linked to the FHB. Appendix C provides a marked up version of the revised IQAP showing all changes made to the June 2011 Senate approved IQAP.

1

Request for Program Discontinuation:

Bachelor of Science in Physical Geography

Bachelor of Science in Physical Geography (Co-op)

Bachelor of Arts in Human Geography

Bachelor of Arts in Human Geography (Co-op)

Department of Geography

Submitted by Christopher Fullerton, Department Chair

March 2016

Rationale for Proposed Discontinuation The Department of Geography’s specialized BA degree in Human Geography and BSc degree in Physical Geography were first introduced in 1982-1983. Since then, these programs have represented the Department’s most specialized options and have been designed for students who wish to focus their studies almost entirely in Human Geography or Physical Geography. Students in both programs take introductory courses in both human and physical geography; thereafter, BA Human Geography students can take a suite of courses entirely within human geography and/or geomatics, while BSc Physical Geography students can take a suite of courses entirely within physical geography and/or geomatics. In recent years – and in light of reflecting declining enrollments in upper-year courses, difficult budget realities, and changing working relationships between departments – the Department feels that offering these two degree options is no longer sustainable. Available faculty resources simply do not allow it to provide such a broad array of courses such as those required to complete the two programs. Where, in the past, the Department was able to cobble together resources to offer these program options, pressure on part-time budgets has limited the Department’s ability to hire LTAs and sessional instructors. Moreover, budgetary realities have diminished the Department’s ability to replace individuals on academic leave and Earth Sciences is no longer able to deliver as many physical geography courses as it once did. This has meant that Geography has had to take over courses that are required by BSc Physical Geography students that were previously cross-listed with and homed in Earth Sciences. The Department’s decision to discontinue the BA Human Geography program has been made easier by the declining proportion of Geography students who have opted to pursue this program option (Table 1). In 2004-2005 more than one-half of all Geography Majors (138 of 250, or 55.2%) were registered in the BA Human Geography program, but this figure had fallen to 34.9% by 2006-2007 and even further, to 23.2%, by 2015-2016. Similarly, the BSc Physical Geography program has also fallen in popularity; for example, while some 13% of Geography Majors were in pursuit of a BSc Physical Geography degree in 2007-2008, fewer than 10% were enrolled in that program in 2015-2016. There are also only 3 students currently registered in the BSc Physical Geography (Co-op) program and only one student in the BA Human Geography (Co-op) program in 2015-2016.

pgreydanus

Typewritten Text

ARC Appendix A Senate Meeting May 11, 2016

pgreydanus

Typewritten Text

pgreydanus

Typewritten Text

2

Table 1 Number of Majors, Department of Geography, 2004-2016

Program Option 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016

BA/BSc Geography 76 157 192 196 188 187 177 151 118 111 81.5 80

BA Human Geography 138 137 132 110 70 64 65 58 50 45 54 40

BSc Physical Geography

25 30 46 49 41 39 37 30 28 25 26 16

BA/BSc Geography (Co-op)

-- -- -- 9 11 15 17 14 8 3 3 14

BSc Physical Geography (Co-op)

-- -- -- 0 1 1 1 3 4 2 2 3

BA Human Geography (Co-op)

-- -- -- 0 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 1

BA (Concurrent) Geography/Education

7 3 3 7 6 7 10 11 15 19 12 13

BSc (Concurrent) Geography/Education

4 3 5 5 3 3 7 5 5 3 4 5

Policing and Criminal Justice

-- -- -- -- 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 250 330 378 376 323 318 316 274 216 211 184.5 172

Source: Brock University Office of Institutional Analysis

3

Beyond the reasons provided above, the Department has also decided to discontinue these two programs as part of a larger program restructuring. One of the most important recommendations put forth in the Department of Geography’s cyclical review in 2012-2013 was that it should implement steps “to address declining enrollments and monitor their effects” and to “[change] strategies if enrollments continue to decline.” The Department has witnessed declining enrollments for a number of years and has therefore embarked on an ambitious restructuring that aims both to make Geography programs more attractive to prospective students and to deliver its programs as efficiently as possible. This also represents action on the part of the Department that responds to another recommendation put forth in its cyclical review, that “the Department should ensure that only courses that have a reasonable chance of being offered should be listed in the calendar and those that are not offered in any three year period be removed from the calendar.” A major component of this effort has been to revise the curricula of the BA Geography and BSc Geography degrees and to make these the Department’s two central program options.

Resource Implications

The discontinuation of these programs, and the larger program restructuring of which they are a part, will result in a smaller body of Geography courses being listed in the Brock University Undergraduate Calendar. At the same time, however, students pursuing the revamped BA Geography degree will now be required to take more physical geography courses than has been required in the past, while those pursuing the BSc Geography degree will be required to enroll in a greater number of human geography courses. Thus, the Department will offer fewer courses but will have more of its students registered in those that remain. The smaller number of courses offered will also result in fewer CUPE instructor positions, as most courses will now be taught by full-time faculty. It will also likely mean a need for more physical geography Teaching Assistants and fewer human geography Teaching Assistants. Finally, the restructuring will likely have minimal impact on the Department’s library and IT resource needs.

Termination Plan / Timing for Discontinuation

Admissions to these programs will be closed immediately upon the University Senate’s approval of the proposed discontinuations. Students currently in the BA Human Geography and BSc Physical Geography programs will be provided with an opportunity to switch into one of the newly revised programs. Those not wishing to do so will still have a variety of courses to choose from, as noted in the tables below. The granting of some special permissions may be necessary to accommodate some students, especially those in the BSc Physical Geography program.

4

Bachelor of Science in Physical Geography

Year Current Program Post-Discontinuation

I

• GEOG 1F90 and 1F91 • MATH 1P97 • one Science context credit • one Humanities context credit • one-half elective credit

• Closed

II

• GEOG 2P07, 2P11, and 2P12 • one and one-half credits from GEOG 2P04, 2P05,

2P09, 2P13 • one Science credit • one elective credit

• GEOG 2P04 and 2P05 • GEOG 2P07 and 2P21 • one Science credit • two elective credits

III

• GEOG 3P56 • one and one-half GEOG credits numbered

2(alpha)90 to 3(alpha)99 from Group B • one-half GEOG credit numbered 2(alpha)90 to

3(alpha)99 from either group B or C • one-half GEOG credit numbered 2(alpha)90 to

3(alpha)99 from group C • one Science credit numbered 2(alpha)00 or higher • one elective credit

• GEOG 3P56 • GEOG 3P21 or 3P22 • two GEOG credits numbered 2(alpha)90 to

3(alpha)89 from Group B • one GEOG credit numbered 2(alpha)90 to

3(alpha)89 from Groups B, C or D • one Science credit numbered 2(alpha)00 or higher • one-half elective credit

IV

• three GEOG credits numbered 3(alpha)90 or above from Group B or C

• one GEOG credit numbered 2(alpha)90 to 3(alpha)89 from group B or C

• one elective credit

• GEOG 4F99 • GEOG 3P21 or 3P22 • one and one-half GEOG credits numbered

3(alpha)90 or above from Group B • one-half GEOG credit numbered 3(alpha)90 or

above from Groups B, C or D • one and one-half elective credits

5

Bachelor of Science in Physical Geography (Co-op Option)

Year Term Current Program Post-Discontinuation

I F/W

• GEOG 1F90 and 1F91 • MATH 1P97 • one Humanities context credit • one Science context credit • one-half elective credit

• Closed

S/S • one elective credit

II F/W

• GEOG 2P07, 2P11, and 2P12 • one and one-half credits from GEOG

2P04, 2P05, 2P09, 2P13 • one GEOG credit numbered 2(alpha)90

to 3(alpha)89 from Group B • one Science credit • GEOG 0N90

• GEOG 2P04 and 2P05 • GEOG 2P07 and 2P21 • one GEOG credit numbered 2(alpha)90

to 3(alpha)89 from Group B • one Science credit • one elective credit • GEOG 0N90

S/S • GEOG 0N01 and 2C01 • GEOG 0N01 and 2C01

III

F

• GEOG 3P56 • one and one-half GEOG credits

numbered 2(alpha)90 to 3(alpha)89 from Group B or C

• one-half Science credit numbered 2(alpha)00 or above

• GEOG 3P56 • GEOG 3P21 or 3P22 • one GEOG credit numbered 2(alpha)90

to 3(alpha)89 from Group B • one-half Science elective credit numbered

2(alpha)00 or above

W • GEOG 0N02 and 2C02 • GEOG 0N02 and 2C02


IV F/W

• three GEOG credits numbered 3(alpha)90 or above from Group B or C

• one GEOG credit numbered 2(alpha)90 to 3(alpha)89 from Group B or C

• one half Science credit numbered 2(alpha)00 or above

• GEOG 3P21 or 3P22 • two GEOG credits numbered 3(alpha)90

or above from Group B • one GEOG credit numbered 3(alpha)90

or above from Group B, C or D • one-half GEOG credit numbered

2(alpha)90 to 3(alpha)89 from Group B • one-half GEOG credit numbered

2(alpha)90 to 3(alpha)89 from Group B, C or D

• one-half Science elective credit numbered 2(alpha)00 or above

S/S • one and one-half elective credits • one and one-half elective credits

6


Year Current Program Post-Discontinuation

I

• GEOG 1F90 and 1F91 • one Humanities context credit • one Social Sciences context credit • one elective credit

• Closed

II

• GEOG 2P07, 2P10, and 2P12 • one and one-half credits from GEOG 2P01, 2P02,

2P03, 2P06, 2P13 • one Social Science credit • one elective credit

• GEOG 2P07 and 2P21 • two credits from GEOG 2P01, 2P03, 2P06, 2P30,

2P66 • one Social Science credit • one elective credit

III

• GEOG 3P57 • one and one-half GEOG credits numbered

2(alpha)90 to 3(alpha)99 from group A • one-half GEOG credit numbered 2(alpha)90 to

3(alpha)99 from either group A or C • one-half GEOG credit numbered 2(alpha)90 to

3(alpha)99 from group C • two elective credits

• GEOG 3P57 • GEOG 3P21 or 3P22 • one and one-half GEOG credits numbered

2(alpha)90 to 3(alpha)89 from Group A • one GEOG credit numbered 2(alpha)90 to

3(alpha)89 from Groups A, C or D • one and one-half elective credits

IV

• one GEOG credit numbered 2(alpha)90 to 3(alpha)89 from group A or C

• three GEOG credits numbered 3(alpha)90 or above from group A or C


• GEOG 4F99 • GEOG 3P21 or 3P22 • one and one-half GEOG credits numbered

3(alpha)90 or above from Group A • one-half GEOG credit numbered 3(alpha)90 or

above from Groups A, C or D • one and one-half elective credits

7

Bachelor of Arts in Human Geography (Co-op Option)

Year Term Current Program Post-Discontinuation

I F/W

• GEOG 1F90 and 1F91 • one Humanities context credit • one Social Sciences context credit • one elective credit

• Closed

S/S • one elective credit

II F/W

• GEOG 2P07, 2P10, and 2P12 • one and one-half credits from GEOG

2P01, 2P02, 2P03, 2P06, 2P13 • one Social Science credit • one elective credit (to include GEOG

1F91 if not completed in Year 1)

• GEOG 2P07 and 2P21 • two credits from GEOG 2P01, 2P03,

2P06, 2P30, 2P66 • one-half GEOG credit numbered

2(alpha)90 to 3(alpha)89 from Group A • one Social Science credit • one-half elective credit • GEOG 0N90


III

F

• GEOG 3P57 • one and one-half GEOG credits

numbered 2(alpha)90 to 3(alpha)89 from Group A or C

• one and one-half GEOG credits numbered 2(alpha)90 to 3(alpha)89 from Group A or C

• one-half elective credit

• GEOG 3P57 • GEOG 3P21 or 3P22 • one GEOG credit numbered 2(alpha)90

to 3(alpha)89 from Group A • one-half GEOG credit numbered

2(alpha)90 to 3(alpha)89 from Groups A, C or D

W • GEOG 0N02 and 2C02 • GEOG 0N02 and 2C02


IV F/W

• three GEOG credits numbered 3(alpha)90 or above from Group A or C

• one GEOG credit numbered 2(alpha)90 to 3(alpha)89 from Group A or C


• GEOG 3P21 or 3P22 • two GEOG credits numbered 3(alpha)90

or above from Group A • one GEOG credit numbered 3(alpha)90

or above from Group A, C or D • one-half GEOG credit numbered

2(alpha)90 to 3(alpha)89 from Group A • one-half GEOG credit numbered

2(alpha)90 to 3(alpha)89 from Group A, C or D

• one-half elective credit S/S • one and one-half elective credits • one and one-half elective credits

8

Evidence and Documentation of Consultation

The discontinuation of the aforementioned programs and the restructuring of those that remain have been proposed and coordinated by the Department’s Curriculum Committee. There has also been substantial input from other members of the Department. All other Units affected by these changes have been notified, and have indicated their approval, through the preparation of the Department’s UPC submission for 2016-2017 (Appendix 1).

Certification from the Relevant Dean

Please see attached letter (Appendix 2).

9

Appendix 1: Evidence and Documentation of Consultation COMPUTER SCIENCE RE: GEOGRAPHY UPC Ke Qiu You replied on 14/10/2015 12:05 PM. Sent: October 14, 2015 12:04 PM To: Christopher Fullerton Thanks, Chris. Christine (our new student help coordinator) and I went over the changes and we are fine with them and we approve the changes. Best, Ke _______________________________________ From: Christopher Fullerton Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 11:56 AM To: Ke Qiu Subject: RE: GEOGRAPHY UPC Hi Ke, Actually, there is one small difference. The number of GEOG credits is one half-credit higher. We have done a major program restructuring that will take effect next year. The way we've organized our new methods courses is such that there is one-half credit more required for our majors than previously. I hope this helps! Chris _______________________________________________________ From: Ke Qiu Sent: October 14, 2015 11:50 AM To: Christopher Fullerton Subject: RE: GEOGRAPHY UPC Hi Chris: I haven't gone through the details yet but the total number of GEOG credits required remains the same, right? Thanks,

https://mailbox.brocku.ca/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABVVsqp8WL0Ro9EAlGprbSVBwCwh%2b%2fyHAuSQZ0hVLW5oFuDAABeki1xAACwh%2b%2fyHAuSQZ0hVLW5oFuDAABeki1%2bAAAJ

https://mailbox.brocku.ca/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABVVsqp8WL0Ro9EAlGprbSVBwCwh%2b%2fyHAuSQZ0hVLW5oFuDAABeki1xAACwh%2b%2fyHAuSQZ0hVLW5oFuDAABeki1%2bAAAJ

10

Ke ________________________________________ From: Christopher Fullerton Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 11:33 AM To: Ke Qiu Subject: GEOGRAPHY UPC Hello Ke, I hope this email finds you well. I have attached a brief memo indicating Geography's proposed UPC changes that have an impact on students enrolled in the GEOG-COSC Combined Major. Please let me know if you approve of the changes; also, please don't hesitate to contact me if you've got any questions or concerns. Thanks very much, Chris _______________________________________________________ Christopher Fullerton, PhD Associate Professor and Chair Department of Geography Brock University St. Catharines, ON L2S 3A1 Phone: (905) 688-5550, ext. 3487 Email: [email protected] WOMEN’S AND GENDER STUDIES Re: GEOG UPC Re WGST Elizabeth Wasylowich You replied on 15/10/2015 11:52 AM. Sent: October 15, 2015 11:41 AM To: Christopher Fullerton Hi Chris, Thanks, WGST agrees to these changes and will remove these three courses from our course bank. Thanks, Elizabeth

mailto:[email protected]

https://mailbox.brocku.ca/owa/?ae=PreFormAction&t=IPM.Note&a=Prev&id=RgAAAABVVsqp8WL0Ro9EAlGprbSVBwCwh%2b%2fyHAuSQZ0hVLW5oFuDAABeki1xAACwh%2b%2fyHAuSQZ0hVLW5oFuDAABeki2NAAAJ&fId=LgAAAABVVsqp8WL0Ro9EAlGprbSVAQCwh%2b%2fyHAuSQZ0hVLW5oFuDAABeki1xAAAB

https://mailbox.brocku.ca/owa/?ae=PreFormAction&t=IPM.Note&a=Prev&id=RgAAAABVVsqp8WL0Ro9EAlGprbSVBwCwh%2b%2fyHAuSQZ0hVLW5oFuDAABeki1xAACwh%2b%2fyHAuSQZ0hVLW5oFuDAABeki2NAAAJ&fId=LgAAAABVVsqp8WL0Ro9EAlGprbSVAQCwh%2b%2fyHAuSQZ0hVLW5oFuDAABeki1xAAAB

11

Elizabeth Wasylowich Administrative Assistant Brock University |Centres for Labour Studies & Women's and Gender Studies Niagara Region | 500 Glenridge Ave. | St. Catharines, ON L2S 3A1 brocku.ca <http://brocku.ca/> | T 905 688 5550 4753/4330 | F 905 984-4840 ___________________

On 2015-10-15, 11:36 AM, "Christopher Fullerton" [email protected] wrote: >Hello again, Elizabeth. > >This time, please find attached a memo regarding GEOG's discontinuation of three courses that were previously cross-listed with WGST. >Please let me know if you and your colleagues are OK with this, or if you've got any questions or concerns you would like us to address. > >Thanks very much, Chris

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

INTERCULTURAL STUDIES

RE: GEOG UPC Deborah Yeager You replied on 15/10/2015 12:32 PM. Sent: October 15, 2015 12:14 PM To: Christopher Fullerton; Sylvia Barlow Hello Chris, Thank you for letting us know of your changes. We will delete these courses from the INTC course bank. Bye for now, Deborah Dr. Deborah Yeager Director, Centre for Intercultural Studies Brock University 500 Glenridge Avenue St. Catharines, ON L2S 3A1 (905) 688-5550 ext. 4438

https://mailbox.brocku.ca/owa/redir.aspx?C=H9R2eD2tIES2bBrx_L-L0_UQn9gLVNMI_1nITZZWHwXN_34dHyP7Ovzbw2bmNXjyd1wtTpHWt3w.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fbrocku.ca%2f

mailto:[email protected]

https://mailbox.brocku.ca/owa/?ae=PreFormAction&t=IPM.Note&a=Prev&id=RgAAAABVVsqp8WL0Ro9EAlGprbSVBwCwh%2b%2fyHAuSQZ0hVLW5oFuDAABeki1xAACwh%2b%2fyHAuSQZ0hVLW5oFuDAABeki2RAAAJ&fId=LgAAAABVVsqp8WL0Ro9EAlGprbSVAQCwh%2b%2fyHAuSQZ0hVLW5oFuDAABeki1xAAAB



12

________________________________________ From: Christopher Fullerton Sent: October 15, 2015 11:51 AM To: Deborah Yeager; Sylvia Barlow Subject: GEOG UPC Hello Deborah and Sylvia, Please find attached a memo outlining a few GEOG courses that up to now have been cross-listed with the Intercultural Studies program, but which we are now proposing to discontinue as part of our major program restructuring. These courses will have to be deleted from the Intercultural Studies Undergraduate Calendar entry. I would appreciate it if you could let me know if you are OK with these deletions. At the same time, please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about this matter. Thanks very much, Chris Fullerton COMMUNICATION, POPULAR CULTURE AND FILM

Re: GEOG UPC - Course Deletions affecting PCUL Scott Henderson You forwarded this message on 27/10/2015 10:07 AM. Sent: October 16, 2015 11:59 AM To: Christopher Fullerton Hi Chris, Thanks for this. I will include it as information for our UPC submission, and will remove these courses from our entries. I don’t think we need to vote and approve anything here- it would be an odd situation if my colleagues said ‘no’ and insisted that GEOG keep offering these courses!! (Which I don’t imagine can happen). Best, Scott Dr. Scott Henderson Associate Professor ------- Chair, Department of Communication, Popular Culture and Film Brock University St. Catharines, Ontario

https://mailbox.brocku.ca/owa/?ae=PreFormAction&t=IPM.Note&a=Prev&id=RgAAAABVVsqp8WL0Ro9EAlGprbSVBwCwh%2b%2fyHAuSQZ0hVLW5oFuDAABeki1xAACwh%2b%2fyHAuSQZ0hVLW5oFuDAABeki2TAAAJ&fId=LgAAAABVVsqp8WL0Ro9EAlGprbSVAQCwh%2b%2fyHAuSQZ0hVLW5oFuDAABeki1xAAAB

https://mailbox.brocku.ca/owa/?ae=PreFormAction&t=IPM.Note&a=Prev&id=RgAAAABVVsqp8WL0Ro9EAlGprbSVBwCwh%2b%2fyHAuSQZ0hVLW5oFuDAABeki1xAACwh%2b%2fyHAuSQZ0hVLW5oFuDAABeki2TAAAJ&fId=LgAAAABVVsqp8WL0Ro9EAlGprbSVAQCwh%2b%2fyHAuSQZ0hVLW5oFuDAABeki1xAAAB

13

[email protected] -------- Executive Director Popular Culture Association of Canada Check us out at www.canpop.ca _____________________________ On 2015-10-15, 11:38 AM, "Christopher Fullerton" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi Scott, > >Please find attached a memo listing some GEOG courses that were previously cross-listed with PCUL, but which we are now proposing to discontinue as part of our major program restructuring. > >These will have to be deleted from your Calendar entry. > >Don't hesitate to contact me if you've got any questions or concerns. At the same time, please let me know if you are your colleagues are OK with these changes. > >Thanks, > >Chris > >_______________________________________________________

https://mailbox.brocku.ca/owa/redir.aspx?C=H9R2eD2tIES2bBrx_L-L0_UQn9gLVNMI_1nITZZWHwXN_34dHyP7Ovzbw2bmNXjyd1wtTpHWt3w.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.canpop.ca

14

To: Sandra Regier, Administrative Director, Concurrent Education Programs From: Chris Fullerton, Chair Department of Geography Re: Geography UPC Course Amendments Date: October 14, 2015

Please note the following amendments and signify your approval of these changes below: Changes to course codes in year two and three of the BA(Honours)/BEd (Intermediate/Senior) Geography and BSc (Honours)/BEd (Intermediate/Senior) and program notes. BA Year 2

GEOG 2P03, 2P06, 2P07, 2P10 2P21 and 2P12 one of GEOG 2P01, 2P02, 2P13 2P66 GEOG 3P21 or 3P22 CHYS 2P10 and 2P15 (see program note 1) EDUC 1F95

Year 3

GEOG 3P57 GEOG 3P21 or 3P22 two and one-half GEOG credits numbered 2(alpha)90 or above (see program note 8) EDBE 8P50 one credit in second teachable subject (see program note 5) one elective credit

Program Notes:

8. Students normally take Geography courses from Group A (see Geography department) and they may select courses from Group B, and C or D. A minimum of 10.5 academic undergraduate credits in Humanities and Social Sciences must be completed for a BA Honours degree to be awarded.

BSc Year 2

GEOG 2P03 or 2P06 GEOG 2P07, 2P11 and 2P12 2P21 GEOG 3P21 or 3P22 one credit from GEOG 2P04, 2P05, 2P09, 2P13 CHYS 2P10 and 2P15 (see program note 1)

Department of Geography Brock University

Niagara Region

500 Glenridge Avenue

St. Catharines, ON

L2S 3A1 Canada

T 905 688 5550 x3484

F 905 688 6369

www.brocku.ca/geography

http://www.brocku.ca/webcal/2015/undergrad/geog.html#GEOG_2P03








http://www.brocku.ca/webcal/2015/undergrad/chys.html#CHYS_2P10


http://www.brocku.ca/webcal/2015/undergrad/ecis.html#Note1-1

http://www.brocku.ca/webcal/2015/undergrad/edgu.html#EDUC_1F95


http://www.brocku.ca/webcal/2015/undergrad/geog.html


http://www.brocku.ca/webcal/2015/undergrad/edbe.html#EDBE_8P50




http://www.brocku.ca/webcal/2015/undergrad/sosc.html












http://www.brocku.ca/webcal/2015/undergrad/ecbs.html#Note1-1

15

EDUC 1F95 Year 3

GEOG 3P56 GEOG 3P21 or 3P22 two and one-half GEOG credits numbered 2(alpha)90 or above (see program note 6) EDBE 8P50 one credit in second teachable subject (see program note 5) one elective credit

Program Notes: 6. Students normally take Geography courses from Group B (see Geography department) and they may select courses from Groups A, and C or D. A minimum of 10.5 academic undergraduate credits in Mathematics and Science must be completed for a BSc Honours degree to be awarded.

Oct 16, 2015 Signature Date CENTRE FOR DIGITAL HUMANITIES Re: URGENT: Course Cross Listing Request - Geography David Hutchison You replied on 19/10/2015 8:48 AM. Sent: October 17, 2015 10:36 AM To: Christopher Fullerton Cc: David Hutchison Dear Chris, I have made the change requested below. Note that I have removed the restriction as there is none below. Regards, David Hutchison, PhD, PMP Professor, Department of Teacher Education, Faculty of Education Director, Centre for Digital Humanities, Faculty of Humanities Brock University > Hello David, > > My sincere apologies. With our impending merger with the Department of Tourism Management, things have been incredibly hectic in the lead up to this year's UPC submissions! > > That said, I must inform you that we have decided not to change the course code from GEOG 2P07 to GEOG 2P20 (for a number of reasons). So, the

http://www.brocku.ca/webcal/2015/undergrad/edgu.html#EDUC_1F95




http://www.brocku.ca/webcal/2015/undergrad/edbe.html#EDBE_8P50




https://mailbox.brocku.ca/owa/?ae=PreFormAction&t=IPM.Note&a=Prev&id=RgAAAABVVsqp8WL0Ro9EAlGprbSVBwCwh%2b%2fyHAuSQZ0hVLW5oFuDAABeki1xAACwh%2b%2fyHAuSQZ0hVLW5oFuDAABelAfTAAAJ&fId=LgAAAABVVsqp8WL0Ro9EAlGprbSVAQCwh%2b%2fyHAuSQZ0hVLW5oFuDAABeki1xAAAB



16

new course name and description will stand, but under the 2P07 code. This is what the calendar entry will now look like. > > *GEOG 2P07 > Introduction to Geospatial Technologies > (also offered as ERSC 2P07 and IASC 2P07) > Concepts and applications of geographic information systems (GIS), global positioning systems (GPS) and remote sensing. Properties of digital maps, airborne data and satellite imagery. Principles of map compilation and design. Practical experience in computer mapping, image interpretation and GIS analysis. > Lectures, lab, 4 hours per week. > > Sorry, again, for this, but I hope you're still able to submit your UPC statement on time! > > Take care for now, > > Chris LABOUR STUDIES Re: LABR/GEOG combined major Nicolas Baxter-Moore You forwarded this message on 27/10/2015 10:09 AM. Sent: October 26, 2015 7:13 PM To: F.F. Martinello; Larry Savage; Elizabeth Wasylowich; Christopher Fullerton Hi all Chris and I figured out a solution. Since Elizabeth is away, Chande transferred editorial control to me and I have made the changes, although Chande hasn't given me a way of submitting them! As soon as he does, decanal approval will be granted and it will go to UPC. Best, Nick Nicolas Baxter-Moore Associate Dean, Undergraduate Studies Faculty of Social Sciences Brock University Phone: 905 688 5550, ext 6352 Email: [email protected] From: "F.F. Martinello" <[email protected]> Date: Monday, 26 October, 2015 12:14 PM To: Larry Savage <[email protected]>, Elizabeth Wasylowich <[email protected]>, Nicolas Baxter-Moore

https://mailbox.brocku.ca/owa/?ae=PreFormAction&t=IPM.Note&a=Prev&id=RgAAAABVVsqp8WL0Ro9EAlGprbSVBwCwh%2b%2fyHAuSQZ0hVLW5oFuDAABeki1xAACwh%2b%2fyHAuSQZ0hVLW5oFuDAABeki2nAAAJ&fId=LgAAAABVVsqp8WL0Ro9EAlGprbSVAQCwh%2b%2fyHAuSQZ0hVLW5oFuDAABeki1xAAAB





https://mailbox.brocku.ca/owa/redir.aspx?C=H9R2eD2tIES2bBrx_L-L0_UQn9gLVNMI_1nITZZWHwXN_34dHyP7Ovzbw2bmNXjyd1wtTpHWt3w.&URL=mailto%3afmartinello%40brocku.ca

https://mailbox.brocku.ca/owa/redir.aspx?C=H9R2eD2tIES2bBrx_L-L0_UQn9gLVNMI_1nITZZWHwXN_34dHyP7Ovzbw2bmNXjyd1wtTpHWt3w.&URL=mailto%3alsavage%40brocku.ca

https://mailbox.brocku.ca/owa/redir.aspx?C=H9R2eD2tIES2bBrx_L-L0_UQn9gLVNMI_1nITZZWHwXN_34dHyP7Ovzbw2bmNXjyd1wtTpHWt3w.&URL=mailto%3aewasylowich%40brocku.ca

17

<[email protected]>, Christopher Fullerton <[email protected]> Subject: RE: LABR/GEOG combined major Hi Nick, et al. I don’t have a copy of the final LABR UPC submission and Elizabeth is away until Nov. 5. The following is what LABR approved for the combined major LABR/GEOG program:

Year 1 LABR 1F90 or 1F99 GEOG 1F90 and 2P21 one Humanities context credit one Sciences context credit one-half elective credit

Year 2 LABR 2P93 one and one-half LABR credits numbered 2(alpha)00 or above GEOG 2P10 and 2P122P07 GEOG 3P21 or 3P22 one and one-half credits from GEOG 2P01, 2P02, 2P03, 2P06, 2P07, 2P13, 2P66 one-half elective credit

which shows 5 and 5 credits each year. As for GEOG 2P21 in Year 1, we asked about that. Chris replied (and my apologies for not asking his permission before reprinting this, but it seems pretty innocuous ) >Yes, we do realize that this complicates things a little bit for our >students, but this is a necessary evil in order for us to structure the >program in a way that we feel will be most beneficial for the students >and their learning outcomes. Rest assured that we are fully committed >to providing the necessary overrides to those wishing to register in >GEOG 2P21 at the same time as GEOG 1F90. Given the small number of students >that this will likely affect, we think this is a manageable approach. and we accepted the rationale and the reassurances. So if there is a mistake in the LABR UPC submission, can the Dean’s office just make the required changes (given that Elizabeth is away)? best, Felice ------------------------------------------------------------- Felice Martinello [email protected]

https://mailbox.brocku.ca/owa/redir.aspx?C=H9R2eD2tIES2bBrx_L-L0_UQn9gLVNMI_1nITZZWHwXN_34dHyP7Ovzbw2bmNXjyd1wtTpHWt3w.&URL=mailto%3anbaxtermoore%40brocku.ca

https://mailbox.brocku.ca/owa/redir.aspx?C=H9R2eD2tIES2bBrx_L-L0_UQn9gLVNMI_1nITZZWHwXN_34dHyP7Ovzbw2bmNXjyd1wtTpHWt3w.&URL=mailto%3acfullerton%40brocku.ca

https://mailbox.brocku.ca/owa/redir.aspx?C=H9R2eD2tIES2bBrx_L-L0_UQn9gLVNMI_1nITZZWHwXN_34dHyP7Ovzbw2bmNXjyd1wtTpHWt3w.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.brocku.ca%2fwebcal%2f2015%2fundergrad%2fgens.html

https://mailbox.brocku.ca/owa/redir.aspx?C=H9R2eD2tIES2bBrx_L-L0_UQn9gLVNMI_1nITZZWHwXN_34dHyP7Ovzbw2bmNXjyd1wtTpHWt3w.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.brocku.ca%2fwebcal%2f2015%2fundergrad%2flabr.html%23LABR_1F99

https://mailbox.brocku.ca/owa/redir.aspx?C=H9R2eD2tIES2bBrx_L-L0_UQn9gLVNMI_1nITZZWHwXN_34dHyP7Ovzbw2bmNXjyd1wtTpHWt3w.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.brocku.ca%2fwebcal%2f2015%2fundergrad%2fgeog.html%23GEOG_1F90

https://mailbox.brocku.ca/owa/redir.aspx?C=H9R2eD2tIES2bBrx_L-L0_UQn9gLVNMI_1nITZZWHwXN_34dHyP7Ovzbw2bmNXjyd1wtTpHWt3w.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.brocku.ca%2fwebcal%2f2015%2fundergrad%2fgens.html

https://mailbox.brocku.ca/owa/redir.aspx?C=H9R2eD2tIES2bBrx_L-L0_UQn9gLVNMI_1nITZZWHwXN_34dHyP7Ovzbw2bmNXjyd1wtTpHWt3w.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.brocku.ca%2fwebcal%2f2015%2fundergrad%2flabr.html%23LABR_2P93

https://mailbox.brocku.ca/owa/redir.aspx?C=H9R2eD2tIES2bBrx_L-L0_UQn9gLVNMI_1nITZZWHwXN_34dHyP7Ovzbw2bmNXjyd1wtTpHWt3w.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.brocku.ca%2fwebcal%2f2015%2fundergrad%2fgeog.html%23GEOG_2P10








https://mailbox.brocku.ca/owa/redir.aspx?C=H9R2eD2tIES2bBrx_L-L0_UQn9gLVNMI_1nITZZWHwXN_34dHyP7Ovzbw2bmNXjyd1wtTpHWt3w.&URL=mailto%3afmartinello%40brocku.ca

18

From: Larry Savage Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 10:22 AM To: Elizabeth Wasylowich; F.F. Martinello Subject: Fwd: LABR/GEOG combined major Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message:

From: Nicolas Baxter-Moore <[email protected]> Date: October 26, 2015 at 10:01:29 AM EDT To: Larry Savage <[email protected]>, Christopher Fullerton <[email protected]> Subject: LABR/GEOG combined major

Hi Larry and Chris Looking at the Labour Studies UPC submission for the combined major LABR/GEOG, I see 5.5 credits required in Year 1 and only 4.5 in Year 2. Should GEOG 2P21 be in Year 2, alongside GEOG 2P07, rather than in Year 1 alongside GEOG 1F90? Best, Nick Nicolas Baxter-Moore Associate Dean, Undergraduate Studies Faculty of Social Sciences Brock University Phone: 905 688 5550, ext 6352 Email: [email protected]

https://mailbox.brocku.ca/owa/redir.aspx?C=H9R2eD2tIES2bBrx_L-L0_UQn9gLVNMI_1nITZZWHwXN_34dHyP7Ovzbw2bmNXjyd1wtTpHWt3w.&URL=mailto%3anbaxtermoore%40brocku.ca

https://mailbox.brocku.ca/owa/redir.aspx?C=H9R2eD2tIES2bBrx_L-L0_UQn9gLVNMI_1nITZZWHwXN_34dHyP7Ovzbw2bmNXjyd1wtTpHWt3w.&URL=mailto%3alsavage%40brocku.ca

https://mailbox.brocku.ca/owa/redir.aspx?C=H9R2eD2tIES2bBrx_L-L0_UQn9gLVNMI_1nITZZWHwXN_34dHyP7Ovzbw2bmNXjyd1wtTpHWt3w.&URL=mailto%3acfullerton%40brocku.ca

https://mailbox.brocku.ca/owa/redir.aspx?C=H9R2eD2tIES2bBrx_L-L0_UQn9gLVNMI_1nITZZWHwXN_34dHyP7Ovzbw2bmNXjyd1wtTpHWt3w.&URL=mailto%3anick.baxter-moore%40brocku.ca

19

EARTH SCIENCES GEOG UPC Submission Richard Cheel You forwarded this message on 27/11/2015 8:37 AM. Sent: November 26, 2015 4:38 PM To: Christopher Fullerton Hi Chris: I’m writing to provide electronic documentation that you consulted with me regarding the de-crosslisting of ERSC 2P17 with GEOG in your UPC submission this Fall and that I understand and support this change. Sincerely, Rick Cheel Chair, Department of Earth Sciences CHILD AND YOUTH STUDIES CHYS/GEOG Program Changes Carol Penner You replied on 14/12/2015 3:38 PM. Sent: December 14, 2015 2:49 PM To: Christopher Fullerton Cc: Donato Tarulli Attachments:

CHYS GEOG Program Change -~1.pdf (27 KB )[Open in Browser] Hi Chris, The CHYS department approved the CHYS/GEOG program changes this morning. Please confirm that Geography supports the changes attached, and I will initiate the calendar change with Evelyn. Thank you. Carol Penner

Administrative Coordinator Brock University | Department of Child and Youth Studies Niagara Region | 1812 Sir Isaac Brock Way | St. Catharines, ON L2S 3A1 brocku.ca | T 905 688 5550 x5242 | F 905 641 2509 Program Note 12 (2015 Program Note 11) Students who opt to take CHYS 2P51 and 2P52 take 2.0 credits from GEOG 2P01, 2P02, 2P03, 2P06, 2P07, 2P13 and the one-half elective credit will not be required. will be required to take CHYS 3P10 in Year 3; students who opt to take CHYS 2P52 will be required to take CHYS 3P15 in Year 3. Child and Youth Studies and Geography Honours

https://mailbox.brocku.ca/owa/?ae=PreFormAction&t=IPM.Note&a=Prev&id=RgAAAABVVsqp8WL0Ro9EAlGprbSVBwCwh%2b%2fyHAuSQZ0hVLW5oFuDAABeki1xAACwh%2b%2fyHAuSQZ0hVLW5oFuDAABelvsCAAAJ&fId=LgAAAABVVsqp8WL0Ro9EAlGprbSVAQCwh%2b%2fyHAuSQZ0hVLW5oFuDAABeki1xAAAB

https://mailbox.brocku.ca/owa/?ae=PreFormAction&t=IPM.Note&a=Prev&id=RgAAAABVVsqp8WL0Ro9EAlGprbSVBwCwh%2b%2fyHAuSQZ0hVLW5oFuDAABeki1xAACwh%2b%2fyHAuSQZ0hVLW5oFuDAABelvsCAAAJ&fId=LgAAAABVVsqp8WL0Ro9EAlGprbSVAQCwh%2b%2fyHAuSQZ0hVLW5oFuDAABeki1xAAAB

https://mailbox.brocku.ca/owa/?ae=PreFormAction&t=IPM.Note&a=Prev&id=RgAAAABVVsqp8WL0Ro9EAlGprbSVBwCwh%2b%2fyHAuSQZ0hVLW5oFuDAABeki1xAACwh%2b%2fyHAuSQZ0hVLW5oFuDAABelvsPAAAJ&fId=LgAAAABVVsqp8WL0Ro9EAlGprbSVAQCwh%2b%2fyHAuSQZ0hVLW5oFuDAABeki1xAAAB



https://mailbox.brocku.ca/owa/attachment.ashx?attach=1&id=RgAAAABVVsqp8WL0Ro9EAlGprbSVBwCwh%2b%2fyHAuSQZ0hVLW5oFuDAABeki1xAACwh%2b%2fyHAuSQZ0hVLW5oFuDAABelvsSAAAJ&attid0=BAAAAAAA&attcnt=1


20

Year 1 · CHYS 1F90 · GEOG 1F90 · PSYC 1F90 · SOCI 1F90 · one Sciences context credit Year 2 · CHYS 2P10, 2P15, 2P35 and 2P38 · CHYS 2P51 and or 2P52, or GEOG 2P10 and 2P12 (see program notes 3 and 11 12) · GEOG 2P21

· one and one-half credits from GEOG 2P01, 2P02, 2P03, 2P06, 2P07, 2P13, 2P66 (see program note 11) · one-half elective credit (see program note 10 11) Year 3 · CHYS 3P10 and GEOG 3P22 or CHYS 3P15 and GEOG 3P21

· one CHYS credit from Cluster A, B or C (see program note 12 13) · GEOG 3P57 · one and one-half GEOG credits numbered 2(alpha)90 to 3(alpha)89 from group A, or C, or D (see Geography

department) · one Humanities context credit Year 4 Students may select one of three options: Individual Thesis option: · CHYS 4F99 and 4P70 (see program note 6) · one-half CHYS credit numbered 3(alpha)90 or above · one-half CHYS credit numbered 4(alpha)00 or above · GEOG 4F99

· two one GEOG credit numbered 3(alpha)90 or above from group A, or C, or D (see Geography department) · one-half elective credit (see program notes 1, 2, 10 11 and 14 15) Applied Research Project option: · CHYS 4F95 and 4P70 (see program note 6) · one-half CHYS credit numbered 3(alpha)90 or above · one-half CHYS credit numbered 4(alpha)00 or above · GEOG 4F99

· two one GEOG credit numbered 3(alpha)90 or above from group A, or C, or D (see Geography department) · one-half elective credit (see program notes 1, 2, 10 11 and 14 15) Course Work option: · CHYS 4F80 · one CHYS credit numbered 3(alpha)90 or above · GEOG 4F99

· two one GEOG credit numbered 3(alpha)90 or above from group A, or C, or D (see Geography department) · one elective credit (see program notes 1, 2, 10 11 and 14 15)

21

Pass Satisfactory completion of the first three years of the Honours program entitles a student to apply for a Pass degree. Course Amendments CHYS 3P10 Qualitative Research Methods in Child and Youth Studies Philosophical assumptions, common qualitative methodologies, their design and procedures, and techniques for writing effective proposals. Overview of contemporary critical thought impacting qualitative research in the social sciences and beyond. Lectures, tutorial, 3 hours per week. Restriction: open to CHYS (single or combined) and CHYS BA (Honours)/BEd (Primary/Junior) majors with a minimum of 7.0 8.0 overall credits. Prerequisite(s): CHYS 2P10, 2P35 and 2P38; one of CHYS 2P51 (2F50) or , GEOG 2P10 and 2P12, SOCI 2P00 (2P13) and 2P11. CHYS 3P15 Quantitative Research Methods in Child and Youth Studies Data screening and descriptive statistics, univariate procedures for correlation and group comparison, multiple regression, data assumptions and statistical software application, including data management and interpretation of results. Lectures, tutorial, 3 hours per week. Restriction: open to CHYS (single or combined) and CHYS BA (Honours)/BEd (Primary/Junior) majors with a minimum of 7.0 8.0 overall credits. Prerequisite(s): CHYS 2P10; one of CHYS 2P52 (2F50), GEOG 2P10 and 2P12, PSYC 2F23, SOCI 2P00 (2P13) and 2P11.

22

Appendix 2: Certification from Dean of Social Sciences, Thomas Dunk

Brock University


(March 2016)

Senate Academic Review Committee


Approval Dates of Revisions: Senate (# XXX – Quality Council –March 24, 2016 Next Revision: Fall 2020 NOTE: revision of this IQAP is subject to ratification by the Quality Council.


gfinn

Typewritten Text

ARC Appendix B Senate Meeting May 11, 2016


TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. OVERVIEW ............................................................................................ 4

1.1. Program ................................................................................... 5 1.2. New Program ............................................................................ 5 1.3. Major Modifications ...................................................................... 6 1.4. Joint and Inter- Institutional Degrees ............................................... 7 1.5. Expedited Approvals .................................................................... 7 1.6. Certificates and Diplomas ............................................................. 8

2. CYCLICAL REVIEWS ................................................................................... 10

2.1. General Framework ................................................................... 10 2.1.1. Non Department/Centre Based Programs ............................... 10 2.1.2. Accreditation Reviews ...................................................... 11

2.2. Timeframe .............................................................................. 11 2.3. Process Summary ...................................................................... 12 2.4. Manual ................................................................................... 13 2.5. Evaluation Criteria ..................................................................... 13

2.5.1. Objectives .................................................................. 13 2.5.2. Admission Requirements ................................................. 14 2.5.3. Curriculum .................................................................. 14 2.5.4. Teaching and Assessment ................................................ 14 2.5.5. Resources ................................................................... 14 2.5.6. Quality Indicators .......................................................... 14 2.5.7. Quality Enhancement ..................................................... 15 2.5.8. Additional Graduate Program Criteria ................................. 15

2.6. Schedule ................................................................................. 15 2.7. Preparation of Self Study ............................................................. 16 2.8. The Review Committee ............................................................... 16 2.9. List of Interviewees ................................................................... 17 2.10. Site Visit and Report ................................................................. 18 2.11. Comments/Responses ............................................................... 19

2.11.1. Academic Unit Response ................................................ 19 2.11.2. UPC/SGSC Response ..................................................... 20 2.11.3. Decanal Response ........................................................ 20

2.12. Final Assessment Report ............................................................ 20 2.13. Quality Council Submission ......................................................... 21 2.14. Publication of Results ................................................................ 21 2.15. Monitoring of Review Results ....................................................... 21 2.16. Report to Board of Trustees ........................................................ 21

3. NEW PROGRAM APPROVALS ........................................................................... 22

3.1. General Framework ................................................................... 22 3.2. Timeframe ............................................................................... 22 3.3. Process Summary ...................................................................... 22 3.4. Statement of Intent ................................................................... 24 3.5. Evaluation Criteria ..................................................................... 24

3.5.1. Objectives .................................................................. 25 3.5.2. Admission Requirements ................................................. 25 3.5.3. Structure ..................................................................... 25 3.5.4. Program Content .......................................................... 25 3.5.5. Mode(s) of Delivery ........................................................ 25 3.5.6. Assessment of Teaching and Learning ................................... 25 3.5.7. Student Demand ........................................................... 26


3.5.8. Societal Need .............................................................. 26 3.5.9. Resources for all Programs ................................................ 26 3.5.10. Resources for Graduate Programs Only ............................... 26 3.5.11. Resources for Undergraduate Programs Only ......................... 26 3.5.12. Quality and Other Indicators ............................................ 27 3.5.13. Program Duplication ...................................................... 27 3.5.14. Fields in a Graduate Program (optional) .............................. 27

3.6. Program Proposal Brief ............................................................... 27 3.7. Reviewers ............................................................................... 27 3.8. List of Interviewees ................................................................... 28 3.9. Site Visit and Report .................................................................. 29 3.10. Proponents Response ................................................................. 30 3.11. UPC/SGSC Response ................................................................. 30 3.12. Decanal Response ..................................................................... 30 3.13. Program Proposal Brief Revision .................................................... 30 3.14. Assessment ............................................................................. 30 3.15. Publication of Results ................................................................ 31 3.16. Report to Board of Trustees ........................................................ 31 3.17. Subsequent Processes ................................................................ 31

4. MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING PROGRAMS ............................................................ 32

4.1. Request for Major Modification ...................................................... 32 4.2. Assessment .............................................................................. 32

5. APPROVAL AND REVIEW OF JOINT PROGRAMS ........................................................ 34 6. PROGRAM DISCONTINUATION .......................................................................... 36

6.1. Request for Program Discontinuation ................................................ 36 6.2. Assessment .............................................................................. 36 6.3. Communication ........................................................................ 36

Acronyms ARC – Senate Academic Review Committee AVPA – Associate Vice President, Academic COU – Council of Ontario Universities FAR – Final Assessment Report GDLE – Graduate Degree Level Expectations IA&P – Institutional Analysis and Planning IQAP – Internal Quality Assurance Processes MTCU – Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities OCAV – Ontario Council of Academic Vice Presidents PPB – Program Proposal Brief RMM – Request for a Major Modification QAF – Quality Assurance Framework QC – Quality Council SGSC – Senate Graduate Studies Committee SOI – Statement of Intent UDLE – Undergraduate Degree Level Expectations UPC – Senate Undergraduate Program Committee


1. OVERVIEW

Senate is Brock University's chief academic decision-making body. It determines the educational policy of the institution and monitors the academic quality of all programs. Senate also has a major role in ensuring the operating budget’s consistency with the educational policy. A continuous process of quality assurance related to existing and new programs is critical to the discharge of these responsibilities. The University's procedures and guidelines governing academic review are set out in this document, the Internal Quality Assurance Process (IQAP). The processes described in this IQAP are necessitated by the Council of Ontario Universities (COU). The COU established a Quality Assurance Framework (QAF) for all Ontario universities and an agency to administer that framework: the Ontario Universities Council for Quality Assurance (or Quality Council (QC)). The Quality Council oversees, coordinates and audits the quality assurance processes within each Ontario University (see: http://www.oucqa.ca/). The QC has three major functions. First, the council approved the initial IQAP developed by each university in Ontario; now, all changes or revisions to any IQAP must also be approved by the QC. Second, the council receives Final Assessment Reports for each cyclical review of existing programs. Third, the council is charged with the approval of new program proposals prior to submission to the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (MTCU) for funding. In this context, Senate established a special committee to administer the University's IQAP: the Academic Review Committee (ARC). The IQAP describes all of the processes by which existing academic programs are reviewed, modified or terminated, and by which new programs are introduced, at the University. Hence, ARC is responsible for the coordination, monitoring and implementation of all aspects of these processes. ARC is directly accountable and responsible to Senate through the Provost and Vice-President, Academic, an ex officio member of Senate. ARC regularly reports to Senate through the Provost with updates and/or recommendations for the consideration of Senate. The mandate of the Academic Review Committee can be found at: http://www.brocku.ca/university-secretariat/facultyhandbook/section2#_genIndex46. Responsibility for the conduct of academic reviews, major modifications to existing programs and the evaluation of new academic programs lies with the Provost. The Provost shall be the “authoritative contact” between Brock University and the Quality Council.

Brock’s IQAP will apply to the consideration of all graduate and undergraduate academic programs (see definition below), delivered in either a face-to-face or hybrid or online setting, including any offered jointly or in collaboration with other institutions. All graduate diploma programs that include credit courses, are covered by this policy. The IQAP replaces:







1.2. New Program

Any degree, degree program, or program of specialization, currently approved by Senate or equivalent governing body, which has not been previously approved for that institution by the Quality Council, its predecessors, or any intra-institutional approval processes that previously applied. A change of name, only, does not constitute a new program; nor does the inclusion of a new program of specialization where another with the same designation already exists (e.g., a new honours program where a major with the same designation already exists). To clarify, a ‘new program’ is brand-new: that is to say, the program has substantially different program requirements and substantially different learning outcomes from those of any existing approved programs offered by the institution. Examples of what constitutes a ‘new program’ are provided in the Quality Assurance Guide. [http://oucqa.ca/resources-publications/guide-to-quality-assurance-processes/]

Not-for-credit and for-credit undergraduate certificate programs are not subject to approval or audit by the Quality Council.



The Protocol for New Programs with Expedited Approvals applies to new graduate diplomas, new fields to existing graduate degrees, and joint degrees and intra/inter-institutional degree programs (dual credential, joint, and conjoint degrees) when a parent program already exists.



1.3. Major Modifications







learning outcomes and/or required resources) which effectively reorganize the program, impact another Faculty, or result in significant additional resource requirements;








Major modifications to existing programs do not require submission of a Proposal Brief to the Quality Council except when the University requests endorsement of the Quality Council, through the expedited review process. (Section 1.5)


Modifications to existing minors, concentrations and options (which do not require Quality Council approval) are handled internally through the annual calendar submission process, overseen by the UPC or SGSC, respectively.


1.4. Joint and Inter-Institutional Degrees



(b) dual credential programs are programs of study offered by Brock and one or more universities or by Brock and a college or institute, including Institutes of Technology and Advanced Learning, in which successful completion of the requirements is confirmed by a separate and different degree/diploma document being awarded by each of the participating institutions; and



1.5. Expedited Approvals

In cases of expedited reviews, the Office of the AVPA submits a Senate approved proposal brief together with the rationale for the change or new program to the Quality Council. The proposal is reviewed based only on applicable elements of the quality assurance criteria that would be employed for a full review. The appraisal and approval processes are significantly reduced.


(a) a proposal for a new graduate Collaborative Program;


(b) a proposal for a new for-credit Graduate Diploma. Note that Graduate diploma programs require Quality Council Expedited Approval (no external reviewers required) prior to their adoption. Once approved, such programs will be incorporated into the university’s schedule for cyclical reviews as part of the parent program;




That the University proceed with the proposed changes/new programs.

OR That it consult further with the University over details of interest or concern regarding the proposed changes/new programs. Normally, these subsequent consultations will be brief and affirmative in their outcome.

1.6. Certificates and Diplomas





Yes Yes Yes Yes





Yes Yes Maybe Yes3


Yes Yes No Yes3


Yes Yes Yes Yes



2. CYCLICAL REVIEWS 2.1. General Framework


For the purposes of this IQAP, a program is defined as a set of courses, with defined learning outcomes, approved by Senate to constitute all or part of the requirements for a degree designation offered by Brock University.

The Academic Review Committee (ARC) shall oversee academic reviews. The Terms of Reference and composition of ARC are set out in Faculty Handbook II: 9.13 (see http://www.brocku.ca/university-secretariat/facultyhandbook/section2#_genIndex49.

Academic Reviews shall be carried out under the general supervision of the Provost and the appropriate Deans. For undergraduate reviews, the appropriate Dean(s) shall be the Dean(s) of the Faculty (or Faculties) within which the academic unit resides. For graduate reviews, the appropriate Deans shall be both the Dean of Graduate Studies and the Dean(s) of the relevant Faculty (or Faculties). Cyclical academic reviews are required under the Quality Assurance Framework. The Provost, as the authoritative contact with the QC, ensures that the reviews are conducted in a timely manner and communicates the results, upon completion of each review, to the Council. A listing of programs offered by Brock University which are subject to the cyclical review process, as defined in this IQAP, can be found on the University’s Quality Assurance website at: http://www.brocku.ca/vp-academic/quality-assurance.


The cyclical review of discipline based programs, e.g. Policing and Criminal Justice, Applied Health Sciences Graduate Program, Interdisciplinary PhD in Humanities, will follow the same process and standards applicable to Department/Centre based programs as outlined in the IQAP. The cyclical review of non-discipline based programs, e.g. Bachelor of Arts in General Humanities, Bachelor of Arts in Social Sciences, Bachelor of Science, Integrated Studies, will be subject to the same process and standards applicable to


Department/Centre based programs as outlined in the IQAP. The only modification to the IQAP necessary to review such non-discipline based program will involve the makeup of the review team for the program. As discipline specific reviewers for this type of program may not be easily identified, the composition of the review team will consist of two internal reviewers with knowledge of interdisciplinary programs and one external reviewer with expertise in interdisciplinary studies. Details of the review of non-discipline based programs will be coordinated between the Dean(s) of the host Faculty(s) and the Office of the AVPA at the time the program is confirmed for review. For such non-discipline based programs, the identification of specific learning outcomes is required and will reflect the program of study being followed and the needs of the individual learner. Mapping the curriculum of such programs to a ‘standard’ may not be feasible and as a result such programs will have identified very broad program level learning outcomes, linked to degree level expectations, which will be augmented by the actual course level learning outcomes comprising the program of study being followed. 2.1.2. Accreditation Reviews The Quality Assurance Framework indicates that the Brock University IQAP may allow for and specify the substitution or addition of documents or processes associated with the accreditation of a program, for components of the institutional program review process, when it is fully consistent with the requirements established in the Framework. A record of substitutions or additions and the grounds on which it was made, will be eligible for audit by the Quality Council. Well in advance of the accreditation review, the Office of the AVPA will be provided with a copy of the accreditation review template to compare with the Brock IQAP. The AVPA, in consultation with ARC and the Dean(s), will review the guidelines for the accreditation process, the degree of alignment with the IQAP, and determine what additional materials or processes may be necessary to ensure compliance with the IQAP. The outcome of the comparison and discussion may be that: 1) The accreditation review will be accepted as meeting all the criteria for a cyclical




2.2. Timeframe

Ideally, program review is an ongoing process that begins two years in advance of a site visit, for which a unit prepares a Self Study, and continues through to the next review eight years in the future. The process begins with the Provost confirming with


the Deans the list of programs to be reviewed. A detailed timeline and summary of the process follows.












January 2017



















Upon Approval


Upon Approval





2.4. Manual

The Office of the AVPA publishes a Self Study Manual that will provide administrative details with respect to review policies and practices (see http://www.brocku.ca/vp-academic/quality-assurance).

The manual provides guidance on the preparation of rigorous, objective and reflective Self Studies and serves to reinforce the potential benefits that can accrue from an effective Self Study. It will also identify responsibilities for the collection, aggregation and distribution of institutional data and outcome measures required for Self Studies, and specify the format required. In the instance of a discrepancy between the IQAP and the Manual, the IQAP will take precedence.


The Self Study for the review of existing undergraduate or graduate programs must address each of the evaluation criteria set out below.

2.5.1. Objectives

Program is consistent with the institution’s mission and academic plans.


Program requirements and learning outcomes are clear, appropriate and align with the Faculty’s statement of the Undergraduate Degree Level Expectations (UDLE) and/or Graduate Degree Level Expectations (GDLE). Explicit learning outcomes, for both undergraduate and graduate programs being reviewed, mapped to the program curricula, must be developed by the unit and included in the Self Study document.




2.5.3. Curriculum

The curriculum reflects the current state of the discipline or area of study. Evidence of any significant innovation or creativity in the content and/or

delivery of the program relative to other such programs. Mode(s) of delivery to meet the program’s identified learning outcomes are

appropriate and effective.

2.5.4. Teaching and Assessment Methods for assessing student achievement of the defined learning outcomes

and degree level expectations are appropriate and effective. Appropriateness and effectiveness of the means of assessment, especially in

the students’ final year of the program, in clearly demonstrating achievement of the program learning objectives and the institution’s (or the Program’s own) statement of Degree Level Expectations.

2.5.5. Resources


2.5.6. Quality Indicators







2.5.7. Quality Enhancement

Initiatives taken to enhance the quality of the program and the associated learning and teaching environment. This will include the disposition of concerns and recommendations raised in previous reviews, and areas identified through the conduct of the Self Study that require attention and/or that hold promise for enhancement.


2.5.8. Additional Graduate Program Criteria








2.6. Schedule

The Provost, in consultation with the Deans, shall determine an eight-year schedule for the review of all programs and shall identify the academic units responsible for those programs. Under very exceptional circumstances, a Dean may request, in writing, either the review of a particular program or a delay in a scheduled review.

The Provost, in consultation with the Deans, shall confirm by January 31st, two years in advance of the site visit, the programs to be reviewed and shall report this information to the February meeting of Senate.


In October, one year in advance of the site visit, the Office of the AVPA will conduct an orientation session for those responsible for Self Studies in academic units and


programs designated to be reviewed in the subsequent year. This session will include a review of the process, the required contents of the Self Study document and the nature of the data being provided to inform the review process.

In January Institutional Analysis and Planning (IA&P) will provide the unit with student and alumni survey results. Following the November 1 headcount report, IA&P will provide each academic unit with historical and current data as a starting point for inclusion and analysis in the unit’s Self Study.


The Self Study prepared by the Unit provides the foundational document by which the reviewers will undertake their evaluation of the academic quality of the programs offered. As such, the Self Study should be broad-based, reflective, forward-looking and will include a critical analysis of the Unit and the academic programs offered. Under the leadership of a Lead Author a committee comprised of faculty, staff and students, in consultation with all faculty, staff and students associated with the program, prepares an effective Self Study that meets the above goal.The input of others deemed to be relevant and useful, such as graduates of the program, representatives of industry, the professions, practical training programs and employers must also be included.



The Self Study shall be confidential to the Reviewers, Deans, ARC and the Office of the AVPA and others as appropriate.

2.8. The Review Committee



one internal reviewer who is a Brock faculty member from outside the Faculty (or interdisciplinary group) engaged in the program. This faculty


member is not required to have knowledge of the discipline, need not be someone familiar with the operation of the program under review should be at “arm’s length” and have experience in program development and delivery. He/she actively participates in the review; however the main task of writing the Reviewers’ Report shall fall to the external reviewers. In advance of the site visit, all internal reviewers will be invited to an orientation session.







Full disclosure of all past affiliation(s) is required to assist in reviewer selection and to ensure an “arm’s length” relationship. The reviewers will be associate or full professors, or the equivalent, with program management experience.

By September 1st,the Unit shall develop and submit to the Office of the AVPA a list of at least six potential external reviewers and four potential internal reviewers, along with a brief profile on their area of expertise and qualifications for the task (if known). From this list the Dean(s) will be asked to provide a ranking of the nominees. Subsequently, the Provost, in consultation with the Dean(s), shall select a final Review Committee. On approval of the Self Study by ARC, the membership of the review team will be communicated to the Unit and the relevant Dean(s).


By September 1st, the unit shall prepare and submit, to the Office of the AVPA, a list of names of those individuals to be interviewed by the reviewers. The Office of the AVPA will coordinate the scheduling of meetings between those identified by the Unit and the reviewersfor the site visit.

Interviewees shall include: Chair/Director all faculty associated with the Unit (including cross-appointed and limited term

faculty, if appropriate); administrative staff associated with the Unit;


a representative sample of students associated with the program (with no faculty present);

representatives of the Library; faculty from cognate disciplines; for units with Co-op programs, representatives of the Co-op Office; the Provost; the relevant Dean(s); and, others as deemed appropriate.


The Office of the AVPA shall forward the approved Self Study and any related materials to the reviewers.


The Office of the AVPA, in consultation with the relevant Dean(s), shall provide an on-site orientation for the Reviewers. The purpose of this orientation is to ensure that the reviewers:





6. Respect the confidentiality required for all aspects of the review process.

In accordance with the evaluation criteria outlined above (Section 2.5), the reviewers will be invited to:


provide an external perspective on the program in terms of its comparability with similar programs elsewhere, its stature on a national scale, and its success in producing excellent graduates.


Excellent Quality

The program is of excellent quality with strong student demand and a national or international reputation for producing high quality graduates. Few changes are required. There will be a commitment to maintain the leadership role of the program and perhaps enhance program


strength. Good Quality


Good Quality With Concerns

The program shows continuing vitality. The review has identified weaknesses that must be addressed. There is confidence that implementation of the action plan will address the reviewers’ concerns and move the program to Good Quality status. There will be a commitment to maintain program strength.

Non-Viable The program has shown fundamental deficiencies and little academic vitality over an extended period. No realistic plan is available to improve the program to Good Quality. The program will be recommended for closure.

Within four weeks of the site visit, the reviewers shall submit their report to the Office of the AVPA,


Executive Summary Outcome Category (See above) Outline of the Visit Program Strengths Feedback on each of the Evaluation Criteria within Section 2.5 of the IQAP Other Issues Recommendations Confidential Recommendations/Comments

A report template is available and is provided to the reviewers to assist in drafting their report. The Reviewers’ Report will not be treated as a public document, however any and all recommendations shall be treated as public information. Also, if deemed warranted by the reviewers, they may submit confidential recommendations and/or comments relating to personnel issues or other matters specifically involving individuals. These will be treated as confidential to the Dean(s), the academic unit and ARC.

The Office of the AVPA will distribute copies of the Reviewers’ Report to the academic Unit, the Dean(s), ARC, and UPC and/or SGSC (as appropriate), with the exclusion of any confidential recommendations/comments as appropriate.

2.11. Comments/Responses

2.11.1. Academic Unit Response The academic unit shall develop a response, within four weeks of receiving the report, to the comments, observations and recommendations contained in the Reviewers’


Report and shall submit that response to the Office of the AVPA, who shall then submit it to ARC.

If the reviewers have submitted confidential recommendations, the unit response, if any, will be treated as confidential to the Dean(s) and ARC.

2.11.2. UPC/SGSC Response The UPC or SGSC shall be invited to provide comment on the Reviewers’ Report and shall submit any such comments to the Office of the AVPA (normally within four weeks of receiving the report). In formulating their response to the Report, UPC and SGSC shall address the reviewer’s recommendations and how they align with respect to current policies, procedures and guidelines of the University. As well UPC and SGSC are to address the broader implications that implementation of the specific recommendations, which lie outside the evaluation criteria (Section 2.5) used by ARC in its assessment of the program, would have on the institution as a whole.

2.11.3. Decanal Response Upon receipt, copies of the Unit response and the responses from UPC and/or SGSC, as appropriate, will be forwarded to the Dean(s).

After consultation with the Provost and the academic unit, the relevant Dean(s) shall submit to the Office of the AVPA his/her/their responses to:

the recommendations advanced by the reviewers; and the unit’s response to the Reviewers’ Report.



the resources, financial and otherwise, that would be required in supporting the implementation of selected recommendations; and


2.12. Final Assessment Report

After examining all materials submitted by the unit, the Dean(s), and the appropriate Senate Committee (UPC or SCGS), ARC shall prepare a draft Final Assessment Report. This report will:

identify the significant strengths of the program; assign an outcome category identify opportunities for program improvement and enhancement; summarize responses to each recommendation; identify and explain the circumstances relating to any recommendations that










2.13. Quality Council Submission

After approval of the Final Assessment Report by Senate, the Office of the AVPA will submit all required documentation to the Quality Council.


Following Senate approval, the FAR will be posted on the University Quality Assurance website. Other documents (Self Study, Reviewers’ Report and responses to the Reviewers’ report) will not be made publically accessible.

2.15. Monitoring of Review Results


Within four years of the date of Senate approval of the Final Assessment Report, the unit will submit to ARC a report documenting the implementation of the various recommendations noted in the Final Assessment Report.

Upon approval, ARC will report to Senate on Four-Year Reports received and post them on the University Quality Assurance website.


The Provost shall report annually to the Board of Trustees the results of all program reviews.


3. NEW PROGRAM APPROVALS

3.1. General Framework

The review and assessment of new programs to be introduced by the University is mandated by the Quality Council and as such, all new programs will be subject to an academic assessment prior to being offered. The Provost, as the authoritative contact with the Quality Council, communicates the results of the assessment process to the Quality Council upon Senate’s approval of the new program. In addition, the Provost also forwards any new program proposals, approved by the Quality Council, to MTCU.

For the purposes of this IQAP, a new program is defined in Section 1.2.

ARC shall oversee the appraisal of new programs. The Terms of Reference and composition of ARC are set out in Faculty Handbook II: 9.13.(see: http://www.brocku.ca/university-secretariat/facultyhandbook/section2#_genIndex46

The appraisal of new programs shall be carried out under the general supervision of the Provost and the appropriate Deans. For new undergraduate programs, the appropriate Dean(s) shall be the Dean(s) of the Faculty (or Faculties) within which the proposed program will reside. For new graduate programs, the appropriate Deans shall be both the Dean of Graduate Studies and the Dean(s) of the relevant Faculty (or Faculties).

3.2. Timeframe
















Proponent submits PPB to the Office of the AVPA. Proponent submits: 1) a list of proposed reviewers (external and internal), including a brief profile of each nominee; and 2) a list of interviewees, to the Office of the AVPA.
















3.4. Statement of Intent

Any unit or group of units intending to introduce a new program must first submit a Statement of Intent (SOI) to the Office of the AVPA.

A Statement of Intent shall include: a description of the program, clearly stating the purpose, structure and

pedagogical rationale, including an explanation for the degree nomenclature; details of the existing and new resources, especially space needs, required to

mount the program; an explanation as to how the program fits with the University’s academic plan; evidence of consultation with all academic units affected; evidence of consultation regarding space needs for the proposed program; evidence of student demand including projected enrollments; evidence of societal need; evidence that any duplicative similarities to existing programs, internally,



any participating department(s)/centre(s) must provide evidence indicating the extent to which they are prepared to contribute.

For programs intending to commence in September of any given year, the SOI must be submitted at least 18 months in advance, i.e. by March 1st, in order to ensure sufficient time for completion of the review process.







Approved SOIs will expire 24 months after approval if a PPB is not submitted.



If the Statement of Intent is approved by ARC, the unit(s) shall prepare a Program Proposal Brief which will address the following criteria:

3.5.1. Objectives






Sufficient explanation of alternative requirements, if any, for admission into a graduate, second-entry or undergraduate program, such as minimum grade point average, additional language requirements or portfolios, along with how the program assesses and recognizes prior work or learning experience.

3.5.3. Structure



3.5.4. Program Content




Evidence that each graduate student in the program is required to take a minimum of two-thirds of the course requirements from among graduate level courses.

3.5.5. Mode(s) of Delivery

The appropriateness of the proposed mode(s) of delivery in meeting the program’s intended learning outcomes and degree level expectations.

3.5.6. Assessment of Teaching and Learning

Appropriateness of the proposed methods for the assessment of student achievement of the intended program learning outcomes and degree level expectations.


Completeness of plans for documenting and demonstrating the level of performance of students, consistent with the institution’s statement of its degree level expectations.

3.5.7. Student Demand

Evidence that there is a demand for the new degree/program on the part of potential students. This will include projected enrolment levels (and the bases for those projections), application statistics, projected origins of student demand (e.g., domestic or international), and the duration of the projected demand.

3.5.8. Societal Need

Evidence that there is a need for graduates of the proposed degree/major on the part of society. This may include the availability of positions upon graduation (e.g., by letters from potential employers or governmental agencies). In the case of professional programs, their congruence with the regulatory requirements of the profession must be assessed.

3.5.9. Resources for All Programs





3.5.10. Resources for Graduate Programs Only




3.5.11. Resources for Undergraduate Programs Only





3.5.12. Quality and Other Indicators




3.6. Program Proposal Brief

The Office of the AVPA publishes a Program Proposal Brief Manual that will provide administrative details with respect to review policies and practices (see http://www.brocku.ca/vp-academic/quality-assurance).

The manual provides guidance on the preparation of rigorous, objective and reflective Program Proposal Brief and serves to reinforce the potential benefits that can accrue from an effective Brief. The Manual specifies the format required for the Brief and the contents to be included. In the instance of a discrepancy between the IQAP and the PPB Manual, the IQAP will take precedence. The Proponents shall submit the PPB to the Office of the AVPA. Upon receipt and prior to its consideration by ARC, the PPB shall be forwarded to the relevant Dean(s) for review and comment. After consideration, ARC shall:

i. approve the PPB; or, ii. request the Proponent to revise the PPB for re-submission; or, iii. reject the PPB.

Proponents of a new program and the relevant Dean(s) shall be invited to attend the ARC meetings where the PPB is discussed.

The PPB will be treated as confidential to the relevant Dean(s), the reviewers, ARC, the Office of the AVPA and others as appropriate.

3.7. Reviewers

At the time of submission of a PPB the Proponents will provide the Office of the AVPA with a list of six potential external reviewers and four potential internal reviewers to undertake the appraisal, along with a brief profile on their area of expertise and


qualifications for the task (if known). From this list the Dean(s) will be asked to provide the Provost with a ranking of the nominees prior to the Provost making the final selection of the Review Committee.







be a close friend or relative of a participant in the proposed program; have been a research supervisor of a participant in the proposed program,

within the past six years; have been a graduate student of a participant in the proposed program within

the past six years; have collaborated with a participant of the proposed program within the past

six years or have plans to collaborate with them in the immediate future; or, have been a visiting scholar/teacher in the unit in the past six years.


The external review of a new graduate program must incorporate an on-site visit. The external review of a new undergraduate program proposal will normally be conducted on site. Once confirmed the membership of the Review Committee will be communicated to the Proponents and the relevant Dean(s).


At the time of submission of the PPB, the Proponents shall prepare and submit, to the Office of the AVPA, a list of names of those individuals to be interviewed by the reviewers. The Office of the AVPA will coordinate the scheduling of meetings between those individuals identified and the reviewers during the site visit.



all faculty to be associated with the proposed program (including cross-appointed and limited term faculty, if appropriate);

administrative staff to be associated with the program; if possible, a representative sample of students who might be associated with

the program; representatives of the Library; faculty from cognate disciplines; the Provost; the relevant Dean(s), and others as deemed appropriate.


The Office of the AVPA shall forward the approved PPB and any related materials to the reviewers.

The Office of the AVPA, in consultation with the Proponents and the relevant Dean(s), shall establish a time frame for the review.


The reviewers will normally provide a joint report that appraises the standards and quality of the proposed program and addresses the criteria set out in Section 3.5 above, including the associated faculty and material resources. They will also be invited to acknowledge any clearly innovative aspects of the proposed program together with recommendations on any essential or otherwise desirable modifications to it. The reviewers may submit recommendations and/or comments relating to personnel issues or other matters specifically involving individuals that will be treated as confidential.

The reviewers shall submit their report to the Office of the AVPA, normally within four weeks of the site visit. The Reviewers’ Report will remain confidential to the Proponents, the Dean(s), the Provost and ARC.

The Reviewers’ Report should be organized according to the evaluation criteria listed in Section 3.5 above, with particular attention to learning outcomes, modes of delivery, and suggested improvements to the program. A report template is available and is provided to the reviewers to assist in drafting their report.

Upon receipt the Reviewers’ Report the Office of the AVPA will distribute copies of the Report to:

the Proponents; either the UPC (forundergraduate programs) or the SGSC (for graduate

programs);


the relevant Dean(s); and ARC.

3.10. Proponents Response

Within four weeks of receiving the Reviewers’ Report the Proponents shall develop a response to the comments, observations and recommendations contained in the report and shall submit that response to the Office of the AVPA.

The Proponents response will be treated as a public document. However, if the reviewers have submitted confidential comments, the Proponents response, if any, to those comments will be treated as confidential to the Dean(s) and ARC.

3.11. UPC/SGSC Response

Within four week of receiving the Reviewers’ Report UPC or SGSC shall develop a response to the comments, observations and recommendations contained in the report and submit such a response to the Office of the AVPA. In formulating their response to the Report, UPC and SGSC shall address the reviewer’s recommendations and how they align with respect to current policies, procedures and guidelines of the University. As well UPC and SGSC are to address the broader implications that implementation of the specific recommendations, which lie outside the evaluation criteria (Section 3.5) used by ARC in its assessment of the program, would have on the institution as a whole.


The Office of the AVPA will forward the Proponents and UPC/SGSC responses to the relevant Dean(s), who, after consultation with the Provost, shall submit to the Office of the AVPA his/her/their responses to:







3.14. Assessment









Following approval by Senate, the final Program Proposal Brief will be posted on the University Quality Assurance website.


The Provost shall report annually to the Board of Trustees on all new programs approved by Senate and the Quality Council during the preceding year.


After a new program is approved (by both the Quality Council and Senate) to commence, the program must begin within twenty-four months of the date of Senate approval. Four years after admitting its first students, a new program must submit to ARC a progress report reflecting its Program Proposal Brief as approved by Senate and the Quality Council. The first cyclical review for any new program will occur no later than eight years of the date of the program’s initial enrolment in accordance with the University’s academic review schedule.


4. MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING PROGRAMS

4.1. Request for Major Modification

Any unit or group of units intending to propose major modifications to an existing program must first submit a Request for Major Modification to ARC. Should UPC or SCGS determine that a proposal received as part of the Calendar construction process constitutes a major modification, it shall refer that proposal to ARC for its consideration. Proponents are reminded that for Major Modifications requiring an expedited review (See IQAP Section 1.5), the Request must address the applicable elements of the quality assurance evaluation criteria employed for a full review as defined in Section 3.5.

A Request for Major Modification shall include:

a detailed description of the changes to the program; the pedagogical rationale for the changes being proposed; impact of changes on students; details of the resource implications (if any) of the changes; an explanation as to how the revised program would fit with the University’s



A Request for Major Modification can be submitted at any time. However, Departments/Centres should be aware of internal University calendar deadlines.

Where possible ARC shall provide a response to the unit within four weeks of receipt of the request. A representative of the program requesting a Major Modification and the relevant Dean(s) will be invited to attend the ARC meeting where the request is discussed.

4.2. Assessment

ARC will examine and evaluate all materials submitted by the Department/Centre related to the Request for a Major Modification. On the basis of its evaluation of the Request, ARC will:



iii. reject the Request.


In the event that the Request is rejected by ARC, the Proponents must wait 24 months before resubmitting the Request for consideration. Final approval of the Request for a Major Modification lies with Senate.


5. APPROVAL AND REVIEW OF JOINT PROGRAMS OFFERED BY TWO OF MORE INSTITUTIONS

The introduction of new and the review of existing joint programs and other inter-institutional programs shall be governed by the IQAPs of the participating institution(s) granting the degree. Partner institutions may, but are not required, to use joint IQAPs (which require the same approval process as IQAPs for individual institutions). Whether a joint, or separately approved IQAP is used, or whether the separate institutions prefer to build their joint processes into their separate IQAPs, the following are suggested for inclusion in the IQAP related to both new program approval and cyclical program reviews. The Provost will work with the partner institution’s counterpart office to ensure that the requirements of both institution’s quality assurance policies and procedures will be met such that duplication is reduced and streamlines the process as much as possible. Specifically:

The Self Study/Program Proposal Brief clearly explains how input was received from

faculty, staff and students at each partner institution.

There will be a single Self Study, for cyclical reviews, or single Program Proposal Brief for new program approvals.

The selection of reviewers involves participation by each partner institution.

Where applicable, selection of the “internal” reviewer requires joint input:



The site visit involves all partner institutions and preferably all sites (with exceptions noted below). Reviewers shall consult with faculty, staff and students at each partner institution as part of the site visit.

Feedback on the Reviewers’ Report is solicited from participating units in each partner

institution, including the Dean(s).

Preparation of a Final Assessment Report and an Implementation Plan requires input from each partner.

There is a single Final Assessment Report and Implementation Plan which goes through

the appropriate governance process at each partner institution.

The Final Assessment Report and Implementation Plan are posted on each university’s respective website


NOTE: For all inter-institutional programs in which all partners are institutions within Ontario, the Quality Council’s standard for New Program Approval and Cyclical Program Review Processes will apply to all elements of


program regardless of which partner offers them, including Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology and Institutes of Technology and Advanced Learning. For joint and collaborative programs in which some partners are institutions outside of Ontario, the elements of the programs contributed by the out-of-province partner will be subject to the quality assurance processes in their respective jurisdictions. The Quality Council will maintain a directory of bodies whose post-secondary assurance processes are recognized and accepted as being comparable to our own. In cases where such recognition is not available, the Quality Council will determine, on a case-by-case basis, the appropriate action to be taken on quality assurance if the collaboration is to be permitted to proceed.


6. PROGRAM DISCONTINUATION










6.2. Assessment




6.3. Communication


Brock University


(May 18, 2011JanuaryMarch 2016)

Quality Assurance Planning Committee Greg Finn

Marilyn Rose Pat BeardSenate Academic Review Committee


Approval Dates of Revisions: Senate (# XXX – Quality Council –March 24, 2016 Next Revision: Fall 2020 NOTE: revision of this IQAP is subject to ratification by the Quality Council.


gfinn

Typewritten Text

ARC Appendix C Senate Meeting May 11, 2016


TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. OVERVIEW ........................................................................................... 4

1.1. Program .................................................................................. 5 1.2. New Program ........................................................................... 5 1.3. Major Modifications ..................................................................... 6 1.4. Joint and Inter- Institutional Degrees .............................................. 7 1.5. Expedited Approvals ................................................................... 7 1.6. Certificates and Diplomas ............................................................ 8

2. CYCLICAL REVIEWS .................................................................................. 10

2.1. General Framework .................................................................. 10 2.1.1. Non Department/Centre Based Programs ............................... 10 2.1.2. Accreditation Reviews ..................................................... 11

2.2. Timeframe ............................................................................. 11 2.3. Process Summary ..................................................................... 12 2.4. Manual .................................................................................. 13 2.5. Evaluation Criteria ................................................................... 13

2.5.1. Objectives ................................................................. 13 2.5.2. Admission Requirements ................................................. 14 2.5.3. Curriculum ................................................................. 14 2.5.4. Teaching and Assessment ................................................ 14 2.5.5. Resources .................................................................. 14 2.5.6. Quality Indicators ......................................................... 14 2.5.7. Quality Enhancement .................................................... 15 2.5.8. Additional Graduate Program Criteria ................................. 15

2.6. Schedule ............................................................................... 15 2.7. Preparation of Self Study ............................................................ 16 2.8. The Review Committee .............................................................. 16 2.9. List of Interviewees .................................................................. 17 2.10. Site Visit and Report ................................................................ 18 2.11. Comments/Responses .............................................................. 19

2.11.1. Academic Unit Response ............................................... 19 2.11.2. UPC/SGSC Response .................................................... 20 2.11.3. Decanal Response ....................................................... 20

2.12. Final Assessment Report ........................................................... 20 2.13. Quality Council Submission ........................................................ 21 2.14. Publication of Results ............................................................... 21 2.15. Monitoring of Review Results ...................................................... 21 2.16. Report to Board of Trustees ....................................................... 21

3. NEW PROGRAM APPROVALS .......................................................................... 22

3.1. General Framework .................................................................. 22 3.2. Timeframe .............................................................................. 22 3.3. Process Summary ..................................................................... 22 3.4. Statement of Intent .................................................................. 24 3.5. Evaluation Criteria ................................................................... 24

3.5.1. Objectives ................................................................. 25 3.5.2. Admission Requirements ................................................. 25


3.5.3. Structure .................................................................... 25 3.5.4. Program Content .......................................................... 25 3.5.5. Mode(s) of Delivery ....................................................... 25 3.5.6. Assessment of Teaching and Learning .................................. 25 3.5.7. Student Demand .......................................................... 26 3.5.8. Societal Need ............................................................. 26 3.5.9. Resources for all Programs ............................................... 26 3.5.10. Resources for Graduate Programs Only ............................... 26 3.5.11. Resources for Undergraduate Programs Only ........................ 26 3.5.12. Quality and Other Indicators ........................................... 27 3.5.13. Program Duplication ..................................................... 27 3.5.14. Fields in a Graduate Program (optional) .............................. 27

3.6. Program Proposal Brief .............................................................. 27 3.7. Reviewers .............................................................................. 27 3.8. List of Interviewees .................................................................. 28 3.9. Site Visit and Report ................................................................. 29 3.10. Proponents Response ................................................................ 30 3.11. UPC/SGSC Response ................................................................ 30 3.12. Decanal Response .................................................................... 30 3.13. Program Proposal Brief Revision ................................................... 30 3.14. Assessment ............................................................................ 30 3.15. Publication of Results ............................................................... 31 3.16. Report to Board of Trustees ....................................................... 31 3.17. Subsequent Processes ............................................................... 31

4. MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING PROGRAMS ........................................................... 32

4.1. Request for Major Modification ..................................................... 32 4.2. Assessment ............................................................................ 32

5. APPROVAL AND REVIEW OF JOINT PROGRAMS ....................................................... 34 6. PROGRAM DISCONTINUATION ......................................................................... 36

6.1. Request for Program Discontinuation ............................................... 36 6.2. Assessment ............................................................................ 36 6.3. Communication ....................................................................... 36

Acronyms ARC – Senate Academic Review Committee AVPA – Associate Vice President, Academic COU – Council of Ontario Universities FAR – Final Assessment Report GDLE – Graduate Degree Level Expectations IA&P – Institutional Analysis and Planning IQAP – Internal Quality Assurance Processes MTCU – Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities OCAV – Ontario Council of Academic Vice Presidents PPB – Program Proposal Brief RMM – Request for a Major Modification QAF – Quality Assurance Framework QC – Quality Council SGSC – Senate Graduate Studies Committee SOI – Statement of Intent


UDLE – Undergraduate Degree Level Expectations UPC – Senate Undergraduate Program Committee


1. OVERVIEW 1.

Senate is Brock University's chief academic decision-making body. It determines the educational policy of the institution and monitors the academic quality of all programs. Senate also has a major role in ensuring the operating budget’s consistency with the educational policy. A continuous process of quality assurance related to existing and new programs is critical to the discharge of these responsibilities. The University's procedures and guidelines governing academic review are set out in this document, the Internal Quality Assurance Process (IQAP). The processes described in this IQAP are necessitated by the Council of Ontario Universities (COU). The COU established a Quality Assurance Framework (QAF) for all Ontario universities and an agency to administer that framework: the Ontario Universities Council for Quality Assurance (or Quality Council (QC)). The Quality Council oversees, coordinates and audits the quality assurance processes within each Ontario University (see: http://www.oucqa.ca/). The QC has three major functions. First, the council approved the initial IQAP developed by each university in Ontario; now, all changes or revisions to any IQAP must also be approved by the QC. Second, the council receives Final Assessment Reports for each is charged with the approval of results of cyclical reviews of existing programs. Third, the council is charged with the approval of new program proposals prior to submission to the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (MTCU) for funding. In this context, Senate established a special committee to administer the University's IQAP: the Academic Review Committee (ARC). The IQAP describes all of the processes by which existing academic programs are reviewed, modified or termintedterminated, and by which new programs are introduced, at the University. Hence, ARC is responsible for the coordination, monitoring and implementation of all aspects of these processes. ARC is directly accountable and responsible to Senate through the Provost and Vice-President, Academic, an ex officio member of Senate. ARC regularly reports to Senate through the Provost with updates and/or recommendations for the consideration of Senate. The mandate of the Academic Review Committee can be found at: http://www.brocku.ca/university-secretariat/facultyhandbook/section2#_genIndex46. As Brock University's chief academic decision-making body, Senate is responsible for determining the educational policy of the institution and for maintaining high academic and program standards and has a major role in ensuring that resources are sufficient for both current and new initiatives (The Brock University Act, Article 13, i and j). A continuing process of academic review is critical to the discharge of these responsibilities. In this context, the University’s academic review policy is subject to the authority of Senate through its Academic Review Committee (ARC).

The review of existing academic programs, and the introduction of new programs, is a self-regulatory process conforming to the principles of the Quality Assurance Framework developed by COU, and is subject to periodic audit by the Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance - “Quality Council” (see http://www.cou.on.ca/Related-Sites/The-Ontario-Universities-Council-on-Quality-Assura.aspx).

Formatted: No bullets or numbering


Responsibility for the conduct of academic reviews, major modifications to existing programs and the evaluation of new academic programs lies with the Provost and Vice-President, Academic. T and the Provost shall be the “authoritative contact” between Brock University and the Quality Council.

Brock’s Internal Quality Assurance Processes (IQAP) will apply to the consideration of all graduate and undergraduate academic programs (see definition below), delivered in either a face-to-face or hybrid or online setting, including any offered jointly or in collaboration with other institutions. All graduate diploma programs diplomas and certificates that include credit courses, including graduate diploma programs, are covered by this policy. The IQAP is subject to approval by the Quality Council when it is initiated and, thereafter, when it is revised. The IQAP replaces:






1.1.1.2. New Programs

Any degree, degree program, or program of specialization, currently approved by Senate or equivalent governing body, which has not been previously approved for that institution by the Quality Council, its predecessors, or any intra-institutional approval processes that previously applied. A change of name, only, does not constitute a new program; nor does the inclusion of a new program of specialization where another with the same designation already exists (e.g., a new honours program where a major with the same designation already exists). To clarify, a ‘new program’ is brand-new: that is to say, the program has substantially different program requirements and substantially different learning outcomes from those of any existing approved programs offered by the institution. Examples of what constitutes a ‘new program’ are provided in the Quality Assurance Guide. [http://oucqa.ca/resources-publications/guide-to-quality-assurance-processes/http://www.cou.on.ca/Related-Sites/The-Ontario-Universities-Council-on-Quality-Assura/Policies/Quality-Assurance-Framework---Guide.aspx]

Not-for-credit and for-credit undergraduate diploma certificate programs are not subject to approval or audit by the Quality Council.




The Protocol for New Programs with Expedited Approvals applies to new for-credit undergraduate certificates, graduate diplomas, new fields to existing graduate degrees, and joint degrees and intra/inter-institutional degree programs (dual credential, joint, and conjoint degrees) when a parent program already exists.

Those changes not identified as major are, by default, minor and will be dealt with through the internal Senate processes in this regard – which is to say through the Senate Undergraduate Program Committee or the Senate Graduate Studies Committee.


1.2.1.3. Major Modifications








learning objectives outcomes and/or required resources) which effectively reorganize the program, impact another Faculty, or result in significant additional resource requirements;








Major modifications to existing programs do not require submission of a Proposal Brief to the Quality Council except when the University requests endorsement of the Quality Council, through the expedited review process. Rather, there will be internal expedited reviews (i.e., do not involve the use of external reviewers).(Section 1.5)

Modifications to existing minors, concentrations and options (which do not require Quality Council approval) are handled internally through the annual calendar submission process, overseen by the Senate Undergraduate Program CommitteeUPC or Senate Graduate Studies CommitteeSGSC, respectively.


1.3.1.4. Joint and Inter-Institutional Degrees



(b) dual credential programs are programs of study offered by Brock and one or more universities or by Brock and a college or institute, including Institutes of Technology and Advanced Learning, in which successful completion of the


requirements is confirmed by a separate and different degree/diploma document being awarded by each of the participating institutions; and



1.4.1.5. Expedited Reviews Approvals

In cases of expedited reviews, Brock the Reviews OfficeOffice of the AVPA submits a Senate approved proposal brief and together with the rationale for the change or new program to the Quality Council. The proposal is reviewed based only on applicable elements of the quality assurance criteria that would be employed for a full review. The appraisal and approval processes are significantly reduced.


(a) a proposal for a new graduate Collaborative Program; (b) a proposal for a new for-credit Graduate Diploma. Note that Graduate diploma

programs require Quality Council Expedited Approval (no external reviewers required) prior to their adoption. Once approved, such programs will be incorporated into the university’s schedule for cyclical reviews as part of the parent program;



The process for Quality Council appraisal is as follows:


That the University proceeds with the proposed changes/new programs.

OR


That it consult further with the University over details of interest or concern regarding the proposed changes/new programs. Normally, these subsequent consultations will be brief and affirmative in their outcome.

1.5.1.6. Certificates and Diplomas





Yes Yes Yes Yes





Yes Yes Maybe Yes3


Yes Yes No Yes3


Yes Yes Yes Yes



II)2 CYCLICAL REVIEWS

2. CYCLICAL REVIEWS 1.6.2.1. General Framework


For the purposes of this review policyIQAP, a program is defined as a set of courses, with defined learning outcomes, approved by Senate to constitute all or part of the requirements for a degree designation offered by Brock University.

For those units that are subject to accreditation reviews, the accreditation review may fulfill most of the requirements of this IQAP. In each case, the Academic Review Committee (ARC) will monitor the accreditation review in order to insure that all of the components of Brock’s review process are met. In cases where there are discrepancies or gaps, ARC will require the submission of additional information.1

The unit or university officer responsible for the accreditation exercise will, in consultation with the appropriate Dean and the Reviews Office, submit a draft Final Assessment Report for ARC’s consideration.

The Academic Review Committee (ARC) shall oversee academic reviews. The Terms of Reference and composition of ARC are set out in Faculty Handbook II: 9.13 (see http://www.brocku.ca/university-secretariat/facultyhandbook/section2#_genIndex49 .

Academic Reviews shall be carried out under the general supervision of the Provost and Vice-President, Academic and the appropriate Deans. For undergraduate reviews, the appropriate Dean(s) shall be the Dean(s) of the Faculty (or Faculties) within which the academic unit resides. For graduate reviews, the appropriate Deans shall be both the Dean of Graduate Studies and the Dean(s) of the relevant Faculty (or Faculties). Cyclical academic reviews are mandated by the Quality Council required under the Quality Assurance Framework. The Provost, as the authoritative contact with the QC, ensures that the reviews are conducted in a timely manner and communicates the results, upon completion of each review, to the Council.

1 Currently, the following accreditation reviews are recognized: a) for the Faculty of Business, the five-year reviews required to maintain accreditation by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) International;



A listing of programs offered by Brock University which are subject to the cyclical review process, as defined in this IQAP, can be found on the University’s Quality Assurance website at: http://www.brocku.ca/vp-academic/quality-assurance.


The cyclical review of discipline based programs, e.g. Policing and Criminal Justice, Applied Health Sciences Graduate Program, Interdisciplinary PhD in Humanities, will follow the same process and standards applicable to Department/Centre based programs as outlined in the IQAP. The cyclical review of non-discipline based programs, e.g. Bachelor of Arts in General Humanities, Bachelor of Arts in Social Sciences, Bachelor of Science, Integrated Studies, will be subject to the same process and standards applicable to Department/Centre based programs as outlined in the IQAP. The only modification to the IQAP necessary to review such non-discipline based program will involve the makeup of the review team for the program. As discipline specific reviewers for this type of program may not be easily identified, the composition of the review team will consist of two internal reviewers with knowledge of interdisciplinary programs and one external reviewer with expertise in interdisciplinary studies. Details of the review of non-discipline based programs will be coordinated between the Dean(s) of the host Faculty(s) and the Office of the AVPA at the time the program is confirmed for review. For such non-discipline based programs, the identification of specific learning outcomes is required and will reflect the program of study being followed and the needs of the individual learner. Mapping the curriculum of such programs to a ‘standard’ may not be feasible and as a result such programs will have identified very broad program level learning outcomes, linked to degree level expectations, which will be augmented by the actual course level learning outcomes comprising the program of study being followed. 2.1.2. Accreditation Reviews The Quality Assurance Framework indicates that the Brock University IQAP may allow for and specify the substitution or addition of documents or processes associated with the accreditation of a program, for components of the institutional program review process, when it is fully consistent with the requirements established in the Framework. A record of substitutions or additions and the grounds on which it was made, will be eligible for audit by the Quality Council. Well in advance of the accreditation review, the Office of the AVPA will be provided with a copy of the accreditation review template to compare with the Brock IQAP. The AVPA, in consultation with ARC and the Dean(s), will review the guidelines for the accreditation process, the degree of alignment with the IQAP, and determine what


additional materials or processes may be necessary to ensure compliance with the IQAP. The outcome of the comparison and discussion may be that: 1) The accreditation review will be accepted as meeting all the criteria for a cyclical




For those units that are subject to accreditation reviews, the accreditation review may fulfill most of the requirements of the IQAP. In each case, the ARC will monitor the accreditation review in order to ensure that all of the components of Brock’s review process are met. In cases where components of the IQAP are not covered by the accreditation review, ARC will require the submission of additional information.2

The Unit or University officer responsible for the accreditation exercise will, in consultation with the appropriate Dean and the Office of the AVPA, submit a draft Final Assessment Report for ARC’s consideration.


Ideally, program review is an ongoing process that begins two years in advance of a site visit, for which a unit prepares a Self Study, and continues through to the next review eight years in the future. The process begins with the Provost confirming with the Deans the list of programs to be reviewed. A detailed timeline and summary of the process follows.

December: The Provost confirms units to be reviewed in the coming year. January-February: Orientation sessions for departments/programs with upcoming reviews. January- February: Reviews Office provides units with current data as a starting point for development of self studies. March-June: units begin to develop their self studies. July-October: Reviews Office forwards additional data as available and administers student surveys for reviews that are pending. October 1st: units forward proposed reviewers to Reviews Office. Mid-November: November 1st count date information made available to units for reviews. 2 Currently, the following accreditation reviews are recognized:

a) for the Goodman School of Business, the five-year reviews required to maintain accreditation by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) International;




November-December: Reviews Office sends survey data to units. January 1-8: Submission of briefs to ARC; Reviews Office begins to schedule and make arrangements for reviews.

1.7.2.3. Process Summary











January 2017



















Upon Approval


Upon Approval





Schedule of program reviews for upcoming academic year is presented to Senate (January) Department/Centre/Program prepares its self study and submits the self study and a list of proposed reviewers (at least four external reviewers and two internal reviewers) to the Reviews Office, along with a brief profile of each nominee Provost, in consultation with the relevant Dean(s) rank orders the proposed reviewers. The Reviews Office contacts selected reviewers in rank order and begins to organize site visits. Reviews Office sends self study to the relevant Dean(s) for review. After consultation with the unit the Dean(s) submits the self study to ARC. ARC consults with the Dean(s) and identifies any required changes/additions to the self study. If required, the unit re-submits the self study to ARC. ARC approves or requests further changes to the self study. Reviews Office sets up schedule for site visit, two days in length, with all reviewers attending at same time. Reviewers submit their report to ARC within four weeks of site visit. Unit responds to ARC re: the Reviewers’ Report, as does the Senate Undergraduate Program Committee (UPC) for undergraduate programs or the Senate Graduate Studies Committee (SGSC) for graduate programs. Dean(s) will respond after receipt of unit/senate committee response.

Formatted: No bullets or numbering, Don't adjust spacebetween Latin and Asian text



ARC considers Reviewers’ Report and responses from the Unit, UPC or SGSC, and the relevant Dean(s), who join ARC for this discussion. ARC, in consultation with the unit under review, develops the Final Assessment Report, including an Executive Summary, Implementation Plan, and Monitoring Plan and submits that report to Senate for approval. ARC distributes the approved Final Assessment Report to the Centre or Department, and the Quality Council. The Executive Summary and Implementation Plan are posted on the Brock web site.

2.4. Manual

The Reviews OfficeOffice of the AVPA shall publish and make availablepublishes an Academic ReviewSelf Study Manual that will provide administrative details with respect to review policies and practices (see http://www.brocku.ca/vp-academic/quality-assurance ).

This The manual shall provides guidance on the preparationconduct of rigorous, objective and searching reflective self Self studies Studies and serves to reinforce the potential benefits that can accrue from an effective self Self studiesStudy. It will also identify responsibilities for the collection, aggregation and distribution of institutional data and outcome measures required for self Self studiesStudies, and specify the format required for the self study. In the instance of a discrepancy between the IQAP and the Manual, the IQAP will take precedence.

1.8.2.5. Evaluation CriteriaVALUATION CRITERIA

The self studySelf Study for the review of existing undergraduate or graduate programs shall must address each of the evaluation criteria set out below.


Program is consistent with the institution’s mission and academic plans. Program requirements and learning outcomes are clear, appropriate and align

with the Faculty’s statement of the undergraduate Undergraduate Degree Level Expectations (UDLE) and/or graduate Graduate Degree Level Expectations (GDLE). Explicit learning outcomes, for both undergraduate and graduate programs being reviewed, mapped to the program curricula, must be developed by the unit and included in the Self Study document.




1.8.3.2.5.3. Curriculum

The curriculum reflects the current state of the discipline or area of study.

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 cm, Don't adjust space betweenLatin and Asian text, Don't adjust space between Asian textand numbers


Evidence of any significant innovation or creativity in the content and/or delivery of the program relative to other such programs.

Mode(s) of delivery to meet the program’s identified learning outcomes are appropriate and effective.

1.8.4.2.5.4. Teaching and Assessment

Methods for assessing student achievement of the defined learning outcomes and degree level expectations are appropriate and effective.

Appropriateness and effectiveness of the means of assessment, especially in the students’ final year of the program, in clearly demonstrating achievement of the program learning objectives and the institution’s (or the Program’s own) statement of Degree Level Expectations.

1.8.5.2.5.5. Resources


1.8.6.2.5.6. Quality Indicators






1.8.7.2.5.7. Quality Enhancement

Initiatives taken to enhance the quality of the program and the associated learning and teaching environment. This will include the disposition of concerns and recommendations raised in previous reviews, and areas identified through the conduct of the self studySelf Study that require attention and/or that hold promise for enhancement.


1.8.8.2.5.8. Additional Graduate Program Criteria









2.6. Schedule

The Provost and Vice-President, Academic, in consultation with the Deans, shall determine an eight-year schedule for the review of all programs and shall identify the academic units responsible for those programs. Under very exceptional circumstances, a Dean may request, in writing, either the review of a particular program or a delay in a scheduled review.

The Provost and Vice-President, Academic, in consultation with the Deans, shall confirm by December January 31st annually , two years in advance of the site visit, the programs to be reviewed during the subsequent academic year and shall present report this that information to the January February meeting of Senate.


In October, one year in advance of the site visit, Annually in January-February, the Office of the Provost AVPA will conduct an orientation session for those responsible for self Self studies Studies in academic units and programs designated to be reviewed in the subsequent year. This session will include a review n examination of the process, the required contents of the self studySelf Study document and the nature of the data being provided to inform the review process.

Also in January-February, the Reviews Office will provide each academic unit with current data as a starting point for the development of that unit’s self studyIn January Institutional Analysis and Planning (IA&P) will provide the unit with student and alumni survey results. Following the November 1 headcount report, IA&P will provide each academic unit with historical and current data as a starting point for inclusion and analysis in the unit’s Self Study.

By March 1st, the academic unit shall establish a committee to document its self study. The composition the Committee shall be reported to the Academic Reviews Office.



The self studySelf Study prepared by the unitUnit provides the foundational document by which the reviewers will undertake their evaluation of the academic quality of the programs offered. As such, the Self Study should be broad-based, reflective, forward-looking and will include a critical analysis of the unitUnit and the academic programs offered. Although prepared by a committee, the self study shall be developedUnder the leadership of a Lead Author a committee comprised of faculty, staff and students, in consultation with all faculty, staff and students associated with the program, prepares an effective Self Study that meets the above goal. in consultation with all of the faculty and staff members associated with the unit, and with students. The input of others deemed to be relevant and useful, such as graduates of the program, representatives of industry, the professions, practical training programs, and employers may must also be included.



The self studySelf Study shall be confidential to the Reviewers, Deans, ARC and the Reviews Office of the AVPA and others as appropriate.

1.9.2.8. The Review Committee



one internal reviewer who is a Brock faculty member from outside the discipline Faculty (or interdisciplinary group) engaged in the program. This faculty member is not required to have knowledge of the discipline, should beneed not be someone familiar with the operation of the program under review (butshould be at “arm’s length”) and have and have experience with in program development and delivery. He/she shall actively participates fully in the review; however the main task of writing the Reviewers’ Report shall fall to the external


reviewers. In advance of the site visit, all internal reviewers will be invited to an orientation session.







Full disclosure of all past affiliation(s) is required to assist in the reviewer selection and to ensure an “arm’s length” relationship. The reviewers will be associate or full professors, or the equivalent, with program management experience.

By October 1st, the academic unit shall develop a list of at least four potential external and two potential internal reviewers By September 1st,the Unit shall develop and submit to the Office of the AVPA a list of at least six potential external reviewers and four potential internal reviewers, along with a brief profile on their area of expertise and qualifications for the task (if known). From this list the Dean(s) will be asked to provide a ranking of the nominees. Subsequently, the from which the Provost, in consultation with the Dean(s), shall make the final selectionselect a final Review Committee. On approval of the Self Study by ARC, the membership of the review team will be communicated to the Unit and the relevant Dean(s).


Prior to the completion of Self StudyBy September 1st, the academic unit shall prepare and submit, to the Office of the AVPA, a list of names for the Reviews Office of those individuals to be interviewed by the reviewers. The Office of the AVPA will coordinate the scheduling of meetings between those identified by the Unit and the reviewersfor the site visit.

Interviewees shall include: the Provost and Vice-President, Academic; the relevant Dean(s); Chair/Director all faculty associated with the unit Unit (including cross-appointed and limited

term faculty, if appropriate);


administrative staff associated with the unitUnit; a representative sample of students associated with the program (with no faculty

present); representatives of the Library; faculty from cognate disciplines; for units with Co-op programs, representatives of the Co-op Office; the Provost; the relevant Dean(s); and, others as deemed appropriate.


The Reviews OfficeOffice of the AVPA shall forward the approved Self Study and any related materials to the reviewers.


The Reviews OfficeOffice of the AVPA, in consultation with the relevant Dean(s), shall provide an on-site orientation for the Reviewers. The purpose of this orientation is to ensure that the reviewers:





6. Respect the confidentiality required for all aspects of the review process. reviewers and shall provide them with guidelines for the conduct of the review.

In accordance with the evaluation criteria outlined above (Section II.E2.5), the reviewers will be invited to:


provide an external perspective on the program in terms of its comparability with similar programs elsewhere, its stature on a national scale, and its success in producing excellent graduates.;

recommend actions that will improve the program; and recommend an Outcome Category.


Good Excellent Quality with National

The program is of excellent quality with strong student demand and a national or international reputation for producing high quality graduates.

Formatted: Indent: Left: 2 cm, Hanging: 0.5 cm, Outlinenumbered + Level: 7 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at:1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 4.25 cm + Indent at: 4.89cm



Prominence (Category 1)

Few changes are required. There will be a commitment to maintain the leadership role of the program and perhaps enhance program strength.

Good Quality (Category 2)


Good Quality With Concerns (Category 3)

The program shows continuing vitality. The review has identified weaknesses that must be addressed. There is confidence that implementation of the action plan will address the reviewers’ concerns and move the program to Category 2Good Quality status. There will be a commitment to maintain program strength.

Non-Viable The program has shown fundamental deficiencies and little academic vitality over an extended period. No realistic plan is available to improve the program to Category 2Good Quality. The program will be recommended for closure.

Within four weeks of the site visit, The the reviewers shall submit their report to the Reviews OfficeOffice of the AVPA, normally within four weeks of the site visit .


Learning Objectives: Are the learning objectives clear, concise and appropriate? Has the unit provided evidence to show that they have been met and has it adequately described the methods used to measure that achievement?Executive Summary

Delivery: Is the program delivered in a way that ensures the learning objectives will be met?Outcome Category (See above)

External Perspective: How does this program compare to programs elsewhere?Outline of the Visit

Program Strengths Feedback on each of the Evaluation Criteria within Section 2.5 of the IQAP Other Issues Recommendations: What changes would improve the program?

a) Outcome Category Recommendation. CConfidential Recommendations/Comments: relating to personnel issues or

other matters involving specific individuals. This is an optional section to be used only if recommendations and/or comments of a confidential nature are deemed necessary by the reviewers. This section will only be released to the Dean(s), the academic unit and ARC.

A report template is available and is provided to the reviewers to assist in drafting their report. The Reviewers’ Report will not be treated as a public document, however any and all recommendations shall be treated as public information. Also, if deemed warranted by the reviewers, they may submit confidential recommendations and/or comments




Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.27 cm, No bullets or numbering,Tab stops: Not at 1.27 cm


relating to personnel issues or other matters specifically involving individuals. These will be treated as confidential to the Dean(s), the academic unit and ARC.

The Reviews Office of the AVPA will distribute copies of the Reviewers’ Report to the academic Unit, the Dean(s), academic unit, ARC, and either the Senate Undergraduate Program CommitteeUPC and/or the Senate Graduate Studies CommitteeSGSC (as appropriate), with the exclusion of any confidential recommendations/comments (as per 6.f above) as appropriate.

1.12.2.11. Comments/Responses

2.11.1. Academic Unit Response

The academic unit unit shall develop a response, normally within four weeks of receiving the report, to the comments, observations and recommendations contained in the Reviewers’ Report and shall submit that response to the Office of the AVPAappropriate Dean(s), who shall then submit it to ARC.

If the reviewers have submitted confidential commentsrecommendations (as per 6.f above), the unit response, if any, to those comments will be treated as confidential to the Dean(s) and ARC.

2.11.2. UPC/SGSC CommentsResponse

The UPC or SGSC shall be invited to provide comment on the Reviewers’ Report and shall submit any such comments to ARC the Office of the AVPA (normally within three four weeks of receiving the report). In formulating their response to the Report, UPC and SGSC shall address the reviewer’s recommendations and how they align with respect to current policies, procedures and guidelines of the University. As well UPC and SGSC are to address the broader implications that implementation of the specific recommendations, which lie outside the evaluation criteria (Section 2.5) used by ARC in its assessment of the program, would have on the institution as a whole.

2.11.3. Decanal Response

Upon receipt, copies of the Unit response and the responses from UPC and/or SGSC, as appropriate, will be forwarded to the Dean(s).

After consultation with the Provost and Vice-President, Academic and the academic unit, the relevant Dean(s) shall submit to the Academic Reviews CommitteeOffice of the AVPA his/her/their responses to:

the recommendations advanced by the Reviewersreviewers; and the unit’s response to the Reviewers’ Report.



the resources, financial and otherwise, that would be provided required in supporting the implementation of selected recommendations; and



1.13.2.12. Final Assessment Report

1. After examining all materials submitted by the department/centreunit, the Dean(s), and the appropriate Senate Committee (UPC or SCGS). ), ARC shall prepare a draft Final Assessment Report. This report will:

identify the significant strengths of the program; assign an outcome category identify opportunities for program improvement and enhancement; set out and prioritize the recommendations that are selected for

implementation;summarize responses to each recommendation; identify and explain the circumstances relating to any recommendations that









1.14.2.13. Quality Council Submission

After approval of the Final Assessment Report by Senate, the Reviews OfficeOffice of the AVPA will submit all required documentation to the Quality Council.


Following Senate approval, of the Final Assessment ReportFAR will be posted by Senate, the Reviews Office will post it on the Vice President, AcademicUniversity Quality Assurance website. Other documents (Self Study, Reviewers’ Report and responses to the Reviewers’ report) will not be made publically accessible.

Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.4 cm

Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.4 cm, No bullets or numbering


1.16.2.15. Monitoring of Review Results


Within four years of the date of Senate approval of the Final Assessment Report, the unit will submit to ARC a report on documenting the implementation of the various recommendations noted in the Final Assessment Report.

SubsequentlyUpon approval, ARC will report to Senate on the progress of the implementation of the Review recommendations and will post the unit’sFour-Year Reports received and post them implementation monitoring report on the Vice President, AcademicUniversity Quality Assurance’s website.


The Provost and Vice-President, Academic shall report annually to the Board of Trustees the results of all program reviews.


2.3. NEW PROGRAM REVIEWS APPROVALS

2.1.3.1. General Framework

The review and assessment of new programs to be introduced by the University is mandated by the Quality Council and as such, all new programs will be subject to an academic assessment prior to being offered. The Provost, as the authoritative contact with the Quality Council, communicates the results of the assessment process to the Quality Council upon Senate’s approval of the new program. In addition, the Provost also forwards any new program proposals, approved by the Quality Council, to MTCU.All new programs will be subject to an academic assessment prior to being offered.

For the purposes of this IQAP, a new program is defined in For the identification of “new programs”, see the definitionsSection 1.2 above.

ARC shall oversee these reviewsappraisal of new programs. The Terms of Reference and composition of ARC are set out in Faculty Handbook II: 9.13.(see: http://www.brocku.ca/university-secretariat/facultyhandbook/section2#_genIndex46

The review appraisal of new programs shall be carried out under the general supervision of the Provost and Vice-President, Academic and the appropriate Deans. For new undergraduate programs, the appropriate Dean(s) shall be the Dean(s) of the Faculty (or Faculties) within which the academic unitproposed program will resides. For new graduate programs, the appropriate Deans shall be both the Dean of Graduate Studies and the Dean(s) of the relevant Faculty (or Faculties).



October 1: Deadline for the Submission of Statement of Intent to ARC. ARC responds within four weeks of the submission of a Statement of Intent. Approved Statements of Intent will expire after 24 months if a Program Proposal Brief is not received. February/March: Unit submits a Program Proposal Brief to ARC for consideration. March/April: External Review of Proposed Program May/June: Submission of Reviewers Report and Revised Program Proposal Brief to ARC May/August: ARC reports to Senate and sends Final Proposal Brief to Quality Council September/October: Preparation of Calendar copy.

2.2.3.3. Process Summary Department/Centre/Program prepares a Statement of Intent and submits it to ARC. ARC determines whether the program meets the appropriate criteria and whether resources will be found to mount the program. If the Statement of Intent is approved by ARC, the Department/Centre/ Program prepares a Draft Program Proposal Brief and submits the Brief to ARC. At the same time, the unit submits a list of proposed reviewers (at least four potential external reviewers) to the Reviews Office, along with a brief profile of each nominee.




ARC approves or requests changes to the Brief and the Provost selects reviewers. Program Proposal Brief is sent to UPC or SGSC for comment. Reviews Office contacts selected reviewers in rank order and begins to organize site visits. Program Proposal Brief is sent to Reviewers. Reviews Office sets up schedule for site visit, with all reviewers attending at same time. Reviewers submit their report to the Reviews Office within four weeks of site visit. Copies sent to Dean(s), Department/Centre, and UPC or SGSC. Unit responds to ARC re: the Reviewers’ Report, as does UPC or SGSC. Subsequently, the Dean(s) submit a response to ARC. Unit, in consultation with the Dean, submits a Revised Program Proposal Brief to ARC. ARC considers the Revised Program Proposal in the context of the Reviewers’ Report and the responses from the unit and UPC or SGSC, with input from the relevant Dean(s). If further changes are required, the unit will submit a Final Program Proposal Brief to ARC. ARC reports to Senate on the Final Program Proposal Brief and seeks Senate approval to go forward to the Quality Council for final approval. ARC forwards the Final Program Proposal Brief, together with supporting documentation, to the Quality Council. At this point, Brock may announce its intention to offer the program, provided that clear indication is given that approval by the Quality Council is pending and that no offers of admission will be made until and unless the program is approved by the Council. Subsequent to receiving the Quality Council’s response, ARC reports to the Undergraduate Program Committee or Senate Graduate Studies Committee, which will review the new program’s calendar copy and bring the final calendar copy forward to Senate for final institutional approval for commencement of the program.













Proponent submits PPB to the Office of the AVPA. Proponent submits: 1) a list of proposed reviewers (external and internal),


including a brief profile of each nominee; and 2) a list of interviewees, to the Office of the AVPA.















2.3.3.4. Statement of Intent

Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.17 cm, Outline numbered +Level: 9 + Numbering Style: i, ii, iii, … + Start at: 1 +Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 5.08 cm + Indent at: 5.71 cm

Formatted: Tab stops: Not at 1.9 cm


Any unit or group of units intending to introduce a new program must first submit a Statement of Intent (SOI) to ARC the Office of the AVPA.and receive approval to proceed to the next step (preparation of a Program Proposal Brief).

A Statement of Intent shall include: a brief description of the program, clearly stating the purpose, structure and

pedagogical rationale, including a rationalean explanation for the degree nomenclature;

details of the existing and new resources, especially space needs, required to mount the program;

an explanation as to how the program fits with the University’s academic plan; evidence of consultation with all academic units affected; evidence of consultation regarding space needs for the proposed program; evidence of student demand including projected enrollments;and evidence of societal need; evidence that any duplicative similarities to existing programs, internally,



any participating department(s)/centre(s) must provide evidence indicating the extent to which they are prepared to contribute (see Manual).

For programs intending to commence in September of any given year, the SOI must be submitted at least 18 months in advance, i.e. by March 1st, in order to ensure sufficient time for completion of the review process.The deadline for the submission of a Statement of Intent shall be October 1st (for programs intended to commence the following September). Statements of Intent can be submitted at any time.








Approved SOIs will expire 24 months after approval if a PPB is not submittedARC shall provide a response to any Statement of Intent within four weeks of its submission to the ARC.

2.4.3.5. Evaluation Criteria

If the Statement of Intent is approved by ARC, the unit(s) shall prepare (by February 1st for programs intended to commence the following September) a Program Proposal Brief which will address the following criteria:







Sufficient explanation of alternative requirements, if any, for admission into a graduate, second-entry or undergraduate program, such as minimum grade point average, additional languages requirements or portfolios, along with how the program assesses and recognizes prior work or learning experience.

2.4.3.3.5.3. Structure



2.4.4.3.5.4. Program Content




Evidence that each graduate student in the program is required to take a minimum of two-thirds of the course requirements from among graduate level courses (see Manual).

2.4.5.3.5.5. Mode(s) of Delivery


The appropriateness of the proposed mode(s) of delivery in meeting the program’s intended learning outcomes and Degree degree Level level Expectationsexpectations.

2.4.6.3.5.6. Assessment of Teaching and Learning

Appropriateness of the proposed methods for the assessment of student achievement of the intended program learning outcomes and Degree degree Level level Expectationsexpectations.

Completeness of plans for documenting and demonstrating the level of performance of students, consistent with the institution’s statement of its Degree degree Level level Expectationsexpectations.

2.4.7.3.5.7. Student Demand

Evidence that there is a demand for the new degree/program on the part of potential students. This may will include projected enrolment levels (and the bases for those projections), application statistics, projected origins of student demand (e.g., domestic or international), and the duration of the projected demand.

2.4.8.3.5.8. Societal Need

Evidence that there is a need for graduates of the proposed degree/major on the part of society. This may include the probable availability of positions upon graduation (e.g., by letters from potential employers or governmental agencies). In the case of professional programs, their congruence with the regulatory requirements of the profession must be assessed.

2.4.9.3.5.9. Resources for All Programs





2.4.10.3.5.10. Resources for Graduate Programs Only




2.4.11.3.5.11. Resources for Undergraduate Programs Only





2.4.12.3.5.12. Quality and Other Indicators




2.5.3.6. Program Proposal Brief

If the Statement of Intent is approved by ARC, the unit(s) shall prepare (by February 1st for programs intended to commence the following September)

a Program Proposal Brief. The Office of the AVPA publishes a Program Proposal Brief Manual that will provide administrative details with respect to review policies and practices (see http://www.brocku.ca/vp-academic/quality-assurance).

The manual provides guidance on the preparation of rigorous, objective and reflective Program Proposal Brief and serves to reinforce the potential benefits that can accrue from an effective Brief. The Manual specifies the format required for the Brief and the contents to be included. In the instance of a discrepancy between the IQAP and the PPB Manual, the IQAP will take precedence. The academic unitProponents shall submit the Program Proposal BriefPPB to the Academic Review CommitteeOffice of the AVPA. Upon receipt and prior to its


consideration by ARC, the PPB shall be forwarded to the relevant Dean(s) for review and comment. After consideration, the Committee ARC shall:

i. either approve the Brief PPB; or, ii. advise request the unit Proponent of revisions to be madeto revise the

PPB for re-submission; or, iii. reject the PPB.

. Proponents of a new program and the relevant Dean(s) shall be invited to attend the ARC meetings where the PPB is discussed.

The Brief PPB will be treated as confidential to the relevant Dean(s), the reviewers, and ARC, the Office of the AVPA and others as appropriate.

2.6.3.7. Reviewers

When a Program Proposal Brief is approved by ARC, a Review Committee will be identified. It is expected that the external review of the proposed new program will occur no later than March/April (for programs intended to commence the following September).At the time of submission of a PPB the Proponents will provide the Office of the AVPA with a list of six potential external reviewers and four potential internal reviewers to undertake the appraisal, along with a brief profile on their area of expertise and qualifications for the task (if known). From this list the Dean(s) will be asked to provide the Provost with a ranking of the nominees prior to the Provost making the final selection of the Review Committee.





The Review Committee shall normally consist of at least: one external reviewer for a new undergraduate program; and two such reviewers for new graduate programs, at least one of whom will be from outside Ontario.




be a close friend or relative of a member of the unit undergoing the reviewparticipant in the proposed program;

have been a research supervisor of a member of the unitparticipant in the proposed program, within the past six years;

have been a graduate student of a member of the unitparticipant in the proposed program within the past six years;

have collaborated with a member of the unitparticipant of the proposed program within the past six years or have plans to collaborate with them in the immediate future; or,

have been a visiting scholar/teacher in the unit in the past six years,.


The external review of a new graduate program proposal must incorporate an on- site visit. The external review of a new undergraduate program proposal will normally be conducted on site. Once confirmed the membership of the Review Committee will be communicated to the Proponents and the relevant Dean(s).


Prior to the completion ofAt the time of submission of the BriefPPB, the academic unitProponents shall prepare and submit, to the Office of the AVPA, a list of names for the Reviews Office of those individuals to be interviewed by the reviewers. The Office of the AVPA will coordinate the scheduling of meetings between those individuals identified and the reviewers during the site visit.


the Provost and Vice-President, Academic; the relevant Dean(s); all faculty to be associated with the proposed program (including

cross-appointed and limited term faculty, if appropriate); administrative staff to be associated with the program; if possible, a representative sample of students who might be

associated with the program; representatives of the Library; faculty from cognate disciplines; the Provost; the relevant Dean(s), and others as deemed appropriate.



The Reviews OfficeOffice of the AVPA shall forward the approved Brief PPB and any related materials to the reviewers.

The Reviews OfficeOffice of the AVPA, in consultation with the academic unitProponents and the relevant Dean(s), shall establish a time frame for the review.


The reviewers will normally provide a joint report that appraises the standards and quality of the proposed program and addresses the criteria set out in Section III.E3.5 above, including the associated faculty and material resources. They will also be invited to acknowledge any clearly innovative aspects of the proposed program together with recommendations on any essential or otherwise desirable modifications to it. The reviewers may submit recommendations and/or comments relating to personnel issues or other matters specifically involving individuals that will be treated as confidential.

The reviewers shall submit their report to the Reviews OfficeOffice of the AVPA, normally within four weeks of the site visit. The reviewers’ Reviewers’ report Report is a public documentwill remain confidential to . However, if deemed warranted by the reviewers, they may submit recommendations and/or comments relating to personnel issues or other matters specifically involving individuals, that will be treated as confidential to the Proponents, the Dean(s), academic unit, the Provost and ARC.

The Reviewers’ report Report should be organized according to the evaluation criteria listed in Section III.E3.5 above, with particular attention to learning objectivesoutcomes, modes of delivery, and suggested improvements to the program. A report template is available and is provided to the reviewers to assist in drafting their report.

The Upon receipt the Reviewers’ Report the Reviews OfficeOffice of the AVPA will distribute copies of the Reviewers Report to:

the Proponents; the relevant Dean(s); either the UPC (for undergraduate programs) or the SGSC (for graduate

programs)the academic unit; the relevant Dean(s);the Academic Reviews Committee; and ARCeither the Senate Undergraduate Program Committee (for

undergraduate programs) or the Senate Graduate Studies Committee (for graduate programs).

2.9.3.10. Academic UnitProponents Response

The academic unit shall develop a response, normally within Within four weeks of receiving the Reviewers’ reportReport the Proponents shall develop a response, to the comments, observations and recommendations contained in the Reviewers Report report and shall submit that response ARCto the Office of the AVPA.


The unit Proponents response will be treated as a public document. However, if the reviewers have submitted confidential comments (as per 5 above), the unit Proponents response, if any, to those comments will be treated as confidential to the Dean(s) and the Academic Review CommitteeARC.

2.10.3.11. UPC/SGSC Response

Within four week of receiving the Reviewers’ Report The UPC or SGSC shall be invited to provide comment on anydevelop a response to of the comments, observations and recommendations contained in the Reviewers’ Report report and shall submit such a response to ARCthe Office of the AVPA. In formulating their response to the Report, UPC and SGSC shall address the reviewer’s recommendations and how they align with respect to current policies, procedures and guidelines of the University. As well UPC and SGSC are to address the broader implications that implementation of the specific recommendations, which lie outside the evaluation criteria (Section 3.5) used by ARC in its assessment of the program, would have on the institution as a whole.


The Office of the AVPA will forward the Proponents and UPC/SGSC responses to the relevant Dean(s), who, aAfter consultation with the Provost and Vice-President, Academic, and the academic unit, the relevant Dean(s) shall submit to ARC the Office of the AVPA his/her/their responses to:







2.11.3.14. Assessment








After examining all materials submitted by the department/centre, Dean(s), and the appropriate Senate Committee (UPC or SCGS), ARC shall recommend (to Senate) either: that the proposal meets the University’s quality assurance standards and should be submitted to the Quality Council for approval; or that the proposal requires further modification. In the event of 1.a), following approval by Senate, the Reviews Office will submit all appropriate documentation to the Quality Council.


Following approval of the proposal by Senate, the Reviews Office will post the final Program Proposal Brief will be posted(including an executive summary) on the Vice-President, AcademicUniversity Quality Assurance website.


The Provost and Vice-President, Academic shall report annually to the Board of Trustees on all new programs approved by Senate and the Quality Council during the preceding year.


After a new program is approved (by both the Quality Council and Senate) to commence, the program must begin within twenty-four months of the date of Senate approval.


At the end of four years of operationFour years after admitting its first students, a new program must submit to ARC a progress report reflecting its Program Proposal Brief as approved by Senate and the Quality Council. The first cyclical review for any new program will occur no later than eight years of the date of the program’s initial enrolment in accordance with the University’s academic review schedule.


3.4. MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING PROGRAMS

3.1.4.1. Statement of IntentRequest for Major Modification

Any unit or group of units intending to propose major modification(s) to an existing program must first submit a Statement of Intent Request for Major Modification to ARC. Also, sShould UPC or SCGS determine that a proposal received as part of the Calendar construction process constitutes a major modification, it shall refer that proposal to ARC for its consideration. Proponents are reminded that for Major Modifications requiring an expedited review (See IQAP Section 1.5), the Request must address the applicable elements of the quality assurance evaluation criteria employed for a full review as defined in Section 3.5.

A Statement of IntentRequest for Major Modification will reference the evaluation criteria for new programs (see Section III.E above) as appropriate and shall include:

a brief detailed description of the changes to the program; a the pedagogical rationale for the changes being proposed; impact of changes on students; details of the resource implications (if any) of the changes; an explanation as to how the revised program would fit with the University’s



A Statement of IntentRequest for Major Modification can be submitted at any time. However, departmentsDepartments/ centres Centres should be aware of internal University Calendar calendar deadlines.

Where possible ARC shall provide a response to the unit within four weeks of receipt of a submissionthe request. to ARC. The Committee shall either approve the Statement or advise the unit of revisions to be made for re-submission.A representative of the program requesting a Major Modification and the relevant Dean(s) will be invited to attend the ARC meeting where the request is discussed.

3.2.4.2. Assessment

After examiningARC will examine and evaluate all materials submitted by the departmentDepartment/centreCentre related to the Request for a Major Modification., and attending to the evaluation criteria for new programs (III.E.), On the basis of its evaluation of the Request, ARC shall will:




iii. reject the Request. In the event that the Request is rejected by ARC, the Proponents must wait 24 months before resubmitting the Request for consideration. Final approval of the Request for a Major Modification lies with recommend (to Senate) either:

that the proposal meets the University’s quality assurance standards; or that the proposal requires further modification.

In the event of 1.a), final approval will be approval by Senate.


4.5. V. APPROVAL AND REVIEWS OF JOINT PROGRAMS OFFERED BY TWO OF MORE INSTITUTIONS

For programs offered jointly with another/other Ontario universities, the procedure is thatThe introduction of new and the review of existing joint programs and other inter-institutional programs shall be governed by the IQAPs of the participating institution(s) granting the degree. Partner institutions may, but are not required, to use joint IQAPs (which require the same approval process as IQAPs for individual institutions). Whether a joint, or separately approved IQAP is used, or whether the separate institutions prefer to build their joint processes into their separate IQAPs, the following are suggested for inclusion in the IQAP related to both new program approval and cyclical program reviews. The Provost will work with the partner institution’s counterpart office to ensure that the requirements of both institution’s quality assurance policies and procedures will be met such that duplication is reduced and streamlines the process as much as possible. Specifically:

one individual (normally the Director or equivalent of the joint program) will prepare a

Self Study following the template of his/her university, in consultation with faculty, staff and students at the other institution(s). The Self Study/Program Proposal Brief clearly explains how input was received from faculty, staff and students at each partner institution.

The review team will be chosen in consultation with both/all partners, and the

“internal” reviewer can come from each partner institution, or be chosen to represent all partnersThere will be a single Self Study, for cyclical reviews, or single Program Proposal Brief for new program approvals.

The review visit will include both/all campuses.The selection of reviewers involves

participation by each partner institution.

The response to the review can be written by the Director of the joint program in consultation with the appropriate Chairs and Deans at both/all participating institutions, and then sent through the regular process at both/all universities.Where applicable, selection of the “internal” reviewer requires joint input:



If deemed more appropriate, separate responses could be prepared, one for each participating institution, to follow the normal process at each universityThe site visit involves all partner institutions and preferably all sites (with exceptions noted below). Reviewers shall consult with faculty, staff and students at each partner institution as part of the site visit.

For programs joint with other universities outside Ontario, Brock will follow the review

process for Ontario universitiesFeedback on the Reviewers’ Report is solicited from participating units in each partner institution, including the Dean(s)..


This would not necessarily require a site visit to the other university, provided that the Quality Council has determined that the partner university is also subject to an appropriate quality review process in its own jurisdictionPreparation of a Final Assessment Report and an Implementation Plan requires input from each partner..

However Brock would obtain information about the components of the program

completed outside Ontario as appropriate, and include this in the review within OntarioThere is a single Final Assessment Report and Implementation Plan which goes through the appropriate governance process at each partner institution.

In the case of partnerships to offer degree or diploma programs conjointly with other

kinds of post-secondary institutions such as colleges or institutes, Brock will take the lead in the review process and the principles enshrined herein will pertain as relevantThe Final Assessment Report and Implementation Plan are posted on each university’s respective website


NOTE: For all inter-institutional programs in which all partners are institutions within Ontario, the Quality Council’s standard for New Program Approval and Cyclical Program Review Processes will apply to all elements of program regardless of which partner offers them, including Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology and Institutes of Technology and Advanced Learning. For joint and collaborative programs in which some partners are institutions outside of Ontario, the elements of the programs contributed by the out-of-province partner will be subject to the quality assurance processes in their respective jurisdictions. The Quality Council will maintain a directory of bodies whose post-secondary assurance processes are recognized and accepted as being comparable to our own. In cases where such recognition is not available, the Quality Council will determine, on a case-by-case basis, the appropriate action to be taken on quality assurance if the collaboration is to be permitted to proceed.


5.6. VI – PROGRAM DISCONTINUATION










6.2. Assessment




6.3. Communication


To: Chabriol Colebatch, Secretary of Senate From: Scott Henderson, Chair of Senate Date: May 17, 2016

CHAIR’S REPORT TO SENATE 641, May 25, 2016

As this is our final meeting of the 2015/16 academic year, I want to express my thanks to all of those who are members of Senate, as well as those who serve on various Senate committees. The time that you spend, and the work that you do on behalf of the University is greatly appreciated. As you will have undoubtedly noted, there are times when the work can seem tedious, but we must also acknowledge that each issue we address, and each motion that we pass, is vital to the academic functioning of Brock. It has been my honour and pleasure to work with all of you. I have the utmost respect for the wisdom of my colleagues, and for your willingness to serve the University. I wish all of you a happy, healthy, and productive summer.

One issue that we will not get to finish addressing is that of core and context credits. I was very

pleased with the robust discussion at our last meeting, and with everyone’s willingness to devote their energy to this important issue. In following up from our discussion, I have met with members of the Secretariat, and with the Provost and Vice-Provost to discuss our next steps. As you will note in looking at today’s agenda, we have a great deal of material to cover. There are many motions that are important to consider, as they are crucial to the ongoing mission of the University, and to the future of our current, and incoming students. With a significant amount of unfinished business from our last meeting, as well as the business of this meeting, there is simply not time to adequately address core and context. I have recommended to the Provost that we look to have a special meeting of the next Senate in September, devoted to this issue. It was clear on the 11th that there seems to be an appetite for significant change, tempered with some concerns that we do what is best for our students (both in terms of meeting not only their desires, but importantly, also their needs). The issues raised on the 11th will be summarized, and along with relevant additional materials, be made available to Senators ahead of the special meeting. This will still allow Senate to take the lead in modifying these academic policies, while allowing the necessary time for contemplation and discussion to ensure that we get it right.

11 May 2016

President’s Report to Senate — May 2016 With this second Senate meeting of May, 2016, Spring Convocation is imminent, and with

Convocation comes the passing of the baton from the Senate of 2015-16 to that of 2016-

17. I wish to congratulate all students who are graduating in June, wish them well in

their future endeavours, and would remind them that they are tied to Brock University

for the remainder of their lives. As I say at every Convocation, their future success adds

to Brock’s stature, and Brock’s future development continues to add additional value to

their degrees. I extend my thanks to those Senators who will be leaving Senate at the

end of this Senate’s mandate. Your service to the academic governance of your

University is appreciated. To those current Senators who will remain members of the

next Senate, thank you for your continued service.

As you know, Dr. Gary Libben will be stepping down from his position as Vice-President

Research at the end of July, having completed five years and one month in the position.

Please join me in offering our thanks to Dr. Libben for his service. Gary brought much to

helping Brock continue to develop its research culture, and nested within it areas of

“research leadership”, as he calls it.

Unless there is some event that calls for a meeting of Senate 2016-17 before June 30,

this will be my last Senate meeting at which I will have an opportunity to report. May I

say thank you for the opportunity and honour to have served this Senate as well as the

preceding 10 Senates going back to the 2006-07 academic year, when I came to Brock as

its fifth President and Vice-Chancellor. I am certain you will welcome my successor, Dr.

Wendy Cukier, when she assumes this post on Sept. 1, 2016. Universities thrive on new

blood throughout the organization; new hires at every level bring renewed energy and

new perspectives, if the institution is sufficiently open to new perspectives. Take

advantage of Dr. Cukier’s capacity to offer new perspectives to Brock’s Senate.

That said, there are a number of issues that will inevitably carry forward into next year,

and I wish to catalogue some of them in this last report.

The Ontario government’s initiative to develop the final, full version of a new funding

formula for Ontario’s universities will see renewed effort. Sue Herbert’s report and

Office of the President Brock University

Niagara Region

1812 Sir Isaac Brock Way

St. Catharines, ON

L2S 3A1 Canada

T 905-688-5550 x 3333

F 905-684-2277

brocku.ca

2

recommendations were transmitted to the government in early December 2015, and it

was understood that MTCU would have a new formula based on those recommendations

ready for discussion and implementation by the end of June 2016. That process was

interrupted, but has recently been restarted with the secondment to MTCU of Glen

Craney from ONCAT to lead the development of the funding formula. He and his staff are

expected to complete the work by the end of November 2016.

MTCU has made it clear that the new funding formula and the future SMA processes will

be integrated in some fashion. If this turns out to be the case, then there is opportunity

for the combined process to accord reasonably well with what has been Brock’s advocacy

position since the Winter-Spring of 2015 on the new funding formula: that is, desensitize

the formula to enrolment fluctuation (in this era of overall declining domestic

demographic of 18-to-20-year-olds in Ontario) and financially reward institutions for

pursuing the priorities agreed to in their SMAs. Brock’s advocacy position also

encouraged the government to correct historical inequities in funding per BIU, before

implementing a new funding regime, lest the new formula perpetuate these inequities

for several more decades.

In my opinion, the finalization of a new funding formula, together with the marrying of

its implementation to the next SMA process, will result in a renewal of the discussion

about differentiation in the Ontario university sector — about what differentiation means

and how it should be achieved. This debate will largely centre upon how one decides

whether a given university has a significant mandate to pursue research and research-

based graduate programs, and in what fields of research and study. At the heart of the

discussion will be questions like:

Should the province primarily (or almost exclusively) support research and

graduate studies at research-intensive institutions?

Or should the province support areas of research strength and associated graduate

studies in each and every institution?

For institutions that are not research-intensive universities, should there be some

alignment between supported areas of research strength and graduate studies,

and the challenges and development plans of the institution’s host regions?

I believe that Brock’s path to a successful negotiation of its next SMA is dependent on

“yes” answers to the last two questions, and a firm “no” answer to the first. And if

provincial policy in the end follows this path, we must be prepared to carefully

3

document and offer valid and cogent proof points to specific answers to these questions

for Brock.

We must remain attentive to the still-unfolding era in which competition for enrolment

among Ontario universities (in fact, among Canadian universities) will be fierce as a

result of demographic trends — further exacerbated, I might add, by the Ontario

government’s plans to build up to three new university satellite campuses in the outer

GTA. This competitive environment is made more complex by two factors: (1) that

today’s students and parents expect a university education to lead to gainful and

fulfilling employment; and (2) that a false narrative has taken root about the lack of

employment opportunities for those with a humanities or liberal education, as opposed

to graduates with a more professionally oriented one. Brock has appropriately embraced

a variety of forms of experiential learning and correctly communicated to parents and

potential students that formal university studies, in any area of study, coupled with

meaningful experiential learning opportunities provides excellent preparation for life

after graduation, including employment. More recently, Senate has also discussed that

revisiting core requirement of our programs, so that core requirements are reduced to

allow more double-major and more major-minor opportunities for the vast majority of

our students, might better serve our students’ education, their preparation for life after

graduation, enhance our recruitment efforts and encourage more students to pursue

programs (not just context courses) in the humanities and liberal arts.

Finally, the host communities around us need us, and we need them. We must be part of

and a partner with them, in building a better future for both of us. Moreover, these links

and partnerships must cut across our program offerings, both curricular and co-

curricular, and our research activities, especially in those areas that we claim to be our

differentiated strengths. We should continue as well to build institutions with our

community partners that serve our region’s and Ontario’s economic, social and cultural

development. I firmly believe that our future capacity to develop our footprint in the

world of academe — by nature a global, competitive world — is enhanced and

complemented by growing our footprint in our host communities, in multiple ways that

further those communities’ ends.

Again, thank you for the honour and privilege of serving as Brock’s President and Vice-

Chancellor these last 10 years.

Jack Lightstone

President and Vice-Chancellor

Provost’sReporttoSenate,May25th2016

Provost’s Report to Senate May 25, 2016

I begin my report by thanking staff, students and faculty members for their hard work and dedication during the academic year. To outgoing Senators, your service to the governance of Brock University is acknowledged and gratefully appreciated. As we know, the landscape for post-secondary education in Ontario, and around the world, is changing rapidly and there are many challenges; it is only by working together that Brock can succeed, and attain a leadership role. At the recent OCAV meeting there was much discussion of the upcoming SMA process and the funding formula review. Neither process seems to be clear, but it is apparent that they will be inextricably linked. A subsequent communication from the Deputy Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities confirmed that options for a revised funding formula will be unveiled in the Fall for discussion and input. Given that the deadline for signing the upcoming SMA agreements remains March 31, 2017 it is likely that the majority of the work will be done in Fall and early winter. I am pleased to announce the names of the individuals who have agreed to work with the Provost’s Office on the writing of Brock’s SMA – Scott Henderson, Cristina Santos, Tanya Martini, Carol Merriam; the formation of this committee was suggested by Senators at the meeting on April 13 and I approached the individuals directly. I offer my grateful thanks to each of them for agreeing to take on this important task. I also anticipate that the incoming President, Wendy Cukier, will be heavily involved in the creation of Brock’s next SMA, and she will lead the negotiations with the provincial government. I understand that there was lengthy discussion of context credits at the last meeting of Senate but there was no consensus on how to proceed. I intended to propose a discussion of core requirements for today, but given the full agenda the Chair of Senate and I thought perhaps it would be best to delay the discussion of both issues until a September meeting of the new Senate. As I write this I find myself reflecting on the outstanding event to celebrate the Presidency of Jack Lightstone, held at the MIWSFPA this past Saturday evening. A large crowd heard successive speakers laud Jack’s accomplishments, and his selfless dedication to Brock University and to the Niagara Region. From my own perspective, Jack has been a pleasure to work with, always supportive yet constructively critical when necessary; I have learned much from our interactions and will always be glad that our paths crossed as they did. Finally, to conclude this brief report I am alerting Senate that I will be in Europe for the first 3.5 weeks of June; Greg Finn will be Acting Provost while I am away.

1

BROCK UNIVERSITY

Gary Libben, Vice President Research Report to Senate

May 25, 2016 As we move to the end of the 2015-2016 academic year, I wish all my colleagues a thoroughly enjoyable and productive summer. It has been a pleasure and honour for me to work with you this past year. In this report, I have a few updates on our research funding situation as well as an update on patterns of funding and research publication. 1. Research funding, research activity, and Institutional reputation in the Maclean’s University Rankings. Let me begin with a bit of background concerning “institutional reputation” and research activity. It is my belief that, as Canada’s newest member in the Maclean’s group of Comprehensive Universities, issues of reputation are critical for Brock. University reputation is not something that is easy to quantify. However, the Maclean’s ranking does, in fact, contain a column that does reference “reputation” explicitly. The following is the Maclean’s published statement regarding the methodology that they employed last year to arrive at reputational ranks for each of the Comprehensive Universities.

“For the reputational survey, Maclean’s solicits the views of those whose professions put them in a position to form opinions about how well universities are meeting the needs of students, and how ready their graduates are to embark on successful careers. For the first time, the survey was conducted online, and the number of university academics canvassed was greatly expanded. Senior university administrators and faculty members at each ranked institution, as well as high school guidance counsellors and a variety of businesspeople across the country, were asked to rate Canada’s universities in three categories: Highest Quality, Most Innovative, and Leaders of Tomorrow. Best Overall represents the sum of the scores for all three categories. The reputational survey has a regional, as well as a national, component that divides the country into four key areas: the Western provinces, Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. All respondents completed a national survey; university officials and guidance counsellors also completed regional ones, allowing them the opportunity to focus on the region they know best. The surveys are combined to produce the final results.” (Source: http://www.macleans.ca/education/measuring-excellence-the-methodology-behind-macleans-universities-rankings/)

The approach that I took was to examine the correlational structure of the published Maclean’s Report and, specifically, to ask how the other factors that Maclean’s tracks correlate with the factor of “reputation”. The results are shown in Table 1.

2

Table 1. Correlation of Maclean’s University Ranking factors to the factor “Reputational Survey” (Note: potential values range from +1 to -1. A perfect positive correlation is “+1”. A perfect negative correlation is “-1”. No correlation is “0”).

MACLEAN'S FACTOR CORRELATION WITH “REPUTATION”

Research Publication Citations 0.63 Library Acquisitions 0.60 Social Science & Humanities Research Grants 0.59 Total Research Dollars 0.50 Student Awards 0.34 Faculty Awards 0.33 Scholarships And Bursaries 0.30 Student Services 0.29 Medical / Science Research Grants 0.29 Student Satisfaction 0.05 Student / Faculty Ratio -0.01 Operating Budget -0.02 Library Expenses -0.16

As can be seen in Table 1, the Reputational Survey is correlated most strongly with Research Publication Citations, followed by Library Acquisitions, Social Science and Humanities Research Grants, and Total Research Dollars. All other correlations were below 0.35 and were not statistically significant. Members of Senate may be surprised to see that Medical/Science Research Grants do not correlate well with reputation. A likely reason for this is that the Comprehensive Universities do not, by definition, have medical schools. Many do not have large Faculties of Engineering. This view is supported by a supplementary correlation analysis that I conducted using the Medical/Doctoral cohort of Universities. For that group, the correlation of Medical / Science Research Grants to Reputation is .76. The conclusion that I think is appropriate to draw from this is that the reputations of universities are related primarily to their research profiles (as operationalized by measures of publication impact and research funding). I should mention that the measure of “Research Citations”, which is new for Maclean’s this year, uses as its data source the Field-Weighted Citation Index and the publication index provided by Elsevier’s bibliometric software tool, SciVal. It was therefore possible to benchmark our performance on this measure against the other Canadian Comprehensive Universities. For that analysis, I used our Overall Citation Impact score for the past three years (2012-2015). The data yielded by SciVal is represented in Figure 1.

3

Figure 1. Overall Field Weighted Citation impact for the 15 Canadian Comprehensive Universities for the period (2012-2015). The value for each university represents its Citation impact averaged over the three years. The value of “1” represents the world average. A value above 1 is greater than the world average. The notion of “field weighted” refers to the fact that the baseline is adjusted for citation averages in each field. Thus history publications are compared to history publications, chemistry to chemistry, etc. 2. Research Funding Update We do not have all Tri-Agency research grant results in yet for this academic year. It is too early to report on CIHR funding and the SSHRC Insight Development Grant results will not be available until June. Nevertheless, we can compare ourselves to where we were at the same time last year for SSHRC and NSERC. Those data are shown in Figure 2. As can be seen in this figure, we have seen a steady rise in the value of NSERC awards over the past three years. The rise in 2016 is largely attributable to the new NSERC CRD grant awarded to CCOVI this year. On the SSHRC side, we have had an increase in success in the Insight Grant competition. The large increase in amount awarded is associated with a SSHRC Partnership grant that was awarded to Brock in the latest competition.

1.071.13

1.23 1.23 1.241.29 1.29

1.381.42 1.44

1.46 1.491.52

1.661.7

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

Field-WeightedCitationIm

pact

Field-WeightedCitationImpact(2012-2015)

4

Figure 2. SSHRC and NSERC funding (as of May 15) for 2016 as compared to the same point in time for 2014 and 2015. 3. Funding Levels and the Culture of Research Leadership Our recent experience has shown that a very small number of large grants can make a difference in our overall grant funding for a particular year. However, it seems to me important to stress that those large grants usually depend on the extent to which research teams already possess a track record of successful grants, a track record of research publication and impact, and a network of research collaborators and partners. These usually require a considerable amount of time to develop and are features of an overall culture of research leadership. Thus, a very important metric is the participation rate in publication and in external peer-adjudicated grant competitions. In Figures 3 to 8 below, I have endeavoured to take a snapshot of the funding component of this culture by tracking the number of professors in each faculty who are listed in the ORS grant award database as recipients of external funding. Each bar represents one faculty member and the length of the bar represents the total value of that person’s external grants awarded during the period 2011-2015. It is important to note that these data almost certainly under-represent our actual research grant success. The graphs do not include university-internal grants. They do not include faculty members who are co-applicants on grants within the university (If, however, a transfer of funds from another institution was made, that is captured in the database). As can be seen in these figures, there is considerable variation across faculties. I think that an excellent strategy for us would be to work toward increasing the participation rate across all faculties. Small grants

2014 2015 2016SSHRC $1,599,917 $749,986 $3,365,416NSERC $1,876,025 $2,463,271 $2,874,145

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

Totalfudnig(SSHRCIDGexcluded)

SSHRCandNSERCFunding(May2014,2015,2016)

5

will lead naturally to larger grants. Almost all grants help colleagues to provide opportunities for students and trainees.

Figure 3. Faculty of Mathematics and Science.

Figure 4. Faculty of Applied Health Sciences

$2,076$20,000$24,670$38,800$50,000$55,000$55,000$60,000$60,000$60,000$62,500$63,000$70,000$70,000$70,000$75,000$81,250$90,000$90,000$95,000$100,000$100,000$100,000$118,000$130,000$135,000$135,000$140,000$140,000$148,465$148,623$162,000$164,999$175,000$205,000$226,250$227,254$248,629$251,586$260,556$273,630$275,000$275,695$278,891$288,074$310,000$323,000$341,760$353,750

$447,956$454,700

$565,000$613,178

$795,797$1,013,621

$1,139,896$2,213,365

$3,138,846

$0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 $4,500,000

Mercier,JoffreMcCarthy,FrancineM.

Vasseur,Lie[eMcCarthy,Daniel

Kotseridis,GeorgiosFuks,HenrykXu,XiaojianLi,Yuanlin

Pilkington,MelanieYuen,WaiKong(John)

Wolf,ThomasHuang,MeiLing

Kihel,OmarOdesski,Alexandre

Ross,BrianJFarzad,Babak

Ombuki-Berman,BeatriceAnco,Stephen

Qiu,KeSamokhin,Kirill

Duntsch,IvoHoughten,Sheridan

Li,FengRichards,MiriamCarlone,RobertL

Brand,UweFueten,FrankHead,Maren

VanDerEst,ArthurJSkandalis,AdonisLemaire,Maren

Ahmed,SyedEjazWinter,MichaelHarroun,ThadHunter,FionaF

Bidochka,MichaelStuart,Jeff

Reynolds,AndrewGBruce,DouglasHaigRazavi,Fereidoon

Willwerth,JimYan,Hongbin(Tony)

Crandles,DavidTa[ersall,Glenn

Spencer,GaynorEStamatatos,Theocharis

Schmidt,MariekDudding,TravisNikonov,Georgii

Zelisko,PaulAtkinson,JeffreyDespres,Charles

Inglis,DebbieLiang,Ping

Hudlicky,TomasBrindle,Ian

DeLuca,VincenzoPickering,Gary

TotalFunding

Faculty

Mem

ber

FacultyofMathemaAcs&ScienceEachbarrepresentsafacultymemberwhoislistedasanexternalresearch

grantrecipientintheORSfundingdatabasefortheperiod2011-2015

3

$2,545$3,870$5,000$7,240$17,580$20,000$20,000$24,340$27,160$30,500$50,750$57,653$59,491$74,487$79,470$100,000$120,000$130,000$135,000$138,493$138,757$142,000$149,000$161,427$161,910$188,020$209,369$275,000

$635,246$1,056,990

$1,141,631$4,112,272

$0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 $4,500,000

Tiidus,Peter

Engel,Joyce

Moore,Jane

Tsiani,EvangeliaL

Law,Madelyn

Gabriel,David

Mandigo,JamesLloyd

Cosby,Jarold

Leblanc,Paul

Stevens,JulieA

Mongeon,Kevin

Fletcher,Tim

McCleary,Lynn

Trussell,Dawn

Malleck,Daniel

Cousens,Laura

Peters,SandraJ

VanDenboom,Rene

Klentrou,Panagiota

Sharpe,Erin

Josse-Obar,Andrea

Sullivan,Philip

Adkin,Allan

MacK,Diane

Tokuno,Craig

Lockwood,Kelly

Ditor,David

Roy,Brian

Falk,Bareket

Cheung,Stephen

Ward,Wendy

Lawrance,Kelli-An

TotalFunding

Faculty

Mem

ber

FacultyofAppliedHealthSciencesEachbarrepresentsafacultymemberwhoislistedasanexternalresearch


4

6

Figure 5. Faculty of Social Sciences.

Figure 6. Faculty of Humanities.

$1,840$2,093$5,000$5,450$6,600$7,785$8,129$8,300$14,000$15,000$15,925$21,427$26,622$36,079$47,500$50,751$58,763$59,358$60,000$69,569$74,100$74,840$101,440$120,040$121,577$125,000$137,876$144,901$145,000$150,000$175,250$202,594$208,152$212,216$230,310$239,854

$378,719$401,358$471,157$499,338

$634,100$796,361

$2,590,585

$0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 $4,500,000

Belicki,Kathryn

Rose-Krasnor,Linda

Dubois,Janique

Tardif-Williams,Chrisene

Stewart,Jo-Ann

Hodson,Gordon

Bonne[,John

Marini,Zopito

Fullerton,Christopher

Dashwood,Hevina

Middleton,John

Busseri,Michael

Mareni,Tanya

Helleiner,JaneL

McNamara,Lauren

Ripmeester,MichaelR

Coulter,Kendra

Simandan,DragosMatel

Siegel,DavidT.

Gosine,Kevin

Lawford,Heather

McNamara,John

Frijters,Jan

Savage,Larry

Zinga,Dawn

Brudzynski,StefanM.

Pisaric,Michael

Conway,Janet

Mahy,Caitlin

Dimand,Robert

Arnell,Karen

Cote,Kimberly

Evans,Angela

Emrich,Stephen

Hafer,CarolynH.

Nash,CatherineJean

Segalowitz,Sidney

Willoughby,Teena

Plummer,Ryan

Dupont,Diane

Mondloch,Catherine

Doucet,Andrea

Renzei,StevenJ.

TotalFunding

FacultyM

embe

r

FacultyofSocialSciencesEachbarrepresentsafacultymemberwhoislistedasanexternalresearch


5

$2,000$2,000$2,500$12,795$14,000$16,335$18,887$20,000$24,030$25,000$26,960$31,775$46,097$46,747$55,385$60,290$61,724$73,042$73,568$78,757$81,968$90,781$91,199$99,958$120,000

$217,574$291,550

$0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 $4,500,000

Wang,Ning

Zupan,Barbra

Hawreliak,Jason

Cronin,Keri

Chan,Wing-Cheuk

Daigle,Chrisene

Knight,Leah

Lux,Maureen

Dolansky,Fanny

Alvarez,Natalie

Greene,Elizabeth

Be[s,Gregory

Hayes,David

Glazebrook,Allison

Mirzai,Behnaz

Breitenstein,Renee-Claude

Becke[,Sandra

Norris,JohnJoseph

Dickinson,Adam

Vlossak,Elizabeth

Farrell,Thomas

McLeod,JaneA.

Danahay,Maren

MacDonald,Duncan

SuescunPozas,Maria

Sauer,Elizabeth

Kee,Kevin

TotalFunding

Faculty

Mem

ber

FacultyofHumaniAesEachbarrepresentsafacultymemberwhoislistedasanexternalresearch


6

7

Figure 7. Faculty of Education.

Figure 8. Goodman School of Business.

$2,000

$2,489

$5,000

$5,966

$9,000

$10,000

$24,895

$47,687

$52,608

$59,939

$61,255

$66,242

$72,792

$74,614

$74,968

$90,687

$102,127

$267,043

$278,158

$0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 $4,500,000

Volante,Louis

Simmons,NicolaE

Balzer,Geraldine

Maich,Kimberly

Drake,Susan

Benne[,Sheila

Engemann,Joseph

Fazio,Xavier

Dipe[a,Tony

Gallagher,Tiffany

Norris,Trevor

Hands,Catherine

Kitchen,Julian

Mgombelo,Joyce

Harwood,Debra

Rutherford,Camille

Paul,Lissa

Bosacki,Sandra

Rowsell,Jennifer

TotalFunding

Faculty

Mem

ber

FacultyofEducaAonEachbarrepresentsafacultymemberwhoislistedasanexternalresearch


7

$9,000

$9,800

$11,388

$16,977

$36,707

$56,646

$63,013

$64,167

$67,332

$79,226

$84,000

$86,851

$0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 $4,500,000

Scarbrough,Paul

Ogunfowora,Babatunde

Raja,Usman

Bouckenooghe,Dave

Julien,Mark

Voronov,Maxim

Samila,Sampsa

Helms,WesleyS

Ruebo[om,Trish

Mantonakis,Antonia

Lim,SunKyuDominic

DeClercq,Dirk

TotalFunding

Faculty

Mem

ber

GoodmanSchoolofBusinessEachbarrepresentsafacultymemberwhoislistedasanexternalresearch


8

8

4. The relation between publication and levels of external funding. It is important to note in examining the levels of funding in Figures 3 to 8 above, that different disciplines have access to different levels of funding and, indeed, there are substantial disciplinary difference in the need for funding. Ultimately, the goal of research is to create new knowledge. Funding is an input to the process of knowledge creation. Publication, mentorship, application, and impact are typical outputs It seems worthwhile, therefore, to examine what relationship, if any, exists between an input measure such as funding and an output measure such as publication. To do this, we examined the publication rates (articles and chapters) for faculty members at Brock University in relation to their levels of external funding. We constructed five “levels” of external funding, using the ORS grant award database. We calculated the publication rates for those colleagues who were not listed in the ORS grant database (over the period 2011 to 2015) and compared those publication rates to the rates for faculty members who were listed in the database as being awarded from $1 to $49,000, $50,000 to $99,000, $100,000 to $249,000, and over $250,000 for the same time period (2011-2015). The results of this analysis are shown in the box and whisker plots in Figure 9. As can be seen in Figure 9, median publication rates rise across the five funding categories. Nevertheless, there are colleagues who are not listed in the ORS grant award database who show very high levels of publication.

Figure 9. Levels of publication (articles and chapters) in relation to levels of external grant funding (as measured by presence in the ORS Grant database).

Thisgraphdepictsbox-and-whiskerplots(seeexplanaeononrighthandpanelabove).ShadedareaswithintheboxesrepresenttheproporeonofTDHubmemberswithinthecategory.

N=426TD=18%

N=46TD=26%

N=36TD=8%

N=39TD=38%

N=29TD=52%

TDHubmembers=20%ofTotalFaculty

NotinORSGrantDatabase

ExplanaAon

Source:h[p://flowingdata.com/2008/02/15/how-to-read-and-use-a-box-and-whisker-plot/

9

The analysis shown in Figure 9 also allowed us, at the same time, to examine the extent to which members of Transdisciplinary Hubs were evenly represented across the five funding groups. Overall, 20% of Brock faculty are members of Transdisciplinary Hubs. However, they do not represent 20% of each of the funding groups. As can be seen in Figure 9, Transdisciplinary Hub members make up 52% of the highest grant funding group. Another vantage point from which to examine the relation between funding and publication is presented in Figure 10. Here, it is levels of publication that are grouped along the horizontal axis. Levels of external funding are show in the vertical axis. We note, again, that Transdisciplinary Hub members are under-represented in the lower groups and over-represented in the highest group (39%). It is noteworthy, that the median values for the seven publication groups do not differ greatly. This is essentially a “floor effect”. Even in the highest group of publication, approximately 50% of faculty members are not listed in the ORS external grant database. Because the median is defined as the midpoint of a range of values, the median is very close to zero in all categories, The difference is that in the lowest publication group, there are almost no members who have received external funding in the period 2011-2015, according to our database. In the highest group, about half have been awarded external funding. The conclusion that I draw from this is that without a record of sustained publication, it is very difficult for faculty members to be competitive in external grant funding applications. Thus, by investing in the culture of publication we are also increasing the viability of research grant applications. Although it is true that research funding is an input and publication is an output, they are both components of an inter-related research ecosystem.

Figure 10. Total external funding (as measured by presence in the ORS Grant database) in relation to levels of publication (articles and chapters).

12

$0

$1M

$2M

$3M

$4M

TotalExte

rnalFund

ing20

11-2015

zero* between0and1

between1and2

between2and3

between3and4

between4and5

over5

AverageArecles+Chaptersperpersonperyear

N=109TD=4%

N=114TD=12%

N=144TD=27%

N=84TD=20%

N=52TD=27%

N=43TD=26%

N=57TD=39%

Thisgraphdepictsbox-and-whiskerplots(seeexplanaeononrighthandpanelofslide10).Notehowmediansdifferveryli[leacrossthecategories,butupperquarelesdo.

10

5. The use of research grant funding and the integration of the university’s teaching and research missions. Our records within ORS enable us to track the kinds of expenditures that are associated with research grants. As can be seen in Figure 11 below, the largest component of research grant expenditure is the employment of students. The culture of research leadership is one that enables us to provide resources for students in terms of funding, it enables us to purchase equipment that aids in their training, it creates travel and networking opportunities for students. Most importantly, in my view, it creates the culture in which students are treated as junior colleagues in the creation of new knowledge and understanding.

Figure 11. The distribution of research grant expenditures at Brock University (2015)

13

ThedistribueonofTri-AgencygrantfundspendingatBrockUniversityfor2012-2015.

StudentWages37%

Non-studentWages9%

MaterialsandSupplies27%

Equipment9%

Travel18%

Travel(students&faculty)

Buyequipment,materialsandsupplies

Employstudents

Employothers

Memo TO: Scott Henderson, Chair, Senate FROM: Barb Davis, Registrar RE: Convocation – Spring 2016 The attached is a summary of the number of undergraduate and graduate degrees and certificates to be conferred during Spring 2016 Convocation. A listing of the candidates, by name and degree, is available in both the Office of the Secretary to the University and my office. The attached summary is as of May 17, 2016.

MOVED ( ) That the Spring 2016 Convocation Degrees and Certificates be approved as submitted.

May 17, 2016

BD/

Attach.

Graduate Studies (as of May 17, 2016)

Applied Health Studies Doctor of Philosophy 3

Master of Arts 10

Master of Science 11 Education Doctor of Philosophy 2

Master of Education 41

Humanities Doctor of Philosophy 1 Master of Arts 12 Mathematics and Science Doctor of Philosophy 8 Master of Science 24 Goodman School of Business Master of Accountancy 51 Master of Business Administration 128 Master of Science 5 Social Sciences Doctor of Philosophy 2 Master of Applied Disability Studies 65 Master of Arts 34 Master of Business Economics 6 Master of Sustainability 6 Applied Health Sciences Total 24 Education Total 43 Humanities Total 13 Mathematics and Science Total 32 School of Business Total 184 Social Sciences 113

Graduate Studies Faculty Total 409

Undergraduate Studies (as of May 17, 2016)

Applied Health Sciences Bachelor of Arts (Honours) 11

Bachelor of Arts (3 Year) 24

Bachelor of Kinesiology (Honours) 99

Bachelor of Kinesiology 13

Bachelor of Physical Education (Honours) 72

Bachelor of Physical Education With Major 8

Bachelor of Public Health (Honours) 45

Bachelor of Recreation and Leisure Studies (Honours) 8

Bachelor of Recreation and Leisure Studies With Major 21

Bachelor of Recreation and Leisure Studies (3 Year) 12

Bachelor of Science (Honours) 73

Bachelor of Science With Major 2 Bachelor of Science in Nursing 87

Bachelor of Sport Management (Honours) 79

Bachelor of Sport Management With Major 9

Bachelor of Sport Management (3 Year) 2 Education Bachelor of Early Childhood Education (Honours) 18

Bachelor of Education 312

Bachelor of Education Aboriginal Adult Education 1

Bachelor of Education Adult Education 78

Certificate in Adult Education 16

Gidyaamin Aboriginal Women’s Certificate 1

Masters Preparation Certificate in Education 12

Humanities Bachelor of Arts (Honours) 290 Bachelor of Arts With Major 5

Humanities Bachelor of Arts (3 Year) 63 Bachelor of Music (Honours) 7 Certificate in Studies in Rhetoric and Professional Writing 2 Mathematics and Science Bachelor of Computing and Business (Honours) 2 Bachelor of Science (Honours) 161 Bachelor of Science With Major 22 Bachelor of Science (3 Year) 38

Certificate in Grape and Wine Technology 2

School of Business Bachelor of Accounting (Honours) 168

Bachelor of Business Administration (Honours) 177

Bachelor of Business Administration 58

Certificate in Administrative Studies 5 Professional Masters Preparation Certificate 44 Social Sciences Bachelor of Arts (Honours) 435 Bachelor of Arts With Major 110 Bachelor of Arts (3 Year) 260 Bachelor of Business Economics (Honours) 20 Bachelor of Science (Honours) 7 Bachelor of Science (3 Year) 2 Certificate in Speech and Language Sciences 4

Certificate in Teaching English as a Subsequent/Foreign Language 4

Applied Health Sciences Total 565 Education Total 438 Humanities Total 367 Mathematics and Science Total 225 School of Business Total 452 Social Sciences Total 842

Undergraduate Faculty Total 2889

Graduate & Undergraduate Degrees & Certificates – Total 3298

Spring Convocation 2016 – Graduate and Undergraduate Degrees and Certificates

As of May 17, 2016

Barb Davis, Registrar

TO: Chabriol Colebatch, Secretary to the University and General Counsel

Brock University

FROM: Professor Susan Sydor

Chair, Senate Teaching and Learning Policy Committee

DATE: May 18, 2016

REPORT TO SENATE 641, Wednesday May 25th, 2016

ACTION/DECISION ITEMS

a) 1. Indigenous Education Report

MOVED (Sydor/ )

THAT Senate endorse the spirit of the Indigenous Education Advisory Committee

Report and begin the process of enacting and operationalizing the report’s

recommendations.

Rationale:

At its April 19, 2016 meeting the Senate Committee on Teaching and Learning Policy

unanimously passed the following motion:

THAT Teaching and Learning Policy Committee endorse the spirit of the Indigenous

Education Advisory Committee Report and encourages Senate and its Committees to begin

the process of enacting and operationalizing the report’s recommendations.

Additionally, the Report was placed on the May 13th agenda of the Aboriginal Education Council

1

for consultation. At that meeting the AEC passed unanimously, the following motion:

The Aboriginal Education Council:

A. Strongly endorses the Indigenous Education report brought forward by the Teaching

and Learning Policy Committee of Senate;

1 Terms of Reference which were initially approved by AEC consensus on March 17, 2000 and endorsed by the

Brock University Senate on May 24, 2000.

B. Strongly encourages Senate to endorse Indigenous Education as one of the priorities in

the Strategic Mandate Agreement;

C. Strongly encourages Senate to establish an academic plan with goals and timelines

congruent with the recommendations of the report.

Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission contains 94 calls to action. While Brock

University has two units which address the issues of Indigenous education, we fall considerably

short of the opportunity of the call “to put indigenous cultures, histories, languages and knowledge

on a new footing within the academy.”2

The report of the Indigenous Education Advisory Committee, which is consistent with the

Indigenous Education Protocol for Colleges & Institutes (IEP) Framework, provides direction for

Brock University to move forward in its desire to respond to the needs of our community and the

next generation of students.

Background

The matter of the application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

People (UNDRIP) to programs at Brock University first came to the attention of Senate on

November 12, 2014. On December 18, 2014 the Senate Committee on Teaching and Learning

Policy passed a motion calling for a report from the Vice Provost on “how these programs can be

either modified, changed, or developed so that Aboriginal Programs are put forth in compliance

with UNDRIP as well as also establishing compliance with Brock University’s teaching

mandate…” and further that “our outcomes will be equitable for both parties and help to create an

atmosphere of peace, mutual respect and friendship between both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal

peoples.”

In January 2015 Vice Provost Anna Lathrop called for interested parties to form an Advisory

Committee on Aboriginal Education and followed through by establishing a smaller working

group to gather information and establish best practices. (See page 2 of the attached Report).

Fifteen months later, in April 2016, the Senate Committee on Teaching and Learning Policy

unanimously endorsed the spirit of the Indigenous Education Report and encouraged Senate to

take action.

IEAC Report

Appendices

For Information

By means of an electronic vote the committee approved the Annual Report to Senate.

2 http://www.universityaffairs.ca/features/feature-article/indigenizing-the-academy/



TO: Secretary Brock University Senate FROM: Christine Daigle, Chair Senate Graduate Studies Committee (SGSC) DATE: May 17, 2016

Report to Senate #641, May 25, 2016

1. For the approval of Senate: a. Change in FHB 11 Graduate Appeals It is MOVED (Daigle/ ) that the proposed changes to FHB 11 Graduate Appeals be approved. 11 Graduate Appeals All graduate students have the right to appeal academic decisions. An appeal is a request that an academic decision (e.g., a grade or standing in a program) be changed, based on the evidence supplied by the student or that a regulation be waived on compassionate grounds or because of extenuating circumstances. Appeal decisions (at all stages) will normally be made within 10 working days following receipt of the appeal and communicated electronically to the student as soon as possible. If the decision cannot be made in the posted timeframe, the student will be contacted to discuss an appropriate time frame for the decision and response. The procedure of appeal varies according to the type of the appeal. The various procedures are outlined below. Graduate students are entitled to bring one faculty, staff or student members of Brock University to any appeals meetings. Students who are not satisfied with a decision pertaining to their academic standing may appeal the decision if they have reasons to believe either that the decision was rendered unfairly, that there have been procedural errors, or that there are compelling extenuating circumstances calling for a change in decision. In each instance, students should first seek an informal resolution with the person or committee that has rendered the decision. Should this fail, the student may appeal to the Graduate Appeals Committee (GAC), which will provide a fair hearing according to the principles of natural justice. A student’s status in their graduate program will remain unchanged while the appeal is in process. No appeal may be commenced once the student has graduated from their program.

(Refer to the Academic Integrity Policy for information on process for appealing decisions pertaining to academic misconduct). Graduate Appeals Committee (GAC) The GAC shall consist of three faculty members who have expertise in graduate teaching and/or supervision and three graduate student representatives so that all six academic faculties are represented. The Dean of Graduate Studies or designate will chair the GAC and be non-voting except in a case of a tied vote. The Director of the Faculty of Graduate studies or designate will be a non-voting member of the committee. 11.1 Types of Appeals A. Appeal of Grades i) Students who have a question regarding an academic decision in a course (including grades) must first discuss the matter with the course instructor or their supervisor (in the case of their thesis or major research paper), and the Graduate Program Director. If not satisfied with the decision/result of the appeal, the student may then refer the matter to the Faculty Dean and the Dean of Graduate Studies who will render a joint decision. If the student is not satisfied with the decision of the Deans, the student may then appeal to the Senate Student Appeals Board. ii) Appeals of final grades, including the assignment of a failing grade for non-attendance in a course, must be made within 30 days of the posting of grades by the Faculty of Graduate Studies. Failure of a course itself is not a valid reason for appeal. If the absence of the instructor, or other factors make an appeal within 30 days impossible, the intention to appeal should be indicated to the Graduate Program Director within 30 days of the posting of grades by the Faculty of Graduate Studies.

Senate 617 B. Appeals Related to Academic Requirements/Decisions i) A request for an exemption to a graduate program degree requirement must be directed to the Graduate Program Director of the student's program. If not satisfied with the outcome of the request, the student may then refer the matter to the Faculty Dean and the Dean of Graduate Studies. If the student is not satisfied with the joint decision of the Deans, the student may then appeal to the Senate Student Appeals Board. ii) A request for an exemption to a University degree requirement must be directed to the Faculty Dean and the Dean of Graduate Studies. If the student is not satisfied with the joint decision of the Deans, the student may then appeal to the Senate Student Appeals Board. iii) Appeals of academic decisions made by the Graduate Program Committee and/or Graduate Program Director (e.g,. required program withdrawal) must be directed first to the Graduate Program Committee or Graduate Program Director who made the decision. If not satisfied with the outcome of the request, the student may then refer the matter to the Faculty Dean and the Dean of Graduate Studies. If the student is not satisfied with the joint decision of the Deans, the student may then appeal to the Senate Student Appeals Board.

Senate 597,617 C. Requests for Retroactive Registration and Backdated Withdrawal

i) Within 30 days of the last day of classes, a backdated withdrawal will be considered upon the receipt of a request to the Faculty of Graduate Studies which is supported by documentation verifying medical reasons (Brock University Medical Certificate) or compassionate grounds that prevented the student from withdrawing by the required date for doing so. Requests submitted without supporting documentation will not be considered. ii) Prior to the last day of the course duration, a request for retroactive registration will be considered by the Faculty of Graduate Studies upon the receipt of supporting documentation that outline the reason(s) why formal registration did not occur. This documentation must be accompanied by a Registration Form signed and dated by the course instructor, and Graduate Program Director, verifying that the student has been in continuous attendance. iii) Requests under C. i) and C. ii) are considered by, and a decision rendered by the Director of Graduate Studies (or designate). There is no charge for this request. iv) Students wishing to appeal the decision of the Director of the Faculty of Graduate Studies may refer the matter to the Dean of Graduate Studies. If the student is not satisfied with the decision of the Dean of Graduate Studies, the student may then appeal to the Senate Student Appeals Board.

Senate 617 D. Appeals of Charges of Academic Misconduct All appeals of academic misconduct decisions made jointly by the Faculty Dean and Dean of Graduate Studies may be appealed to the Senate Student Appeals Board within 30 days of the date of the letter informing the student of the decision and/or penalty.

Senate 597,617 E. Medical Appeals The University endeavours to accommodate students whose studies become interrupted, or who may be unable to complete academic work, or white a test or examination due to an incapacitating medical condition. In these situations, the student must complete the Brock University Medical Certificate and include any relevant medical documentation to support his/her request for academic accommodation based on medical grounds. The University may, at its discretion, request more detailed documentation in certain cases. Types of Appeals A. Academic Appeals Students may appeal academic decisions affecting their standing in their program such as grades and program requirement decisions. Students may also appeal for an exemption to a program degree requirement. Appeals of final grades Appeals of final grades, including the assignment of a failing grade for non-attendance in a course, must be made within 30 days of the posting of grades by the Faculty of Graduate Studies. Appeals of program requirement decisions

Appeals of decisions regarding program requirements must be made within 30 days of being notified in writing by the Graduate Program Director that the student has failed to meet the program requirement(s). Appeal for an exemption to a program degree requirement Appeals to be exempt from fulfilling a degree requirement must be made 90 days before the deadline to satisfy the degree requirement. B. Non-Academic Appeals Appeals of registration and student status decisions Students may appeal decisions regarding their registration and student status such as retroactive registration, backdated course withdrawal, extension of degree time limits. Appeals of such decisions must be made within 30 days of being notified of the decision. Appeal Process Students must direct their appeal to the GAC following the guidelines and using the form provided on the Faculty of Graduate Studies website. Appeals will be made in writing and will provide all evidence to document the grounds for the appeal. The person or committee that has rendered the decision under appeal will be invited to submit a written response to which the student can rebut. If the rebuttal raises new issues, the person or committee may respond one last time. This documentation is forwarded to the GAC. The GAC will render a decision on the appeal within 30 days. Subsequently, students may appeal to the Student Appeals Board only if there is new evidence that was not available at the time of filing the appeal or evidence of substantial procedural errors or irregularities in the GAC’s handling of the appeal. Rationale: The current graduate appeals process has been problematic in terms of process and timelines. The proposed changes clarify the process and grounds for appeals as well as clearly delineates the timelines. At the request of graduate programs and graduate students the SGSC and its Policy Sub-Committee reviewed the issues of concern and alternative graduate appeals processes at other universities. Following the review a new FHB entry was developed largely based on the graduate appeal process used at Wilfred Laurier University. Consultation with the Chair of the Senate Student Appeals Board regarding the revised policy also occurred. b. Change in FHB 6.7 English Language Proficiency It is MOVED (Daigle/ ) that the proposed changes to FHB 6.7 English Language Proficiency be approved. 6.7 English Language Proficiency

A. English is the language of instruction for graduate programs at Brock University. Therefore, strong English language ability is necessary for full participation in academic life at the University. Successful graduate work requires solid proficiency in all four English language skills: speaking, listening, reading and writing. B. Master's applicants who have not completed three or more years of post-secondary study and doctoral applicants who have not completed two or more years of post-secondary study at a Canadian institution or at an institution at which English was the primary language of instruction will be required to provide certification of English language proficiency through one of the accepted program/examinations listed below: i) Successful completion of Level 5 of the Brock Intensive English Language program; or ii) A minimum TOEFL PBT (Paper based) score of 550 plus 4.0 minimum for the TWE (Test of Written English), or TOEFL iBT (Internet based) minimum overall score of 80, with no sub-test score under 19; or

Senate 595 iii) A minimum score of 6.5 on the International English Language Testing System (IELTS), with no section under 5.5; or iv) Deleted (Senate 629) v) Achievement of an overall Band Score of 60, with 60 in writing, and no other under 50 on the Canadian Academic English Language Assessment (CAEL); or vi) An average of at least 4.5 with no band score lower than 4.0 on the Can Test (Canadian Test of English for Scholars and Trainees). vii) A minimum overall score of 60 and a minimum score of 60 in each individual component on the Pearson Test of English Academic (PTE-A).

Senate 617, 629 C. Students admitted on the basis of an English Language Proficiency test score are required to complete a Graduate English Language Proficiency Assessment upon arrival at the University as a condition of admission. The results are sent by the Faculty of Graduate Studies to the student, the graduate supervisor and the Graduate Program Director. The intent of this ELP assessment on arrival is to provide the student and the graduate program with an early indication of the graduate student's English language capability as he/she enters the graduate program. It is up to the program and the student to review the results and to determine and implement any required or suggested student-specific ELP remediation or support.

Senate 578, 629 D. C. International Graduate Cohort Programs Students applying to International Graduate Cohort programs will adhere to the same English Language Proficiency requirements as those students applying to the domestic graduate programs. All International Graduate Cohort programs must include as part of their program requirements an English Language bridging program and ongoing English language support services. These will be described in the program's graduate calendar entry. E. D. Graduate programs may require English Proficiency scores that are higher than the University minimums for admission to specific graduate programs.

Rationale: The FGS no longer has access to an on-campus ELP assessment tool suitable for this assessment. Graduate programs have also indicated that it is more appropriate for program specific ELP assessments to be undertaken where appropriate. 2. For the information of Senate: The Calendar entry for the Child and Youth

Studies program, including the new PhD in Child and Youth Studies was approved. It was noted by the Library representative that ARC new program proposals unlike cyclical reviews do not allow for a thorough review of library resources required for new programs. A motion was passed and will be sent to ARC requesting that the new program proposal manual include the same language re: library resources as included in a cyclical review self-study manual.

3. For the information of Senate: The report from the Academic Advisory

Committee was received. 4. For the information of Senate: The cyclical review for Physics was

discussed and a response has been sent to ARC. 5. For the information of Senate: The SGSC 2015-16 Year-end report was

reviewed and is submitted to Senate (see attached).

MEMORANDUM

TO: Secretary

Brock University Senate

FROM: Dan Malleck

Chair, Research & Scholarship Policy Committee DATE: May 17, 2016

REPORT TO SENATE #641 May 25, 2016 Arising from the R&SPC meeting of May 6, 2016, the following is for the Meeting of Senate:

1. For the Decision of Senate – Name change for the Brock Institute for Scientific Computing (BISC)

MOVED

(Malleck/ )

THAT the Research and Scholarship Policy Committee recommends to Senate

the name of the Brock Institute for Scientific Computing (BISC) be changed to

Brock Institute for Research Computing (BIRC)

Rationale: On February 12, 2016 and March 18th, 2016 the R&SP committee

reviewed the Brock Institute for Scientific Computing according to Faculty

Handbook Section III: 9:5. During that review, a name change was suggested, but it

was decided to separate the name change from the revised Strategic Plan and deal

with the issues individually. At the March 18th, 2016 meeting of the R&SP

committee they agreed to recommend to Senate that the term of the Brock

Institute for Scientific Computing (BISC) be extended for an additional five years.

Following the meeting, the Chair agreed he would seek clarification on the process

for requesting a name change regarding an institute. At which time the Chairs of

Senate and Governance were consulted and suggested the R&SP committee

recommend to Senate the name change for Brock Institute for Scientific Computing

(BISC) be changed to Brock Institute for Research Computing (BIRC). This change

will better reflect the scope of the Institute.

Senate

2

2. For the Decision of Senate – Recommended changes to Faculty Handbook, Section III. 8.2.2 – 8.2.8 MOVED

(Malleck/ ) THAT the Research & Scholarship Policy Committee recommends to Senate changes to FHB: Section III: 8.2.2; 8.2.3; 8.2.4; 8.2.5 as outlined below and sections that address appointments to REBs (8.2.5), reconsideration and appeals (8.2.7), and conflicts of interests (8.2.8) be added to the FHB, Section III.

FHB, Section III. 8.2.2 Current Text: 8.2.2 Responsibilities of the Vice-President, Research The responsibility for upholding the TCPS is entrusted on behalf of the university to the Office of the Vice-President, Research (VPR). The VPR is responsible for the implementation of this policy through the Bioscience Research Ethics Board (BREB) and the Social Science Research Ethics Board (SREB), hereafter referred to as the REBs. The VPR shall (a) appoint members of Brock University’s REBs, (b) provide administrative support in the form of financial and human resources for ethics review and for educating the university community about human ethics, and (c) provide an appeal mechanism for ethics review. Recommended change: 8.2.2 Responsibilities of the Vice-President, Research The responsibility for upholding the TCPS is entrusted on behalf of the university to the Office of the Vice-President, Research (VPR). The VPR is responsible for the implementation of this policy through the Bioscience Research Ethics Board (BREB) and the Social Science Research Ethics Board (SREB), hereafter referred to as the REBs. The VPR shall provide sufficient, on-going financial, human, and administrative resources for ethics review and for educating the university community about human ethics. FHB, Section III: 8.2.3 8.2.3 Responsibilities of the REBs Current Text: (b) The REBs are empowered to ensure that all research involving humans conducted under the auspices or within the jurisdiction of Brock University is ethical, and is conducted in accordance with this policy. As such, a REB may accept, reject, or propose modifications to any proposed or ongoing research that is subject to REB review, pursuant to Brock standards. A REB also has the authority to suspend any ongoing research under its purview that is deemed to pose an unacceptable risk of harm to participants or in which the principal researcher has not complied with Brock University policies and procedures related to the ethical conduct of research involving humans. A decision of a REB to disallow research on ethical grounds, unless reversed on reconsideration by that REB, may only be reversed through the REB appeal process. Decisions shall be final and binding in all respects for any appeal of an REB decision.

3

Recommended Change: (b) The REBs are empowered to ensure that all research involving humans conducted under the auspices or within the jurisdiction of Brock University is ethical, and is conducted in accordance with this policy. As such, a REB may accept, reject, or propose modifications to any proposed or ongoing research that is subject to REB review, pursuant to Brock standards. A REB also has the authority to suspend any ongoing research under its purview that is deemed to pose an unacceptable risk of harm to participants or in which the principal researcher has not complied with Brock University policies and procedures related to the ethical conduct of research involving humans. A decision of a REB to disallow research on ethical grounds, unless reversed on reconsideration by that REB, may only be reversed through the REB appeal process (see 8.2.7).Decisions shall be final and binding in all respects for any appeal of an REB decision. FHB, Section III: 8.2.5 Recommended Addition: (note that this section will be labelled as 8.2.5 and the original 8.2.5 will be changed to 8.2.6). 8.2.5 Appointment of REB Members, Vice Chairs, Chairs, and Appeal Board members. a) The REB shall follow its own established guidelines and procedures to propose candidate names for REB members, REB Vice-Chairs, and REB Chairs, and for all members of the Appeal Board, to the Research and Scholarship Policy Committee of Senate. b) The Research and Scholarship Policy Committee shall recommend members, Vice-Chair and Chair of the REBs, and members of the Appeal Board, to Senate. c) The VPR and/or delegates shall be recused from any part of a Research and Scholarship Policy Committee meeting where appointment recommendations are discussed or decided. Current Text: 8.2.5 Reporting Structures The Research and Scholarship Policy Committee of Senate reviews and advises on research ethics policy (I:9.12.1). The REBs shall report to this committee, at minimum, annually on workload, regulations, and other issues as may arise. In addition, the REBs and the REO shall report to the VPR, at minimum, annually on administrative matters. However, the ethics review process itself must be independent from institutional agenda or pressures. Recommended Change: 8.2.6 Reporting Structures. The Research and Scholarship Policy Committee of Senate reviews and advises on research ethics policy (I:9.12.1). The REBs shall report to this committee, at minimum, annually on workload, regulations, guidelines and procedures for the ethics review process, and other issues as may arise. In addition, the REBs and the REO shall report to the VPR, at minimum, annually on administrative matters. However, the ethics review process itself and REB decisions must be independent from institutional agenda or pressures.

Senate 197, 306, 461, 470, 515, 526, 586, 593

4

Recommended Addition: 8.2.7 Reconsideration and Appeals: a) Researchers may seek reconsideration or appeal an REB decision as per the current TCPS. b) The Appeal Board may approve, reject or request modifications to proposed research. Details about the appeal process are available from the Research Ethics Office. c) The decision of the Appeal Board shall be final. Recommended Addition: 8.2.8 Conflict of Interest The REB is a self-governing body that works independently from the Office of Research Services and the Vice-President, Research in fulfilling its responsibilities. The REB must be free from influence or interference and follow the directives of the current TCPS regarding institutional, REB member and researcher, or other conflicts of interest, according to the procedures outlined below. The Brock University Conflict of Interest Policy also applies. The purpose of this policy is both to ensure a fair and impartial process for making REB decisions and to preserve the ethical integrity of the research itself. This policy applies both to the members and Chair of the REB, and to all researchers who come before the REB.

a) The same definitions of “Real conflict”, “Apparent conflict”, and “Potential conflict” (collectively, a “COI”) as set out in the Conflict of Interest Policy apply herein b) Any Real, Apparent or Potential conflicts of interest in relation to the REB process must be declared to the Chair of the REB by each person who is conflicted or who may be conflicted. c) The “REB process” includes, but is not limited to, the following: decisions regarding a REB application prior to being assigned a file number; decisions on risk assessment of a file and categorization to full, administrative, or delegated review; all and any decisions on a research study that has been assigned a file number; decisions regarding reportable and non-reportable incidents involving participants; decisions regarding researcher compliance; and decisions regarding appeals to the REB on an existing file or appeals regarding a researcher project not yet assigned a file number. d) Any person who fails to disclose a COI under this policy may be subject to the same disciplinary actions set out in section 8 of the Brock University Conflict of Interest Policy. e) The Chair of the REB may raise a COI herself or himself. f) The Chair of the REB will decide how to manage and/or avoid any COI, which may include disclosure of the COI to the research participant as deemed necessary. g) If any person is not satisfied with the Chair’s decision, he or she may appeal to the Provost, whose decision is final. h) If the alleged COI involves the Chair of the REB, instead of reporting the conflict to the Chair, the COI must be reported directly to the Provost, whose decision is final.

5

i) In making any decision on COIs, both the Chair of the REB and the Provost will be guided by the Brock University Conflict of Interest Policy, the related principles and procedures, and the Statement of Principles of Research Ethics.

Rationale: These changes to the FHB were originally discussed in 2013-2014, as outlined in Appendix 2. They were further discussed by the R&SP committee up to November 2014. Initially it was to be passed at a meeting on April 29, 2015, but the committee ran out of time. At the next meeting, May 13, 2015, (at which quorum was not achieved) the Vice President, Research asked for the committee to delay proceeding on the document because he wanted to review the administrative implications of these changes on the Research Ethics Office. The original request recommended changes to FHB: Section III: 8.2.2; 8.2.3; 8.2.4; 8.2.5 related to the appointment process, reporting structure, and also the report of the REBs and the Research Ethics Manager to the VPR on administrative matters, which could potentially cause conflicts of interest. The REB Sub-committee also recommended that sections that address appointments to REBs (the new 8.2.5), reconsideration and appeals (8.2.7), and conflicts of interests (8.2.8) be added to the FHB, Section III. Professor Zupan, R&SPC Chair at that time (2014-2015), agreed to change the REB item in the committee’s Annual Report to indicate this item be forwarded for next year’s committee (2015-2016) for a decision.

3. For the Decision of Senate – Review: Centre for Research in Multiliteracies

MOVED

(Malleck/ ) THAT the Research & Scholarship Policy Committee recommends to Senate that the term of the Centre for Research in Multiliteracies be extended for an additional five years

Rationale: On May 6, 2016, the Research & Scholarship Policy Committee met to discuss the renewal of the Centre for Research in Multiliteracies (Appendix 3). It was agreed by the committee to recommend to Senate that the Centre for Research in Multiliteracies be extended for an additional five years according to Faculty Handbook Section III: 9.5.1.

4. For the Decision of Senate – Review: Centre for Business Analytics (CBA)

MOVED

(Malleck/ )

THAT the Research & Scholarship Policy Committee recommends to Senate that full approval for five years be granted for the establishment of the Centre for Business Analytics (CBA).

6

Rationale: On May 6, 2016, the Research & Scholarship Policy Committee met to discuss the establishment of the Centre for Business Analytics (CBA) (Appendix 4). It was agreed by the committee to recommend to Senate that the Centre for Business Analytics (CBA) be granted full approval for five years according to Faculty Handbook Section III: 9.4.2a pending the Chair of the R&SP Committee receiving the emails from the Deans indicating their support is provided to Senate. Appendix 1: Faculty Handbook, Section III. 8.2.2 – 8.2.8 Appendix 2: Review: Centre for Multiliteracies Appendix 3: Review: Centre for Business Analytics (CBA)

1

This is a document discussed by the R&SP committee up to November 2014. Initially it was to be passed at a meeting on 29 April 2015 but the committee ran out of time. At the next meeting, 13 May 2015, (at which quorum was not achieved) the Vice President, Research asked for the committee to delay proceeding on the document. From the minutes of the meeting:

b. REB Document Report Dr. Libben noted that he wants to review the ethics function of the Research Ethics Office over the summer and have the current draft of the REB document be further reviewed during this time. He noted that a new chair needs to be appointed and he is open to having Senate appoint that chair. He indicated he met with Ms. Lori Walker and she agreed to draft templates for a proposed ethics model with one chair, a vice-chair and a two panel board, which will be a more workable solution. Professor Zupan outlined the original request, which recommended changes to FHB: Section III: 8.2.2; 8.2.3; 8.2.4; 8.2.5 related to the appointment process, reporting structure, and also the report of the REBs and the Research Ethics Manager to the VPR on administrative matters, which could potentially cause conflicts of interest. She agreed to change the REB item in the Annual Report to indicate this item be forwarded for next year’s committee for a decision.

Our committee, 2015-16 is “next year’s committee” referenced in Dr. Zupan’s comments. I have included the comments on this document for the information of the committee. DRAFT November 13, 2014

Senate R & S P Committee REB Sub-committee

Members: Kamini Jaipal-Jamani, Michelle McGinn (2013-2014 R&SP committee), Heather Whipple and Mike Farrell, (Governance committee), Chabriol Colebatch and Jordan Snel (Legal guidance), and Barbra Zupan (2014-2015 R&SP committee) Meeting Dates: 21 November 2013; 10 December 2013, January 24, 2014, November 12, 2014 On ……, the R&SP committee received a letter from . This letter highlighted concerns about ….. This sub-committee was formed to respond to those concerns and is recommending changes to following sections of the FHB, Section III: 8.2.2; 8.2.3b; 8.2.4; 8.2.5. We are also recommending that sections that address appointments to REBs (8.2.5), reconsideration and appeals (8.2.7), and conflicts of interests (8.2.8) be added to the FHB, Section III. FHB, Section III. 8.2.2 Current Text: 8.2.2 Responsibilities of the Vice-President, Research The responsibility for upholding the TCPS is entrusted on behalf of the university to the Office of the Vice-President, Research (VPR). The VPR is responsible for the implementation of this policy through the Bioscience Research Ethics Board (BREB) and the Social Science Research Ethics Board (SREB), hereafter referred to as the REBs. The VPR shall (a) appoint members of Brock University’s REBs, (b) provide administrative support in the form of financial and human

2

resources for ethics review and for educating the university community about human ethics, and (c) provide an appeal mechanism for ethics review. Recommended change: 8.2.2 Responsibilities of the Vice-President, Research The responsibility for upholding the TCPS is entrusted on behalf of the university to the Office of the Vice-President, Research (VPR). The VPR is responsible for the implementation of this policy through the Bioscience Research Ethics Board (BREB) and the Social Science Research Ethics Board (SREB), hereafter referred to as the REBs. The VPR shall provide sufficient, on-going financial,human, and administrative resources for ethics review and for educating the university community about human ethics. FHB, Section III: 8.2.3 8.2.3 Responsibilities of the REBs Current Text: (b) The REBs are empowered to ensure that all research involving humans conducted under the auspices or within the jurisdiction of Brock University is ethical, and is conducted in accordance with this policy. As such, a REB may accept, reject, or propose modifications to any proposed or ongoing research that is subject to REB review, pursuant to Brock standards. A REB also has the authority to suspend any ongoing research under its purview that is deemed to pose an unacceptable risk of harm to participants or in which the principal researcher has not complied with Brock University policies and procedures related to the ethical conduct of research involving humans. A decision of a REB to disallow research on ethical grounds, unless reversed on reconsideration by that REB, may only be reversed through the REB appeal process. Decisions shall be final and binding in all respects for any appeal of an REB decision. Recommended Change: (b) The REBs are empowered to ensure that all research involving humans conducted under the auspices or within the jurisdiction of Brock University is ethical, and is conducted in accordance with this policy. As such, a REB may accept, reject, or propose modifications to any proposed or ongoing research that is subject to REB review, pursuant to Brock standards. A REB also has the authority to suspend any ongoing research under its purview that is deemed to pose an unacceptable risk of harm to participants or in which the principal researcher has not complied with Brock University policies and procedures related to the ethical conduct of research involving humans. A decision of a REB to disallow research on ethical grounds, unless reversed on reconsideration by that REB, may only be reversed through the REB appeal process (see 8.2.7).Decisions shall be final and binding in all respects for any appeal of an REB decision. FHB, Section III: 8.2.5 Recommended Addition: (note that this section will be labelled as 8.2.5 and the original 8.2.5 will be changed to 8.2.6). 8.2.5 Appointment of REB Members, Vice Chairs, Chairs, and Appeal Board members. a) The REB shall follow its own established guidelines and procedures to propose candidate names for REB members, REB Vice-Chairs, and REB Chairs, and for all members of the Appeal Board, to the Research and Scholarship Policy Committee of Senate.

3

b) The Research and Scholarship Policy Committee shall recommend members, Vice-Chiar and Chair of the REBs, and members of the Appeal Board, to Senate. c) The VPR and/or delegates shall be recused from any part of a Research and Scholarship Policy Committee meeting where appointment recommendations are discussed or decided. Current Text: 8.2.5 Reporting Structures The Research and Scholarship Policy Committee of Senate reviews and advises on research ethics policy (I:9.12.1). The REBs shall report to this committee, at minimum, annually on workload, regulations, and other issues as may arise. In addition, the REBs and the REO shall report to the VPR, at minimum, annually on administrative matters. However, the ethics review process itself must be independent from institutional agenda or pressures. Recommended Change: 8.2.6 Reporting Structures.

The Research and Scholarship Policy Committee of Senate reviews and advises on research ethics policy (I:9.12.1). The REBs shall report to this committee, at minimum, annually on workload, regulations, guidelines and procedures for the ethics review process, and other issues as may arise. In addition, the REBs and the REO shall report to the VPR, at minimum, annually on administrative matters. However, the ethics review process itself and REB decisions must be independent from institutional agenda or pressures.

Senate 197, 306, 461, 470, 515, 526, 586, 593

Recommended Addition: 8.2.7 Reconsideration and Appeals: a) Researchers may seek reconsideration or appeal an REB decision as per the current TCPS. b) The Appeal Board may approve, reject or request modifications to proposed research. Details about the appeal process are available from the Research Ethics Office. c) The decision of the Appeal Board shall be final. Recommended Addition: 8.2.8 Conflict of Interest The REB is a self-governing body that works independently from the Office of Research Services and the Vice-President, Research in fulfilling its responsibilities. The REB must be free from influence or interference and follow the directives of the current TCPS regarding institutional, REB member and researcher, or other conflicts of interest, according to the procedures outlined below. The Brock University Conflict of Interest Policy also applies. The purpose of this policy is both to ensure a fair and impartial process for making REB decisions and to preserve the ethical integrity of the research itself. This policy applies both to the members and Chair of the REB, and to all researchers who come before the REB.

4

a) The same definitions of “Real conflict”, “Apparent conflict”, and “Potential conflict” (collectively, a “COI”) as set out in the Conflict of Interest Policy apply herein

b) Any Real, Apparent or Potential conflicts of interest in relation to the REB process must be declared to the Chair of the REB by each person who is conflicted or who may be conflicted.

c) The “REB process” includes, but is not limited to, the following: decisions regarding a REB application prior to being assigned a file number; decisions on risk assessment of a file and categorization to full, administrative, or delegated review; all and any decisions on a research study that has been assigned a file number; decisions regarding reportable and non-reportable incidents involving participants; decisions regarding researcher compliance; and decisions regarding appeals to the REB on an existing file or appeals regarding a researcher project not yet assigned a file number.

d) Any person who fails to disclose a COI under this policy may be subject to the same disciplinary actions set out in section 8 of the Brock University Conflict of Interest Policy.

e) The Chair of the REB may raise a COI herself or himself. f) The Chair of the REB will decide how to manage and/or avoid any COI, which may include

disclosure of the COI to the research participant as deemed necessary. g) If any person is not satisfied with the Chair’s decision, he or she may appeal to the Provost,

whose decision is final. h) If the alleged COI involves the Chair of the REB, instead of reporting the conflict to the

Chair, the COI must be reported directly to the Provost, whose decision is final. i) In making any decision on COIs, both the Chair of the REB and the Provost will be guided

by the Brock University Conflict of Interest Policy, the related principles and procedures, and the Statement of Principles of Research Ethics.

Review & Renewal – Centre for Research in Multiliteracies 1

ReviewandRenewal–ResearchCentresorInstitutes

Self-StudyDocumentB

NOTE:IfyourCentre/Institutehasbotharesearchandteachingfocus,onlydescribeinformationandactivitiesrelatedtoresearchwhencompletingthisself-studydocument.

1. NameofResearchCentre/Institute

2. WhatistheCentre/Institute’svision,missionandresponsibilities?

a. DoestheresearchCentre/Institutecontinuetomeetaneedwithintheuniversity?

þYes No

Centre for Research in Multiliteracies

The Centre’s mission is to broaden conceptions of literacy and learning so that they align more closely with contemporary forms of communication, new media, and digital technologies. Dr. Rowsell’s (Director & Canada Research Chair in Multiliteracies) research program addresses this important mission by working with children and youth to document and analyze literacy habits and behaviours to develop new frameworks to enhance 21st century literacy skills and to create more inclusive classroom spaces and teaching styles. In the centre, Dr. Rowsell investigates reading, writing, communicating, videogaming, teaching, and assessing students though different technologies, immersive environments, and printed texts, with the support of Jennifer Turner (Canada Research Chair Projects Coordinator). Her research has advanced our understanding of literacy and will help better prepare our youth to excel in the digital era. Taking seriously the responsibility to secure funding, publish and disseminate as a Canada Research Chair, over her term as a CRC, Dr. Rowsell has published 13 edited and authored books; 30 book chapters; 32 refereed journal articles; and been involved in 13 successful research grants (as a PI, CI, and Collaborator).


Ifyes,describehowtheneedismet,andhowthiswasassessed.

The Centre continues to meet a need within the university as it is strongly aligned with the three priorities of Brock’s Strategic Mandate Agreement (SMA):

Serving the 21st century learner: The Centre for Research in Multiliteracies is a CFI-funded Centre devoted to research on 21st century literacy skills and broadening literacy curriculum and policy so that they are more aligned with the digital and communicational skills that children and youth bring to school in the 21st century. There are six laboratories within the Centre: 1) a videogame laboratory where we film and document children and youth playing different videogame platforms and the skills and understandings that they imply for literacy teaching and learning; 2) a SMART/interactive white board laboratory where we adopt more of an open, interactive approach to literacy teaching and experiment with using web-based texts for literacy activities; 3) a laptop writing laboratory where students write and produce digital texts with software like Adobe Photoshop so that students can edit images and visuals; 4) a graphic story library where students can read comics, cartoons, and graphic stories and researchers can document their reading practices, using more visually based and graphically complex texts; 5) a videoconferencing facility that allows Dr. Rowsell to meet with Canadian and international collaborators and students and experts across different areas of the curriculum; and 6) there are 25 ipads in the centre for students to use as a tool to teach 21st century pedagogy. Jennifer Turner coordinates and maintains the Centre and all of the laboratories. Hence, the Centre for Multiliteracies is very much devoted to examining digital environments and how they impact literacy learning and the implications of such research for K-12 education. There is a teacher education component in that Dr. Rowsell teaches some of her graduate courses in literacy teacher education in the Centre so that pre-service and in-service teachers can experiment and feel more comfortable with incorporating technology into their teaching. Every semester, the Centre hosts a talk by a Canadian or international academic.

Promoting transdisciplinary research: The Centre for Research in Multiliteracies is currently involved with several projects that incorporate different fields of theory and research. Dr. Rowsell won an Insight Development Grant in May 2013 entitled, Community Arts Zone (CAZ): Projects linking literacy, community and the arts. The project merges the fields of literacy education with arts education and combines the expertise of international co-investigators (conducting parallel arts-based, community projects), community artists and professionals, and arts education collaborators at Brock University such as Dr. Glenys McQueen-Fuentes (Dance and Movement Education at Brock), Dr. Debra McLauchlan (Drama Education, Secondary), Dr. Shelley Griffin (Music Education), Dr. Peter Vietgen (Visual Arts Education), and Dr. Kari-Lynn Winters (Drama Education, Primary/Junior). Dr. Rowsell is a part of a transdisciplinary SSHRC Insight Grant with CRC Dr. Doucet as the Principal Investigator, entitled Making/Re-making Canadian Families. This Insight project combines sociology with cultural and


literacy studies to investigate the modern family and 21st century definitions of family practices through visual and multimodal methods. Dr. Rowsell has also been involved in two other Insight Development Grants – one on the popular videogame Minecraft as a platform for teaching and learning and the other is an iPad ethnographic study in five early years contexts in the Niagara area. These research studies involve people working in education in addition to professionals who work in the gaming industry and the early years sector. In addition to all of these Tri-Council funded projects, Dr. Rowsell is writing transdisciplinary publications and edited collections with scholars in such areas as communications and rhetoric, sociology, and film studies. Finally, the Centre has strong ties with the Social Justice Research Institute (SJRI) with Dr. Rowsell sitting on the SJRI Steering Committee.

Building a network of partnerships: Dr. Rowsell began the process of researching and promoting innovation in literacy and education in Brock University’s Faculty of Education through the Centre for Research in Multiliteracies. Although there are a number of faculty members examining innovation in their fields and disciplines, Dr. Rowsell’s position centrally promotes and investigates innovation and innovating curriculum, pedagogy, and teaching practices for the future. Dr. Rowsell has written 18 books, many articles and chapters within the areas of innovation and literacy education and her research funding demonstrates a clear commitment to prosperity through entrepreneurship, innovation, and creativity, which has led to numerous research partnerships. In April of 2015, Dr. Kathy Hibbert of Western University was awarded a SSHRC Partnership Development grant entitled 21st Century Literacies. The Centre is a partner on this grant and Dr. Rowsell is a Co-Applicant. Building on the preliminary partnership between Western University and QWILL Media and Education Inc., the 21st Century Literacies project outlines the creation of a Canadian-led, international network of researchers, educators, public not-for profit and private partners interested in accelerating the research and actualization of visions of a 21st-century education. Activities include specific research and development projects on the prototype ‘cloud curriculum’ to co-create knowledge and design and the development and growth of an international network to situate the project in the global network, and to share and mobilize the learning. The SSHRC Partnership Development team meets every four months to revisit objectives, plan initiatives and outputs, and discuss further research together.

In addition, the Brock University Integrated Strategic Plan (2010) identified seven strategic priorities for the university. The Centre for Research in Multiliteracies contributes towards four of these priorities in particular:

Supporting Brock’s undergraduate student centred focus while maintaining excellence in graduate education – There are a variety of student populations who work in the Centre space. Undergraduate (tutors in the Brock Learning Lab) and graduate students (Graduate students who are taught and supervised by Dr.


Rowsell) use the technologies in the Centre for research, tutoring, and teaching, specifically, the iPads and SMART board. In addition, Dr. Rowsell teaches some of her graduate courses in the Centre so that students are able to experiment with the technologies – in particular exploring twenty-first notions of ‘reading’ and ‘writing’ on iPads through apps and other multimodal platforms.

Fostering excellence in research, scholarship, and creativity - As a CFI-funded Centre, the Centre for Research in Multiliteracies allows Dr. Rowsell and Jennifer Turner (CRC Projects Coordinator) to leverage technology and equipment to actively research how to innovate in education. Dr. Rowsell’s position centrally promotes and investigates innovation, pedagogy, and teaching practices for the future. Dr. Rowsell has many publications within the areas of innovation and literacy education and her research funding demonstrates a clear commitment to prosperity through entrepreneurship, innovation, and creativity. The Centre is entirely committed to research, innovation, and leveraging a strong profile in Canada. One of the most unique features about the Centre for Research in Multiliteracies as a research unit is the authentic nexus of practice and research that has been established with the Brock Learning Lab. Under the stewardship of Dr. Rowsell, the Brock Learning Lab works closely with Centre initiatives and research studies and Dr. Rowsell and Jennifer Turner apply current and innovative research that they engage in with undergraduate students who tutor clients in the Brock Learning Lab.

Encouraging transdisciplinary initiatives – The research that Dr. Rowsell conducts at the Centre is transdisciplinary in that her work and theorizing of research crosses into the humanities, specifically material and cultural studies as well as digital humanities and into the social sciences by taking an anthoropological, sociological approach to literacy. As well, Dr. Rowsell collaborates with Dr. Andrea Doucet who is a Tier 1 CRC in the Department of Sociology at Brock University. The Centre also has strong ties with the Social Justice Research Institute (SJRI) as Dr. Rowsell is on the SJRI Steering Committee.

Promoting internationalization – The research that Dr. Rowsell conducts at the Centre is international as she collaborates with academics in Austria, Australia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Dr. Rowsell is often an invited speaker and keynote at international conferences. In addition, the Centre has hosted several international visiting scholars, including: Dr. Sue Nichols (University of South Australia), Dr. Lisha Chen (Beijing Forestry University), and Dr. Fernando Maues (Universidad de Paro in Brazil). Dr. Rowsell frequently hosts international academics who visit Brock University such as Dr. Cheryl McLean (Rutgers Graduate School of Education) and Dr. Abigail Hackett (University of Sheffield). As Co-Series Editor of the Routledge Expanding Literacies in Education Series, Dr. Rowsell has frequent meetings with scholars around the world about possible titles.


b. DoesthemissionoftheresearchCentre/InstituteremaincompatiblewiththeMission,Goals,andObjectivesoftheuniversity?

þYes NoIfyes,describehow.

The mission of the Centre does remain compatible with the mission, goals, and objectives of the university as it contributes to the three SMA priorities and four of the priorities in the Integrated Strategic Plan (as described above). In addition, the Centre for Research in Multiliteracies is aligned well with the Brock Research Plan: the Centre is an intellectually rich and collegial environment; the research conducted at the Centre is scholarly and impactful; there are several Tri-Council funded research projects associated with the Centre; students and other highly qualified personnel are trained and benefit from the technologies at the Centre; the Centre has research partnerships with the community; and the research conducted at the Centre is transdisciplinary and international. Finally, one of the goals of the Faculty of Education Strategic Action Plan is to “create opportunities for research and scholarship through local, national, and international partnerships.” The extensive networks of national and international collaborations and partnerships at the Centre have contributed significantly to this goal. One of the specific Strategic Actions listed under this objective is to “develop collaborative SSHRC grants with international scholars”. Dr. Rowsell has been awarded several grants in collaboration with international scholars, and the Centre is a partner in a recent SSHRC Partnership Development award. Another goal of the Strategic Action Plan is to “create multidisciplinary initiatives/centres/networks”. There are several multidisciplinary projects taking place at the Centre, such as the ongoing Community Arts Zone project, the Minecraft project, the Making/Re-Making Canadian Families project, and the iPad project. On a final note, Dr. Rowsell engages in community initiatives in Niagara and she works closely with both the District School Board of Niagara and the Niagara Catholic School Board. More recently, Dr. Rowsell is organizing a study applying arts-based approaches to teaching literacy skills to community members who suffer from addiction and mental health issues who attend programs and benefits from supports through Start Me Up Niagara.


3. DoestheResearchCentre/Instituteduplicateanyotherentitywithintheprovince?

Yes þNo

Ifyes,hastheCentre/Institutemadeconnectionsanddevelopedcollaborationswiththeseotherresearchentities?

Yes No

Ifyes,listtheotherresearchentitiesanddescribethenatureoftheconnection/collaborationforeach.

4. WhatacademicunitsareinvolvedintheCentre/Institute? Faculty of Education; Department of Teacher Education; Brock Learning Lab;

Tecumseh Centre; Social Justice Research Institute; Rodman Hall

Within Canada, there is no other CFI-funded Centre and CRC devoted to 21st century literacy and redefining literacy skills and assessment across K-12 schools.


a. ListallfacultymembersinvolvedintheCentre/Instituteandgiveabriefdescriptionoftheirrole/participation.

Dr. Diane Collier, Assistant Professor, Teacher Education – Dr. Collier works on two funded research studies with Dr. Rowsell and Dr. Rowsell is her scholarly mentor in the Faculty of Education. Dr. Collier is the P/J Language Team Leader and she actively uses the Centre space and consults with Dr. Rowsell on her research and scholarship. Dr. Tiffany Gallagher, Associate Professor, Teacher Education – Dr. Gallagher is the most active faculty member with the Centre, playing a key role in the Brock Learning Lab and its vision and hosting several Ontario Literacy Association in Niagara (OLAN) meetings and professional development activities within the space. Drs. Gallagher and Fazio will be giving a workshop in the spring of 2016 on their SSHRC Insight Development Grant on Text Complexity. Dr. David Hutchison, Director of the Centre for Digital Humanities, cross-appointed to the Department of Teacher Education as a Professor – Dr. Hutchison is the author of six books that focus on education and teaching. His research on the integration of videogames into K-12 classrooms has been profiled by Canada’s leading TV, radio, and newspaper media, including CBC-News and CTV-News. Dr. Hutchinson is Co-Applicant on the Maker Literacies research project and as such, he will be using the Centre space significantly. Drs. Rowsell and Hutchinson will meet regularly in the Centre space and Dr. Hutchinson will be very involved in the gaming research study and he will use the videogaming laboratory in the Centre space to conduct research with Dr. Hawreliak.

Dr. Peter Vietgen, Associate Professor in Visual Arts Education in the Department of Teacher Education – Dr. Vietgen is also a practicing artist and curator, has sat on numerous Visual Arts juries for such organizations as the Ontario Arts Council, and holds executive positions with both the Ontario and Canadian Society for Education through Art. Dr. Vietgen has used and will be using the Centre space to have meetings about his photography research in the SSHRC IDG-funded study Community Arts Zone and the Maker Literacies project. As well, Dr. Vietgen will showcase his project and have an exhibit in the Centre space to report on results on the research and to display and celebrate student productions. Dr. Kari-Lynn Winters, Associate Professor, Teacher Education – Dr. Winters has been involved in two funded research studies with Dr. Rowsell and she has hosted three different professional development activities in the Centre space on her highly creative, arts-based methods for teaching literacy. Dr. Winters has hosted a meetings and a workshop in the Centre space as well.


b. Completethetablebelowindicatingthenumberofhighlyqualifiedpersonneltrained/mentoredbyCentre/Institutemembersoverthepastfiveyears.

Member

UndergraduateStudents

MastersStudents

PhDStudents Post-DoctoralFellows

JenniferRowsell 0 16 11 0DianeCollier 0 12 1 0

TiffanyGallagher

0 9 3 0

DavidHutchison 0 8 8 0PeterVietgen 0 4 2 0Kari-LynnWinters

0 9 2 0

BrockLearningLab-Tutors

746 4 0 0

Total 746 62 27 0

c. Arethereotherresearchersinvolved(e.g.,fromotherinstitutions?)

þYes NoIfyes,describetheirroleandprovidetheiraffiliation.

Dr. Kathy Hibbert, Western University – Principal Investigator of the SSHRC- funded (Partnership Development Grant) research project “21st Century Literacies”. The Centre for Research in Multiliteracies is a partner on this grant and Dr. Rowsell is a Co-Applicant. Building on the preliminary partnership between Western University and QWILL Media and Education Inc., the 21st Century Literacies project outlines the creation of a Canadian-led, international network of researchers, educators, public not-for profit and private partners interested in accelerating the research and actualization of visions of a 21st-century education. Activities include specific research and development projects on the prototype ‘cloud curriculum’ to co-create knowledge and design and the development and growth of an international network to situate the project in the global network, and to share and mobilize the learning.

Dr. Kate Pahl, Professor, University of Sheffield – Co-Applicant on the SSHRC-funded (Insight Development Grant) research project “Community Arts Zone” Dr. Joanne Larson, Professor & Chair, University of Rochester – Co-Applicant on the SSHRC-funded research project “Community Arts Zone” Dr. Kris Gutiérrez, Professor, University of California, Berkeley - Co-Applicant on the SSHRC-funded research project “Community Arts Zone”


Community Arts Zone was conducted through the Centre for Research in Multiliteracies, with Dr. Rowsell as the Principal Investigator. It was conducted across four contexts in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States from July 2013 to June 2015. Built on the concept of modal learning, researchers in each context participated in arts initiatives that asked children and youth to develop expertise in different modes of expression and representation. Community Arts Zone demonstrated how the arts can inform literacy teaching and learning so that there is a more expansive view of composition and ways of communicating and representing meanings. Drs. Pahl and Rowsell are currently applying for European Research Grant and the grant will be submitted in February 2016.

Dr. Rob Simon, Associate Professor, University of Toronto, OISE – Principal Investigator of the SSHRC-funded (Insight Development Grant) “Minecraft Project.” The SSHRC-funded three year Insight Development Research Study involves interviews with educators who are experienced with using a popular videogame, Minecraft, as a platform for curriculum in the classroom, along with interviews with youth who are avid users of Minecraft. These data have been used in conjunction with video-capture of online gaming environments, observations of classroom settings, document and website analysis, and simulated recall with youth during and after gameplay. Drawing on these multiple data sources the research has investigated how videogames can inform teaching in Ontario classrooms. Dr. Rowsell has spent time observing the six case study participants play Minecraft and engage in simulated recall which is a method for interviewing whereby a gamer talks through their game-playing and thinking processes as they play. To enhance interviews and observational methods, data collection involves recording participants’ gameplay using real-time video-capture software, such as Fraps (http://www.fraps.com). The Centre for Multiliteracies has done some replication of this research with Brock Learning Lab participants who were a part of the iPad Project (which was funded by a Social Justice Research Institute Local Engagement Grant).

Dr. Diane Lapp, Professor, San Diego State University – Collaborator on the SSHRC-Funded (Insight Development Grant) research project “Reading by Design” Dr. Douglas Fisher, Professor, San Diego State University – Collaborator on the SSHRC-Funded (Insight Development Grant) research project “Reading by Design” Dr. Alyson Simpson, Associate Professor, The University of Sydney – Collaborator on the SSHRC-Funded (Insight Development Grant) research project “Reading by Design” The Reading by Design project was conducted through the Centre for Research in Multiliteracies, with Dr. Rowsell as the Principal Investigator, from 2011-2013. The SSHRC research study investigated the nature and processes of digital and multimodal reading practices that rely on principles of design more than they rely on the written word. The research took place in the Halton Catholic School Board


in grades 3 and 6 classrooms and involved 40 elementary students observing and engaging in simulated recall on how they read and learned literacy through their use of iPads. The research took place in three different locales: Hamilton, Ontario (grades 3 and 6); Sydney, Australia (grade 5); and, San Diego, USA (grade 9). Looking across age groups and geographies, the research team observed teachers and students using iPads and printed texts for reading activities and they conducted interviews before, during, and after the research to discuss digital vs. print-based reading practices with participants. The research resulted in several journal articles and book chapters and has remained a line of inquiry for Dr. Rowsell in her work as Director of the Centre and Brock Learning Lab.

The Centre has also hosted the following visiting scholars:

Drs. McLean (Rutgers), Heydon (Western University), Nichols (University of South Australia), Chen (Beijing Forestry University), Maues (Universidad de Paro in Brazil), and Hackett (University of Sheffield).

d. HowdoestheCentre/Instituteplantobroadenitsmembershipand

ensurefuturecontributionsoutsideofitscoremembers?

The Centre for Research in Multiliteracies plans to broaden its membership through external funding opportunities and through forging community partnerships with regard to research projects. For example, in October 2015 we submitted a proposal for a SSHRC Insight Grant entitled, “Maker Literacies: Innovating Learning Futures”. The Maker Literacies project will be conducted through the Centre for Research in Multiliteracies, in partnership with the Design Studio in the Centre for Digital Humanities (Directed by Dr. David Hutchison, Co-Applicant on this proposed project). This project will address a gap in research by examining what happens when professional knowledge workers (e.g., media and film producers, videogame developers, and music composers) collaborate with educators to teach lessons and units in elementary and secondary classrooms. We will invite professionals into K-12 classrooms to collaborate with educators on multimodal, maker/DIY projects and new forms of assessment. The project will feature professionals within the immediate Niagara community and will connect projects with community hubs such as museums and Centres for the arts. Through this project, we will strengthen relationships with the District School Board of Niagara, the Niagara Catholic District School Board, Fourgrounds Media, the Niagara Falls History Museum, and DramaSound Projects. We will develop relationships with the following professionals and organizations, who will become members of the Centre for Research in Multiliteracies: Karen Fowler, Freelance Executive Producer and Creator of children’s media; Ann Holmes, Teacher and coding expert, DSBN; Jim Maunder, Sculptor and Art Educator; Dave Murphy, Piano Player; Marilyn I. Walker School of Fine and Performing Arts (to exhibit students’ work and artifacts); St. Catharines Performing Arts Centre (to exhibit students’ work and artifacts); Ontario College of Art and Design (for information on maker spaces); and Form


& Affect (local digital design and development agency – will work with students on web design and will help us to create our website for knowledge dissemination). Professors at Brock University will also be involved in this project, as follows: Jason Hawreliak, Assistant Professor, Game Studies in the Centre for Digital Humanities; Larry Swartz, Instructor, Teacher Education; and Peter Vietgen, Associate Professor, Teacher Education.

As well, as noted above, Dr. Rowsell is putting in a European Research Grant with her long-time collaborator, Dr. Kate Pahl of the University of Sheffield. This is a prestigious grant and if it is successful, it will increase the profile of the Centre.

Finally, Dr. Rowsell intends to do more community engagement work such as a research study that she will be conducting in spring 2016 with arts educators and Start Me Up Niagara which is a non-profit community organization that works with individuals facing significant life challenges such as addiction, mental illness, homelessness and unemployment in St. Catharines.

e. CompletethetablebelowoutliningresearchfundingoftheResearchCentre/Institute’smembersforthepastfiveyears.(Note:onlygrantsreceivedasaPIareincluded)

Name

YearCFI CIHR NSERC SSHRC Other YearTotal Individual

Total# $ # $ # $ # $ # $JenniferRowsell

2014 1 2,000 2,000

2013 1 72,621 72,621 2012 1 19,570 2 54,000 73,570 2011 1 50,000 1 59,680 3 27,000 136,680 2010 4 1,036,300 1,036,300 1,321,171DianeCollier

2015 2 3,500 3,500

2013 1 1,332 1,332 2012 1 1,000 1,000 2010 1 6,000 6,000 11,832TiffanyGallagher

2015 3 3,650 3,650

2013 1 59,939 1 1,000 60,939 2012 2 3,000 3,000 2011 1 7,837 7,837 2010 2 40,530 40,530 115,956DavidHutchison

2015 3 18,780 18,780

2014 1 1,000 1,000 19,780PeterVietgen

2011 1 1,000 1,000 1,000

Kari-LynnWinters

2014 1 1,250 1,250

2010 2 2,000 2,000 3,250Total 1 50,000 0 0 0 0 4 211,810 1,211,179 1,472,989 1,474,989


f. Completethetablebelowoutliningthenumberofpublicationsandother

formsofresearchoutputoftheResearchCentre/Institute’smembersforthepastfiveyears.(Note:inpressandacceptedareincluded)

Member JournalArticles

Books&EditedBooks

BookChapters

ConferenceProceedings

ConferencePresentations

JenniferRowsell 32 13 30 0 83DianeCollier 9 0 0 1 21TiffanyGallagher

17 2 4 3 52

DavidHutchison 2 0 1 0 12PeterVietgen 0 0 0 0 12Kari-LynnWinters

12 2 4 0 24

Total 72 17 39 4 204

g. Describefunding,publications,andresearchoutputofteammembersintheoverallcontextofyourfield.

Broadly speaking, all of the six individuals listed in the table above conduct research that considers technology, teaching, and learning and that is socio-cultural in nature. Drs. Gallagher and Hutchinson incorporate some cognitively oriented research, but their work in the Centre and with Dr. Rowsell adopts mostly socio-cultural, theoretical approaches. The entire team use the centre space for different purposes – Hutchinson will be using the gaming laboratory to conduct game-based research with teenagers; Vietgen uses the laptops, digital cameras, and tripods for photography work and research; Collier uses the iPads, iPods, and the laptops for her multimodal work in schools. Although, strictly speaking, we do not research in the same field, all six of the researchers work within educational, pedagogical frameworks and we all concern ourselves with twenty-first century teaching and learning. Currently, there are four key team members who are engaging in research in the Centre: Professor David Hutchinson (Problem-Based Learning Initiative), Associate Professor Peter Vietgen (Being Cindy Sherman), Associate Professor Tiffany Gallagher, Assistant Professor Diane Collier (Visualizing Lives/Photo-Editing Project), and Professor Jennifer Rowsell.

i. Professor David Hutchison is the Director of the Centre for Digital Humanities,

Brock University, where he is also cross-appointed to the Department of Teacher Education as a Professor. Hutchison is the author of six books that focus on education and teaching. His research on the integration of videogames into K-12 classrooms has been profiled by Canada’s leading TV, radio, and newspaper media, including CBC-News and CTV-News. In 2013, Hutchison was the


recipient of the Brock University Faculty of Education Award for Excellence in Teaching. In 2015, he was awarded the Brock University Chancellor’s Chair for Teaching Excellence. The latter award is currently funding research related to project-based learning at the undergraduate level. Dr. Hutchinson’s work is well-known in the areas of problem-based learning and incorporating videogames into teaching and learning.

ii. Assistant Professor Diane Collier is an Assistant Professor in Literacy Education in the Department of Teacher Education at Brock University. Collier is both an academic and an experienced multimodal educator with years of experience teaching children how to take a multimodal perspective to learning and engagement.

iii. Associate Professor Peter Vietgen is an expert in Visual Arts Education in the Department of Teacher Education at Brock University. Vietgen is also a practicing artist and curator, has sat on numerous Visual Arts juries for such organizations as the Ontario Arts Council, and holds executive positions with both the Ontario and Canadian Society. Dr. Vietgen has worked closely with Dr. Rowsell on three different research studies and he will be working closely with her over the next two years on arts-based, visual research with youth.

iv. Associate Professor Tiffany Gallagher is becoming a leader in the field of literacy education in Canada with her work on Text Complexity. Dr. Gallagher sits on the Ministry of Education’s Expert Panel and she has presented in an Expert Panel on Twenty-First Century Literacy at the International Literacy Association Conference in St. Louis, MO in July 2015. Dr. Gallagher will be partnering with Dr. Rowsell on twenty-first research teaching literacy methods as of September 2016 when they will work closely with undergraduate and graduate students on new methodologies for teaching literacy in the twenty-first century.

v. Jennifer Rowsell is a Professor and Canada Research Chair in Multiliteracies at Brock University. She is the Director of the CFI-funded Centre for Multiliteracies. Her research interests include: applying multimodal, arts-based practices with youth across formal and informal contexts; expanding theories of literacy through digital, immersive, and game-based research; and conducting ethnographic research in homes documenting literacy practices. She has written and co-written 18 books, she is co-editor of The Routledge Handbook of Literacy Studies with Kate Pahl, and she is co-editor of the Routledge Expanding Literacies in Education book series with Cynthia Lewis. Rowsell has written extensively about methodologies, specifically combining multimodality with ethnography (Nichols, Rowsell, Nixon, & Rainbird, 2012; Pahl & Rowsell, 2006, 2010; Prinsloo & Rowsell, 2012; Rowsell, 2011; Sefton-Green & Rowsell, 2014). As a result of her long-term collaborations with Pahl, Rowsell has established a reputation for conducting research that combines multimodality with ethnography, for forging theory to explain multimodal epistemologies, and for encouraging broader definitions of literacy (Rowsell, 2013).


h. Describeotherresearchoutputsand/orexamplesofknowledgetranslationnotcapturedin4f(e.g.,theatreproject,mediaattention).

Gallagher – 10 educational publications in the past five years (ie. Manuals, guidelines, non-refereed publications); 9 technical reports Hutchison – owner and lead developer of Lakewood Studies (database software of Macintosh platform) Vietgen – creative works in photography; creation of juried exhibitions; curating exhibitions; adjudicating festivals, art exhibitions, and competitions; publications in Brock Education journal and Canadian Society for Education through Art Winters – 10 published children’s picture books, and 11 accepted and forthcoming


5. DoestheResearchCentre/Instituteincludeinvolvementofnon-universityorganizations?

þYes NoIfyes,listtheorganizationsanddescribetheirrole.

The Centre for Research in Multiliteracies is the hub for the Ontario Literacy Association in Niagara (OLAN), which meets monthly and plans events in the space. With key figures from the Ontario College of Teachers and the Ontario Teachers Federation as well as Literacy Consultants in both school districts in Niagara, OLAN co-hosts with the Centre an annual literacy event. This year, we are hosting “Conversations with David Booth” on January 14th, 2016 with conversation groups with teachers across the Niagara area. As well, Dr. Rowsell serves on the International Research Panel for the International Literacy Association and her role will demand more active work with the Ministry of Education. The OLAN Committee Members also serve on the Brock Learning Lab Steering Committee, which meets once a year to discuss the vision of the Lab. Other associated non-university organizations: -District School Board of Niagara (DSBN) – Community Arts Zone project; Crayons and iPads project; Brock Learning Lab; future Maker Literacies project -Niagara Catholic District School Board (NCDSB) – Community Arts Zone project; Crayons and iPads project; Brock Learning Lab; future Maker Literacies project -Hamilton Wentworth District School Board – Reading by Design project -Toronto District School Board – Minecraft Project -Fourgrounds Media (Niagara film and video production company) – Community Arts Zone project; future Maker Literacies project -Form & Affect (Digital design and development agency) – Future Maker Literacies project -DramaSound Projects (develop original instrumental music and creative methods) –Glenys McQueen Fuentes & Gato Fuentes – Community Arts Zone project; future Maker Literacies project -Niagara Falls History Museum – Community Arts Zone project; future Maker Movement project -St. Catharines Public Library – through the Brock Learning Lab -Learning Disabilities Association of Niagara – through the Brock Learning Lab


6. DescribetheResearchCentre/Institute’sconstitution.IftherearemembersfromoutsideBrockUniversity,fullydescribetheirrole(e.g.,Isitadvisory?),particularlyhowitrelatestodecisionsmadeabouttheCentre/Institute.

7. Usingthetablebelow,outlinetheCentre/Institute’sbudget.

BudgetItem

Resources

TotalCost

Internal ExternalFull-TimeSalaries&

Benefits$15,000 $45,000 $60,000

Part-TimeSalariesandBenefits

Stipends Equipment

(purchasesandmaintenance)

Printing,photocopying,

telecommunications

$400 $400

Travel Other(Postage) $100 $100OverallTotal $15,500 $45,000 $60,500

The overall objectives of the Centre are: -To pursue research grounded on social justice and linguistic diversity -To encourage work that takes a critical and multimodal stance to literacy education - To re-imagine literacy through other modes of expression and representation -To foster and revise theories and frameworks for literacy in the 21st Century -To work across disciplines and fields to improve literacy in Ontario and to make Brock a hub for cutting edge literacy education research - To engage in transdisciplinary and innovative research nationally and internationally Centre Team: Dr. Rowsell is the Director of the Centre and a Tier 2 CRC in Multiliteracies. She seeks and earns funding, she publishes from her research, she invites visiting national and international scholars, and she organizes workshops, forums, and conferences. All of this helps to make Brock a hub of activity for literacy in Canada. Jennifer Turner is the Research Coordinator of the Centre. She runs the day-to-day activities of the Centre and is responsible for managing, coordinating, developing, and mobilizing research activities related to the Centre and Jennifer Rowsell’s various research projects.


8. Whatexternalandinternalresourcesareneededtofulfillthemissionofthe

ResearchCentre/Institute?

a. DescribehowtheCentre/Institutehasobtainedthenecessaryexternalresourcesrequired.

The Centre was established through the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) and the Ontario Research Fund (ORF). The Director of the Centre (Jennifer Rowsell) is funded as a Tier 2 Canada Research Chair. The Coordinator of the Centre (Jennifer Turner) is funded through the Canada Research Chair program, the Dean’s office in the Faculty of Education, and through SSHRC Insight grant funding. External Resources: Grants are needed to support the research conducted at the Centre by the Director and affiliated members. We leverage the CFI-funded equipment and software in the Centre as in-kind contributions and we have done so on four different occasions and secured funding. The Centre has been associated with 11 external grants in the past 5 years (see below). Internal Resources: Infrastructure funds are needed for the maintenance of technology, telecommunications, supplies for photocopying and printing (ink and paper), and other stationary supplies (ie. Envelopes, postage, batteries, etc.). The Centre has a small operating budget of $500/year.

In the past 5 years, the Centre has been associated with 11 external grants, as follows: 1) Canada Research Chair 2010-20, Tier 2 – $1,000,000 2) Canada Foundation for Innovation 2011-2014- $50,000 3) Ontario Research Fund 2012 - $50,000 4) SSHRC Insight Development 2011, Reading by Design - $59,680 5) SSHRC Aid to Research Workshop Grant 2011, The Revisiting Project - $19,570 6) SSHRC Insight Development 2013-15, Crayons & Ipads (PI is Debra Harwood; Dr. Rowsell is Co-Applicant) - $74,968 7) SSHRC Insight Development 2013-15, Community Arts Zone - $72,621 8) SSHRC Insight Development 2013-15, Minecraft and Literacy Studies (PI is Rob Simon, OISE/UofT; Dr. Rowsell is Collaborator) - $73,245 9) SSHRC Insight 2014-19, Making/Re-making Families (PI is Andrea Doucet; Dr. Rowsell is Co-Applicant) - $309,116 10) SSHRC Connection Grant 2015, Literacy in Transcultural, Cosmopolitan Times (PI is Rahat Naqvi, University of Calgary; Dr. Rowsell is Co-Applicant) - $25,000 11) SSHRC Partnership Development Grant 2015, 21st Century Literacies (PI is Kathy Hibbert, Western University; Centre is a partner, Dr. Rowsell is Co-Applicant) - $557,753


b. DescribehowtheCentre/Institutehasmetanyinternaldemands.

c. Hastherebeenasignificantchangeintheresources1neededandprovidedoverthepastfiveyears?

The Centre has met internal demands by allowing space and technology sharing. Several meetings are held in the Centre space where both the SMART board and videoconferencing center are utilized. For example, as previously described, OLAN and the Brock Learning Lab Steering Committee meet in the Centre space, and research meetings involving affiliated research projects take place in the Centre space. The Centre space and technology have been used as a teaching space as well. Dr. Rowsell has taught two courses at the Centre: Understanding 21st Century Literacy: New Digital & Design Literacies – EDUC 5V14, Spring 2014 (Graduate course) and Language Arts – EDUC 8P30, Winter 2014 (teacher education course – two sessions were taught in the centre space). Graduate students and undergraduate students also utilize the Centre space and the technology; it is a lively environment where the space is maximized. Finally, the Brock Learning Lab utilizes the space and technology at the Centre in the evenings. Tutors and tutees use the SMART board, the iPads, and the videogame lab and there have been noticeable strides in their work with clients in the Brock Learning Lab. Indeed, there is no other similar unit in Canada that combines cutting-edge funded research studies with simultaneous practical application.

No, Dr. Rowsell and the Centre have been well supported by the two Deans of the Faculty of Education and by Dr. Rowsell and Ms. Turner’s efforts to secure funding.


9. OutlinetheResearchCentre/Institute’sfive-yearplan.Forinstance,wheredoyouseetheCentre/Instituteinfiveyears?Howdoyouplantomeetthisvision?Doyoucurrentlyhavetheresourcestodoso?Ifnot,howdoyouplantoacquiretheseresources?

The main goal for the Centre for Research in Multiliteracies for the next five

years will be to broaden its membership so that there is more use of the space and leveraging of the technologies available. With the restructuring of the Faculty of Education, I am confident that this will happen and that departments will both use the Centre space and that faculty members will use technologies and software within the research unit. As a secondary series of goals, I have ambitious plans for research that will take place in the Centre Space. As I look ahead to the next five years, here is a list of studies with accompanying faculty member involvement:

1. To develop a multimodal framework that offers practical applications across different grade levels and contexts in Canada. This objective will be completed through journal articles and a book on Community Arts Zone in the Routledge Expanding Literacies in Education series as well as a website for educators that profiles each project with short films supplemented by lesson modules on multimodality in K-12 contexts. Centre/Staff/Faculty Membership Involvement: Jennifer Turner, Drs. Rowsell, Collier, Hutchinson, Vietgen, Gallagher, and Winters will all be involved with this research.

2. To build a network of public sector partners such as Cisco Canada and the Canadian Arts Foundation, Ministries of Education in Ontario, Alberta, and New Brunswick; professionals such as architects, photographers, journalists, and visual artists; educators across the K-12 sector; and, an international steering committee made up of experts across the areas of multimodality, digital literacies, New Literacy Studies, communications, media, and critical literacy to develop cutting-edge pedagogies that will put Niagara and Brock on the map for literacy research. Centre/Staff/Faculty Involvement: Jennifer Turner, Drs. Rowsell, Mogadime, Harwood, Hutchinson, and Figg.

3. To complete a study with Tier I CRC Andrea Doucet that examines the nature of the modern family and shifts in family practices and the implications of these new practices and epistemologies for literacy education. We have received a SSHRC Insight grant for this project. Centre/Staff/Faculty Membership Involvement: Jennifer Turner, Drs. Doucet, Collier, and Rowsell.

4. To complete a Mapping Futures Project with Start Me Up Niagara and Dr. Susan Venditti in the spring of 2016. This is a research project that will build capacity for marginalized homeless adults in Niagara through arts based approaches and literacy development. We are applying for Hugh James Corcoran Memorial Funding (January 15, 2016) to fund this project. Centre/Staff/Faculty Involvement: Jennifer Turner, Drs. Rowsell, Winters and McQueen-Fuentes, and a PhD student.


Appendix A


Annual Report for 2011-2012

Dr. Jennifer Rowsell, CRC and Director

In June 2011, I received CFI funding from the government to fund renovations, new equipment, and software to conduct research within the centre. I await news on match MRI funding from the provincial government. The Centre for Multiliteracies has hosted a few events during the 2011/2012 academic year. This coming September, I will host a meeting for international partners Dr. Alyson Simpson (University of Sydney) and Drs. Diane Lapp and Douglas Fisher (San Diego State University) about our SSHRC Insight Development Grant entering its second year. In November 2012, I will host a SSHRC Workshop on Revisiting: Longitudinal Research on Literacy Education Across Communities and Contexts with nine national and international scholars. The other exciting news about the Centre for Multiliteracies is the Brock Faculty of Education Reading Clinic will be moving into the centre space to create a greater synergy between the reading clinic and literacy research at Brock. Renovations for the new clinic will begin by July 1st.

Research Program

Since April 1, 2011, I have continued research on an International Reading Association longitudinal study in two high schools adopting a multimodal, design-based approach to the teaching of English, one in a racially and culturally diverse secondary school in the Toronto area and another school in a town in the Niagara area. This high school study will enter its third and final year in September 2012 with new internal funding from Brock University. There have been several outputs from this research including two published books (Artifactual Literacies and Literacy and Education: Understanding the New Literacy Studies in the Classroom) and three chapters in edited volumes. I have completed a research study on design and multimodal epistemologies wherein I have interviewed 30 producers/professionals of digital technologies, arts, and new media communications and written a book on the project to be published by Routledge in November 2012. Also, I began a project as Principal Investigator of a SSHRC Insight Development research study on 21st century reading using Ipads in three schools which includes two classrooms (grades 3 and 6) in an Oakville school; one grade 5 classroom in a Sydney, Australia; and a grade 9 classroom in San Diego, USA. The international study has produced two peer-reviewed articles to date and we are heading into our second and final year of data collection. In addition to this research, I have completed a smaller research project on immersive worlds and children’s literacy development with scholars in the United Kingdom and the United States. To extend this new, burgeoning research on immersive and digital literacies, I have been involved in a larger partnership with CRC Kevin Kee as Principal Investigator and we have submitted a SSRCH Partnership Letter of Intent. Finally, I received SSHRC funding for a Workshop on Revisiting: Longitudinal Research in Literacy Education Across Communities and Contexts that will be held in the Niagara area in November 2012.


Research Findings

Broadly speaking, my research investigates ways of broadening our understandings of literacy education in the 21st century. The nature and understanding of such fundamental literacy practices as reading and writing have changed dramatically over the past decade. With the fast pace of change and innovation, young children to teenagers engage in literacy practices that are radically different than they were at the end of the last century. As a result, my research program has sought and indeed continues to seek ways of researching across age groups and across the shifting landscapes of how we make meaning (i.e., read, write, speak, listen, represent, etc.) with texts of all kinds in a multitude of forms. My high school empirical, longitudinal work has offered new definitions and frameworks for the teaching and learning of writing in middle and secondary school. Such research highlights how teachers can incorporate different modes of expression and representation such as moving images and networked learning through Twitter and Facebook in their teaching of literature and compositions that reflect their thinking about literature. Also, with colleagues, I have investigated how to rethink assessment so that we evaluate student work on 21st century epistemologies and ways of learning. Through an international study, as Principal Investigator, the team has opened up understandings about reading in digital spaces and how it is qualitatively different compared with print-based texts. In the first year of a two-year study on 21st century reading, we have already found that students self-learn and engage in DIY practices when they read – seeking out, finding applying, and sharing knowledge quicker than they have in the past and, most importantly, through different practices. Also, students use collaborative strategies in online and offline spaces more. The role of the teacher has changed within such a paradigm and the role of immersive and gaming worlds play a role in how children read and navigate online texts. Finally, taking on an ethnographic and community-based approach, I have spent the year getting to know key figures in the Niagara literacy community and identified a much-needed area of research, adult literacy in the St. Catharines and Welland communities that I will pursue for SSHRC Insight funding.

International Work

I have engaged in significant international work between April 11, 2011 - April 11, 2012 that includes the following noteworthy projects:

- Two special issues on digital literacies in developing countries (Language and Education special issue in July 2012 with Professor Mastin Prinsloo, University of Cape) and digital literacies in the community (Language and Literacy special issue in August, 2012 with Professor Mastin Prinsloo, University of Cape Town).

- Three books with international authors: Classroom, Language, Ethnography: Perspectives From New Literacy Studies and Bourdieu, Routledge (with Michael Grenfell, Trinity University, Dublin, Ireland, David Bloome, Ohio State University, Cheryl Hardy, University of Southampton, Kate Pahl, University of Sheffield, and Brian Street, King’s College London); Literacy and Education: Understanding the New Literacy Studies in the classroom, Sage with Kate Pahl, University of Sheffield; and, Resourcing Early Learners: New Players, New Networks, Routledge (with Sue Nichols, University of South Australia, Helen


Nixon, Queensland University of Technology, and Sophia Rainbird, University of South Australia).

- I have completed two articles on new directions in literacy teacher education with Drs. Diane Lapp (University of San Diego) and Dr. Cheryl McLean (Rutgers University). One article appears in the Australian journal of English education and the other appears in The Reading Teacher (a US-based journal)

- I won funding for a SSHRC Aid to Research Workshop grant with Dr. Julian Sefton-Green, University of Nottingham

- Also, I continue in the capacity of Book Editor on the UK journal, The Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, and on the editorial board for US journals, The Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, The Journal of Literacy Education, and the UK journal, Language and Education.


Appendix B




In June 2011, I received CFI funding from the government to fund renovations, new equipment, and software to conduct research within the centre. The Brock University Reading Clinic now shares the space with the Centre for Research in Multiliteracies. In April 2013, renovations to the Centre for Research in Multiliteracies were completed. Equipment has arrived and installation should be completed by the end of this month. Once it is completed, the centre will be ready for research initiatives and workshops. I would like to express my gratitude and sincere thanks to the following individuals who have provided expertise and support in helping me to launch the centre: Jennifer Colautti, Jon Winterbottom, Rahul Kumar, Herman Yu, Mandeep Mukkar Ippolito, Philip Thomas, and Todd Bundy. We will be offering training courses at the centre on a variety of topics in the autumn of 2013.

Research Program The Reading by Design: Twenty-first century reading SSHRC Insight Development Study continues and we (Drs. Tiffany Gallagher, Ruth Mcquirter-Scott, Mary Saudelli and Katia Ciampa) will complete data collection in June 2013. We will have two years of data and we are currently involved in a special issue of a journal on the project and several other refereed journal articles. As well, we will be presenting as a team at the San Diego State University Literacy Conference on Monday June 17th, 2013. We will be meeting with our international partners, Drs. Diane Lapp and Douglas Fisher in San Diego from June 14th – 17th. There will be several books connected with the centre that have been and will be published in the coming year. The most recent book is, Working with Multimodality: Learning in a Digital Age. As well, The Routledge Handbook of Literacies Studies (Edited by Jennifer Rowsell and Kate Pahl) will be published in June 2014. When this study concludes in June 2013, the iPads that we have been using will be donated by the Centre to the IRC for faculty and staff to sign out and use in their teaching and research. There will be more information to follow from Kim Pelchat in August 2013.

Conferences & Workshops

In April 2012, I won funding for a SSHRC Aid to Research Workshop that took place in Toronto in November 2012. The objective for the workshop was to gather mid-career and well-known scholars who have engaged in longitudinal research to revisit participants from past research studies. The workshop ran over three days with fourteen scholars. The


workshop has resulted in an edited collection that will come out in 2014, which will be connected to the centre. On May 4, 2012, there was a co-hosted event with the Niagara Early Childhood Educators presented by Dr. Debra Harwood and the Centre for Multiliteracies with food and beverages funded by the Dean’s Discretionary Fund for a talk by Professor Maureen Walsh of the Australian Catholic University. As the Director of the Centre for Multiliteracies I am co-directing the CSSE Language and Literacy Preconference on June 1, 2013 with Dr. Burcu Yaman-Ntelioglou, which will be held in Victoria, British Columbia.


Appendix C




Jennifer Colautti, Research Coordinator

It has been a productive year in the Centre for Multiliteracies marked by the arrival in February 2013 of Jennifer Colautti as the Centre for Multiliteracies Research Coordinator and by the completion of CFI-funded renovations. Dr. Rowsell has won funding for a SSHRC Insight Development grant and she is a Co-Investigator on another SSHRC Insight Development grant. As well, in October 2013, Dr. Rowsell and CRC Andrea Doucet applied for SSHRC Insight funding for a five-year study on the modern family.

As well as these research pursuits, Dr. Rowsell has been co-editing four books that are all due out in the autumn of 2014 and the winter of 2015: The Handbook of Literacy Studies; Learning and Literacy over Time: Longitudinal Perspectives; Schooling Zombies – Engaging with youth, popular culture and new pedagogies in a landscape of crisis; and, New Literacies around the Globe. In addition to writing and research, Dr. Rowsell has been working on making the Centre for Multiliteracies more active as a hub and she has hosted a workshop on schooling and videogames and a speaker series on new issues in literacy education. We hosted Dr. Cheryl McLean from Rutgers Graduate School of Education in November 2013. There will be a Visiting Scholar from Brazil, Dr. Fernando Maués (Universidade do Federal do Pará), arriving at the Centre for Multiliteracies in August 2014 for a year. Finally, there will be a variety of Centre-sponsored celebrations over the course of CSSE.

Finally, in terms of administrative roles, in January 2014, Dr. Rowsell took Directorship of the Brock University Reading Clinic in the hopes of creating partnerships and initiatives between the Reading Clinic and the Centre for Multiliteracies.

Successful Funding for the Centre

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Insight Development Grants

1. Community Arts Zone (CAZ): Projects linking literacy, community and the arts

June 2013 – May 2015

Grant Amount: $72,621.00

Principal Investigator: Jennifer Rowsell, Brock University, Canada


Co-Investigators: Kate Pahl, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom; Kris Gutierrez, University of Colorado, Boulder, USA; Joanne Larson, University of Rochester, USA

Collaborators: Shelley Griffin, Brock University; Debra McLauchlan, Brock University; Glenys McQueen-Fuentes, Brock University; Peter Vietgen, Brock University; Kari-Lynn Winters, Brock University

In May 2013, Dr. Rowsell won SSHRC funding for a project entitled, Community Arts Zone. The Insight Development Grant entitled, Community Arts Zone: Linking community, the arts and literacy is a two-year study taking place in St. Catharines, ON in elementary and secondary schools, in Rochester, NY as a part of a community project, in Boulder, CO in an early years context, and in Rotherham, UK as a part of a museum project. Premised on multimodal pedagogies and concepts of modal learning (Rowsell, 2013), each project picks up on aspects of my work with an overall goal of contributing to radical shifts in the way that literacy is taught and learned. Adopting arts-based, multimodal approaches and epistemologies, the large team of researchers will work with different populations from doing music work with young children in a suburban middle-class school to painting a mural on a community corner store with homeless youth to working with parents and children on film projects in Rotherham to doing body-image theatre work with adolescents in a lower-income small Canadian city. It is a project that combines community initiatives with arts-based practices with working with professionals who specialize in modes of representation and communication. The research will result in an edited volume in the Engaging Literacies in Education book series. From this research, Dr. Rowsell will expand the scope of the study and write the research up into a SSHRC Partnership Grant that focuses on adopting multimodal pedagogies across educational contexts.

2. Crayons and IPads: Understanding young children’s meaning-making processes

in learning to be literate

June 2013 – May 2015


Principal Investigator: Debra Harwood, Brock University

Co-Investigators: Jennifer Rowsell, Brock University; Kari-Lynn Winters, Brock University

Collaborators: Vera Woloshyn, Brock University; Mira Bajovic, Brock University

Over a two-year period the research team will address the following objectives: (1) Explore and gain insights about 21st century young learners and how they engage in literacy learning processes. (2) Define pathways to reconceptualise early childhood


education curriculum and pedagogy in order to meet the needs of the ‘emerging technologically constructed childhood’ (Fleer, 2011). The kinds of research questions that we will tackle are: 1).What modes of meaning making are predominant in the early learning literacy environment? Do these modes differ from the children’s home-literacy experiences? 2). Do children’s literacy learning processes differ based on the classroom mediums used, and if so, how? 3).What role does an educator assume within children’s meaning-making processes and does this role differ based on the types of literacy experiences (i.e., traditional or 21st Century)? The research will be hosted out of the Centre for Multiliteracies – using iPads from the centre and convening all meetings at the centre.

The data collection and methodology for the study will comprise: ethnographic observational fieldnotes across four different early learning sites; children as active researchers; gaining an ethnomethodological approach that allow researchers to provide an ‘insider account’ of the sociocultural knowledge of early learners and their teachers as well as a holistic description and interpretation of the phenomenon of being and becoming literate (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993); and, blending of the virtual and real life worlds of young children’s meaning making processes is an emerging area of research focus (Burke & Marsh, in press; Merchant, 2010). These storied experiences of literacy learning will be collected through observations, interviews, and examination of literacy artifacts and analyzed across four diverse settings.

SSHRC Insight Grant

1. Making/Remaking Families

June 2014 - May 2019


Principal Investigator: Andrea Doucet, Brock University

Co-Investigators: Diane Collier, Brock University; Jennifer Rowsell, Brock University

In October 2013, Dr. Rowsell worked on an Insight Grant entitled, Making/Remaking Families, with CRC Andrea Doucet as the Principal Investigator. The proposed research program aims to advance theoretical, empirical, methodological, and public understandings of 21st century family practices in a diverse configuration of Canadian families, especially family forms that are on the rise in Canada: LGBTQ, new immigrant families, single parent, and low-income families. A main goal for the research is to explore changing stories of a diverse grouping of Canadian families in order to bring public and scholarly attention to the shifting family practices of paid work, care work, and consumption as well as to the resources, supports and social needs of these families.


The research is a new trajectory for me and I look forward to learning about adopting visual methods and conducting in-depth home ethnographies.

Grant Proposals Submitted:

Cisco Funding

2. Digikids: Educating young children to be twenty-first century learners


Principal Investigators: Jennifer Rowsell, Brock University and Pam Whitty, University of New Brunswick

Co-Investigators: Rahat Naqvi, University of Calgary; Debra Harwood, Brock University; Dolana Mogadime, Brock University; Rebecca Zak, Ph.D. Candidate, Brock University; Dane diCesare, Ph.D. Candidate, University of Buffalo

There will be three phases to the research. For the first phase, the research team will adopt MaKey MaKey invention kits for the early years sites involved in the project. The way that the MaKey MaKey program works is having children use everyday objects and make them into computer interface and mobile devices. Invented by Eric Rosenbaum, Jay Silver, and Mitchel Resnick, the invention package describes the program as:

Make a game pad out of Play-Doh, a musical instrument out of bananas, or any other invention you can imagine. It's a little USB device you plug into your computer, and you use it to make your own switches that act like keys on the keyboard: Make + Key = MaKey MaKey! It’s plug and play. No need for any electronics or programming skills. Since MaKey MaKey looks to your computer like a regular mouse and keyboard, it’s automatically compatible with any piece of software you can think of. It’s great for beginners tinkering and exploring, for experts prototyping and inventing, and for everybody who wants to playfully transform their world. (http://media.mit.edu/research/groups/1449/makey-makey, accessed on Feb. 18th. 2014)

The beauty of adopting such a program for the first phase of the research is that it involves online and offline thinking to teach students to acquire the following skills: knowledge and experience with design and production; an understanding of networking; collaboration and participatory structures; and DIY practices.

After working through the MaKey MaKey program with participant classrooms, we move into a social media phase of the research whereby students create blogs,


podcasts, and short films about their MaKey MaKey designs that they pipe out to YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter.

The third and final phase of the research will be exploratory projects with tablets. Tablets have rapidly become everyday objects for many children. Yet as Susan Edwards (2013) points out in spite of 30 years of research, “digital technologies in the early years are still not fully integrated with pedagogical perspectives on play” (Yelland 2011). Often play with its creative and communicative characteristics is separated from pedagogy and not explored as a significant multimodal literacy in its own right. The outdoor settings for this phase of the project will include both traditional playspaces, and natural spaces that have been taken up as outdoor classrooms. What use do children make of tablets in these environments? What do they chose to document or research? What are the implications of the children’s digital knowledge and know how for teaching and learning for children, educators and parents in the integration of digital and non-digital play as multi-modal pedagogies.

In terms of the research team, Dr. Rowsell has written about both everyday objects (Pahl & Rowsell, 2010) and about building on the expertise of professionals (Sheridan & Rowsell, 2010; Rowsell, 2013) and this project will build on her expertise and expertise from Dr. Pamela Whitty with years of experience as a scholar in early years and multimodality. Co-investigators Harwood, Naqvi, Mogadime, and Zak have their own areas of strength and expertise in early years and technology (Harwood is PI on an iPad study – Crayons and Ipads); Naqvi has expertise in working with English language learner children and developing innovative pedagogies; Mogadime works in social justice and has a burgeoning interest in technology, and finally, Rebecca Zak who is a new up-and-coming scholar who has completed a multimodal Ph.D. thesis on creativity. It is a powerful team of researchers working across universities and classrooms contexts to expand our understanding about learning through technologies using innovative practices.

Scheduled Centre Events:

Jim Pedrech TALK on November 28th, 2013: “Videogames in the Classroom: Creating

Worlds for and with your Students”

Dr. Rachel Heydon on May 15th, 2014 6 PM – 8 PM: “Every Day He Has a Different

Dream to Tell Me”: Five Studies of Kindergarten Literacy Curricula”

Centre for Multiliteracies CSSE Cocktail Party – Saturday May 24th, 2014,

Wankly/Rowsell Home 6-8 PM

Celebrating Community Arts Zone – Sunday May 25th, 2014, Rodman Hall, 2-4 PM


Appendix D




Jennifer Turner, Research Coordinator

It has been another productive year in the Centre for Multiliteracies. Jennifer Turner (formerly Colautti) and Dr. Jennifer Rowsell have completed numerous publications and secured funding. Two key events for CRC Rowsell and for the Centre have been Dr. Rowsell’s renewal of her Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Multiliteracies and her induction into the Inaugural Royal Society College for New Scholars, Artists, and Scientists. These two awards put the Centre in a more prominent position within the university. In terms of research, Dr. Rowsell and Jennifer Turner have been involved in five different internally and externally funded research projects: 2014-2019 (Grant Amount: $309,116.00). Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Insight Grant. Making/Re-Making Families: A Visual, Longitudinal and Cross-Cultural exploration of Family Practices, Family Photographs, and Stories. Principal Investigator: Andrea Doucet. Co-Investigators: Diane Collier and Jennifer Rowsell. Research ethics is now complete and Dr. Rowsell has recruited three families for the project and she has completed two sites visits. The research team is currently concentrating on literature reviews and finalizing their methods and conceptual framework before starting fieldwork in September 2015. 2013-2015 (Grant Amount: $72,621.00) Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Insight Development Grant Award. Community Arts Zone (CAZ): Projects linking literacy, community, and the arts. Principal Investigator: Jennifer Rowsell Data collection for this research was completed in April 2015 and the research team comprised of Drs. Shelley Griffin, Deb McLauchlan, Peter Vietgen and Kari-Lynn Winters and Glenys McQueen Fuentes are in the midst of analyzing data. There will be a special issue of Pedagogies edited by Dr. Rowsell on the Community Arts Zone project and there are a number of journal articles out for review and several international and national conference presentations. 2013-2015 (Grant Amount: $73,245.00) Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Insight Development Grant Award. The Minecraft Project: Exploring videogames as a platform for teaching, learning, and curriculum. Principal Investigator: Rob Simon, OISE/University of Toronto, Collaborator: Jennifer Rowsell. Data collection for this project will take place until December 2015 with Dr. Rowsell serving as a consultant and meeting with the OISE/UT researchers monthly about


emerging themes and co-writing. There will be a Minecraft panel featured at the Literacy Research Association annual conference. 2014 (Grant Amount: $2,000) Community Engagement and Vernacular Literacies. Brock University Social Justice Transdisciplinary Research Institute Local Engagement Grant. Connecting Community through Literacy. Since January 2015, Drs. Rowsell and Maues (a Visiting Scholar from Brazil) and Chrystal Colquhoun have been conducting a six-month research study one night a week in the Brock Reading Clinic on twenty-first century notions of reading. Observing children, adolescents and teens reading on iPads, playing apps, and composing texts, the research team has written significant fieldnotes and all of the tutors and researchers contribute to the research blog. The research team has submitted a journal article on the research and Dr. Rowsell presented the research at the American Educational Research Association annual conference. In addition to the above research initiatives, Drs. Rowsell and Naqvi (University of Calgary) with administrative, editorial and budgetary help from Jennifer Turner, secured SSHRC Connection grant funding and hosted a think tank event at the University of Calgary from April 9th – 13th, 2015 on Transcultural Literacies in Cosmopolitan Times: A Call for Change. There will be a journal article/position paper published based on the event as well as an edited book. In addition, Dr. Rowsell is part of a larger team of researchers (PI: Kathy Hibbert, Western University) involved in a successful SSHRC Partnership Development Grant, entitled 21st Century Literacies: Research and Development of a ‘Cloud Curriculum’ totaling $557,753. The Centre for Multiliteracies is a partner in this grant. As well, there have been a number of visiting scholars who have come to the Centre for Multiliteracies. Of particular note, Dr. Fernando Maues (Universidade do Federal do Pará),) has spent the 2014-2015 academic year in the Centre for Multiliteracies and Dr. Sue Nichols visited and gave an invited talk as a co-sponsored event with the Social Justice Research Institute. Jennifer Turner has completed some infrastructure and technical improvements to the centre space including getting CFI-funded videoconferencing facilities in the centre and improving syncing iPads and icloud storage of large corpuses of data. The Routledge Handbook of Literacy Studies will be published in May 2015 and there will be a book launch to celebrate the volume. A goal for the 2015-2016 academic year is to involve more faculty members in Centre for Multiliteracies regarding events, research, and initiatives. The autumn Centre for Multiliteracies invited speaker will be Dr. Anne Burke from Memorial University and the winter invited speakers will be Drs. Tiffany Gallagher and Xavier Fazio from Brock University.

Brock University

Niagara Region

500 Glenridge Ave.

St. Catharines, ON

L2S 3A1 Canada

T 905-688-5550 x4315

F 905-688-0748

brocku.ca

Office of the Vice-President Research

May 6, 2016 Professor Dan Malleck, Chair Senate Research and Scholarship Policy Committee Brock University Subject: Centre for Research in Multiliteracies Dear Prof. Malleck,

I am writing regarding the Review and Renewal document recently submitted by Professor Rowsell to the Senate Research and Scholarship Policy Committee. I have reviewed the document and am writing to express my support for the renewal of the Centre. The domain of multiliteracies is of substantial current interest across a number of fields and in Canadian Society. The report documents very important achievements. These include an impressive track record of publication, great success in attracting grant funding, and the involvement internationally and nationally with other research groups (including membership as a Co-applicant in a SSHRC Partnership Grant). The report of the Centre documents the involvement of five faculty members in addition to Dr. Rowsell and, together, they have an excellent record of student mentorship and supervision.

I am in support of the continued development of the Centre.

Yours sincerely,

Gary Libben, PhD, FRSC Vice President Research

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� ! � � " � � � � � � # � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � $ � % � � � � � � � � � � � � % � � � � � � � � � � � & � � ' � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� % � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� % � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �( � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� ! � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� & � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� ! � � � � � � � & � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� $ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ) � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � % � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� % � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � & � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� ( � � � � � � � ' � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � " � � � � � � & $ � % � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �* + , - . + / 0 . 1 2 3 4 , + 3 3 5 , 6 7 8 - 4 9 3 : * 1 5 ; � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �< � � � � � � � � & � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ( � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �( � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � < � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��

= > ? @ A B C D E F B D G = E H F I F A F D J K H L @ F J K B D H D K B M J K E N F D K M J I E O > @ M A H P @ E Q ?N D H M B I L D I E > @ B R K F I @ E K E N K M F I S I F I D H B D Q K F D N F @ B D H D K B M J T J D E M @ R U Q D F I E O F J I H H D Q > VH F A N ? N @ M A R D E F WX Y Z [ \ ] ^ [ _ [ Y ` a b c [ d e ` [ f g d _ e h e i e [j J D E K R D @ > F J D U B @ U @ H D N C D E F B D I H klm b Y e h _ e b [ c [ d e ` [ f g d _ e h e i e [ n _ o h _ h \ d p Z h _ _ h \ d Y d q ` [ _ r \ d _ h s h t h e h [ _ u•

j @ J K S D K U @ @ Q @ > Q D K N I E O B D H D K B M J D B H T J @ K B D D v U D B F H K N N B D H H I E ON K F K V N B I S D E U B @ L Q D R H W•

j @ U B @ R @ F D B D H D K B M J I E > I D Q N H T J D B D U B @ L Q D R H K B D N K F K V N B I S D E L ?L B I E O I E O F @ O D F J D B K F D K R @ > N K F K K E K Q ? F I M H B D H D K B M J D B H P H F A N D E F H PF J @ A O J F Q D K N D B H P U B K M F I F I @ E D B H P K Q A R E I K E N I E N A H F B ? U K B F E D B H W•

j @ L D K H @ A B M D @ > N K F K K E K Q ? F I M H D v U D B F I H D > @ B U A L Q I M K E N U B I S K F DH D M F @ B H F @ K N N B D H H N K F K V N B I S D E I H H A D H W•

j @ L D K F B K E H N I H M I U Q I E K B ? J A L > @ B F B K I E I E O F J D E D v F O D E D B K F I @ E @ > N K F KH M I D E F I H F H K E N K N N B D H H I H H A D H F J K F K B D S I F K Q F @ F J D Q @ M K Q M @ R R A E I F ? Ww W x D R @ E H F B K F D F J D K U U Q I M K F I @ E @ > N K F K K E N M @ R U A F K F I @ E K Q Q ? V N B I S D EB D H D K B M J K M F I S I F I D H F J B @ A O J K M F I S D A F I Q I y K F I @ E @ > M @ R U A F I E O B D H @ A B M D H Wz W { E O K O D D v U D B F H I E S K B I @ A H > I D Q N H I E M @ Q Q K L @ B K F I S D K E NF B K E H N I H M I U Q I E K B ? > @ B A R H > @ B D v M J K E O D @ > I N D K H P K U U B @ K M J D H K E NR D F J @ N @ Q @ O I D H | D W O W P T @ B } H J @ U H K E N H ? R U @ H I A R H ~ W� W � K M I Q I F K F D > K M A Q F ? R D R L D B H � U K B F I M I U K F I @ E K E N M @ E F B I L A F I @ E F @ U B I S K F DK E N U A L Q I M M @ R R A E I F I D H F J B @ A O J M @ E H A Q F I E O K E N M @ Q Q K L @ B K F I S D

B D H D K B M J U B @ � D M F H T I F J I E F J D K B D K H @ > B D Q D S K E F D v U D B F I H D W j J I H T I Q Q L DK U B I E M I U K Q R D K E H F @ > I E K E M I K Q Q ? H A H F K I E F J D C D E F B D I E F J D Q @ E O F D B R W� W { E J K E M D H F A N D E F Q D K B E I E O L ? M B D K F I E O @ U U @ B F A E I F I D H > @ B H F A N D E F H F @N D S D Q @ U N K F K V N B I S D E H } I Q Q H K F L @ F J A U U D B Q D S D Q A E N D B O B K N A K F D K E NO B K N A K F D Q D S D Q F J B @ A O J H U D M I K Q I y D N F B K I E I E O W j J I H D v U D B I D E F I K QQ D K B E I E O T I Q Q L D H A U U @ B F D N L ? F J D > A E N H O D E D B K F D N L ? F J D M @ E H A Q F I E OD > > @ B F H L ? F J D C � � WY � m b Y e h _ e b [ r ` \ r \ _ [ q _ e Y ` e q Y e [ \ ] e b [ c [ d e ` [ f g d _ e h e i e [ uj J D C � � I H K E F I M I U K F D N F @ H F K B F @ U D B K F I @ E I E � D U F D R L D B z � w � Wm b Y e Y ` [ e b [ t h � [ t � ` [ _ [ Y ` a b s [ d [ ] h e _ Y d q \ r r \ ` e i d h e h [ _ \ ] a ` [ Y e h d � e b h _c [ d e ` [ f g d _ e h e i e [ u� ? L B I E O I E O F @ O D F J D B B D H D K B M J D B H > B @ R S K B I @ A H N I H M I U Q I E D H T I F J I E F D B D H F I E L I ON K F K K E K Q ? F I M H P F J D C � � T I Q Q U B I R K B I Q ? U B @ S I N D K > @ B A R > @ B B D H D K B M J D B H F @ H J K B DU D B H U D M F I S D H K E N R D F J @ N @ Q @ O I D H I E K E K Q ? y I E O H M I D E F I > I M K E N B D H D K B M J N K F K W� ? M B D K F I E O K F B K E H N I H M I U Q I E K B ? B D H D K B M J D E S I B @ E R D E F T I F J K > @ M A H @ E F J D A H D@ > K E K Q ? F I M H K H K R D F J @ N @ > H @ Q S I E O M @ R U Q D v U B @ L Q D R H P F J D C � � T I Q Q L D KU B I R K B ? N B I S D B > @ B M @ Q Q K L @ B K F I S D B D H D K B M J I E F J I H > I D Q N Wj J D C � � @ U D E H E D T K S D E A D H > @ B H F A N D E F F B K I E I E O K F � B @ M } � E I S D B H I F ? L ?> @ H F D B I E O U K B F E D B H J I U H K E N I E F D B K M F I @ E H T I F J U B @ S I N D B H @ > L I O N K F K K E N F J D I BK U U Q I M K F I @ E H W j J I H D E J K E M D H H F A N D E F F B K I E I E O I E N K F K K E N M @ R U A F K F I @ E K Q Q ? VN B I S D E B D H D K B M J > I D Q N H K E N M B D K F D H @ U U @ B F A E I F I D H > @ B H F A N D E F H F @ D E O K O D K E NK N N B D H H E D T B D H D K B M J � A D H F I @ E H W= F I H M B I F I M K Q > @ B K M K N D R I M I E H F I F A F I @ E H F @ M @ Q Q K L @ B K F D T I F J I E N A H F B ? G O @ S D B E R D E F I E@ B N D B F @ > K M I Q I F K F D > I D Q N V L K H D N B D H D K B M J T I F J H F B @ E O F D M J E I M K Q K E N N @ R K I E} E @ T Q D N O D I E S K B I @ A H U B @ L Q D R H D F F I E O H P H A M J K H U D B H @ E K Q K E N M @ R R D B M I K QM B D N I F B I H } R @ N D Q Q I E O P N K F K L K H D R K B } D F I E O P L I O N K F K > @ B O @ S D B E R D E F K E NI E F D B E K F I @ E K Q N D S D Q @ U R D E F P = C j K E N N I O I F K Q N I S I N D R @ E I F @ B I E O P N I H K H F D B U Q K E E I E OK E N M @ E F B @ Q P K R @ E O @ F J D B H W = E K N N I F I @ E P F J I H M @ Q Q K L @ B K F I @ E T I Q Q U B @ S I N D D > > D M F I S DH F A N D E F F B K I E I E O T I F J I E N A H F B ? V B D Q D S K E F M A B B I M A Q A R K E N B I O @ B @ A H K U U Q I M K F I @ E @ >R D F J @ N H K E N F @ @ Q H W� I O A B D V w I E F J D K U U D E N I M D H N D U I M F H F J D C D E F B D � H D M @ H ? H F D R P T J I M J I E M Q A N D HU @ F D E F I K Q U K B F E D B H J I U H K E N K M F I S I F I D H W

m b � Y ` [ [ � h _ e h d � q [ r Y ` e Z [ d e _ \ ` c [ d e ` [ _ i d Y s t [ e \ Y a a \ Z Z \ q Y e [ e b [o h _ h \ d p Z h _ _ h \ d p Y d q ` [ _ r \ d _ h s h t h e h [ _ u� I O x K F K K E K Q ? F I M H I H L D M @ R I E O I E M B D K H I E O Q ? I R U @ B F K E F I E D S D B ? K H U D M F @ > @ A BQ I S D H W � D M D E F B D H D K B M J B D U @ B F H K E N F J D R D N I K D R U J K H I y D J @ T L A H I E D H H K E K Q ? F I M HJ K H L D D E I E H F B A R D E F K Q I E S K B I @ A H M K H D H B K E O I E O > B @ R U B D H I N D E F I K Q M K R U K I O E H PR K � @ B Q D K O A D H U @ B F H F @ J I O J Q ? M @ R U D F I F I S D I E N A H F B I D H H A M J K H I E H A B K E M D P L K E } HK E N B D F K I Q I E O W � N S K E M D H I E M @ R U A F K F I @ E P N K F K L K H D H K E N � D L V L K H D N F D M J E @ Q @ O I D HJ K S D K Q Q @ T D N @ B O K E I y K F I @ E H F @ O D E D B K F D D E @ B R @ A H K R @ A E F H @ > N K F K K L @ A F F J D I BM A H F @ R D B H P F B K E H K M F I @ E H K E N R K B } D F W � I O x K F K K E K Q ? F I M H D R U @ T D B H @ B O K E I y K F I @ E HT I F J U B @ K M F I S D N D M I H I @ E V R K } I E O M K U K L I Q I F I D H K E N N D Q I S D B H U B K M F I M K Q I E H I O J F HO Q D K E D N > B @ R N K F K W = E F J D M A B B D E F M J K Q Q D E O I E O D M @ E @ R I M M Q I R K F D P @ B O K E I y K F I @ E HE D D N D S I N D E M D V L K H D N K E H T D B H F @ I R R D N I K F D L A H I E D H H I H H A D H W � @ B H F A N D E F H K E NB D H D K B M J D B H P F J I H R D K E H I E M B D K H I E O U B D H H A B D K E N H } I Q Q B D � A I B D R D E F H I E N K F KR K E K O D R D E F P K E K Q ? F I M K Q R D F J @ N H K E N H @ > F T K B D K U U Q I M K F I @ E H F @ K N N B D H H B D K Q V Q I > DU B @ L Q D R H W = E B D H U @ E H D F @ F J I H B K U I N Q ? D S @ Q S I E O > I D Q N I E K F D M J E @ Q @ O ? V N B I S D E T @ B Q N PH D S D B K Q � @ B F J � R D B I M K E I E H F I F A F I @ E H K B D D H F K L Q I H J I E O E D T N D O B D D K E N M D B F I > I M K F DU B @ O B K R H I E K E K Q ? F I M H W j J D � @ @ N R K E � M J @ @ Q @ > � A H I E D H H I H @ E D @ > F J D > I B H FH M J @ @ Q H I E C K E K N K F @ @ > > D B K E � � � H F B D K R I E � A H I E D H H � E K Q ? F I M H W j J I H E D TU B @ O B K R I H > K M I Q I F K F D N L ? K H F B K F D O I M U K B F E D B H J I U K O B D D R D E F T I F J � � � C K E K N K K HU K B F @ > F J D I B O Q @ L K Q K M K N D R I M K Q Q I K E M D U B @ O B K R P T J I M J U B @ S I N D H H A U U @ B F > @ B � � �H @ > F T K B D P F B K I E I E O P T @ B } H J @ U H K E N M A B B I M A Q A R N D S D Q @ U R D E F W� B @ M } � H E D v F H F D U I H M B A M I K Q F @ M B D K F D K B D H D K B M J D E S I B @ E R D E F F J K F M @ R U Q D R D E F HK E N > K M I Q I F K F D H F J D F B K I E I E O D E S I B @ E R D E F W � I O N K F K K E K Q ? F I M H I H K N ? E K R I M > I D Q N PM J K B K M F D B I y D N L ? B K U I N M J K E O D H I E I E N A H F B ? U B K M F I M D H P B D K H @ E I E O K U U B @ K M J D H K E NR D F J @ N H K E N F J D H A U U @ B F I E O F D M J E @ Q @ O I M K Q U Q K F > @ B R H K E N F @ @ Q H W � @ B K M K N D R I MI E H F I F A F I @ E H P @ E D > D K H I L Q D T K ? @ > H A H F K I E I E O F J I H E D D N > @ B B D H D K B M J K E N I E E @ S K F I @ EI H F @ M @ R U Q D R D E F M Q K H H B @ @ R F B K I E I E O T I F J K B D H D K B M J D E S I B @ E R D E F F J K F L B I E O HF @ O D F J D B > K M A Q F ? P H F A N D E F H P K Q A R E I K E N I E N A H F B ? U K B F E D B H > @ B K M @ R R @ E U A B U @ H D W� H K N ? E K R I M K E N M J K Q Q D E O I E O B D H D K B M J > B @ E F I D B P L I O N K F K K E K Q ? F I M H B D � A I B D H K E D TK U U B @ K M J K E N D M @ H ? H F D R K H D S I N D E M D N L ? F J D O B @ T I E O Q I H F @ > B D H D K B M J M D E F B D HF J K F K B D L D I E O I E I F I K F D N L ? I E H F I F A F I @ E H W { v K R U Q D H I E M Q A N D �•

C D E F B D > @ B � U D B K F I @ E H � D H D K B M J K E N � E K Q ? F I M H I E � D K Q F J K F F J D � K A N D B� M J @ @ Q @ > � A H I E D H H P � E I S D B H I F ? @ > � B I F I H J C @ Q @ R L I K �•

j J D � M @ F I K L K E } C D E F B D > @ B C A H F @ R D B � E K Q ? F I M H K F F J D � R I F J � M J @ @ Q @ >� A H I E D H H P � A D D E � H � E I S D B H I F ? �•

j J D = � � C D E F B D > @ B � A H I E D H H � E K Q ? F I M H K E N � D B > @ B R K E M D K F F J D j D Q > D B� M J @ @ Q @ > � K E K O D R D E F P � E I S D B H I F ? @ > � F F K T K �•

� j { � � � H C D E F D B > @ B � A H I E D H H � E K Q ? F I M H K F � D T � @ B } � E I S D B H I F ? �

•� @ M I K Q � D N I K K E N � A H I E D H H � E K Q ? F I M H C @ Q Q K L @ B K F I S D K F F J D C K B Q H @ E � M J @ @ Q@ > � K E K O D R D E F P � E I S D B H I F ? @ > � I E E D H @ F K �

•C D E F D B > @ B � A H I E D H H � E K Q ? F I M H K F F J D � M = E F I B D � M J @ @ Q @ > C @ R R D B M D P� E I S D B H I F ? @ > � I B O I E I K �

•C D E F D B > @ B � A H I E D H H � E K Q ? F I M H K F F J D � K E N ? � M J @ @ Q @ > � K E K O D R D E F P� E I S D B H I F ? @ > C K Q I > @ B E I K P � K E x I D O @ �

•C D E F D B > @ B � A H I E D H H � E K Q ? F I M H K F F J D C K B Q � W � I E N E D B C @ Q Q D O D @ > � A H I E D H H P� E I S D B H I F ? @ > C I E M I E E K F I �

•C D E F D B > @ B � A H I E D H H � E K Q ? F I M H K F F J D � M J @ @ Q @ > � A H I E D H H P � I Q Q K E @ S K� E I S D B H I F ? Wj J D K L @ S D I E I F I K F I S D H M Q D K B Q ? H J @ T F J K F K M K N D R I M I E H F I F A F I @ E H � B D H U @ E H D H F @ F J D L I ON K F K B D S @ Q A F I @ E K B D E @ F Q I R I F D N F @ M B D K F I E O E D T F B K I E I E O U B @ O B K R H W � I O N K F KK E K Q ? F I M H B D � A I B D H F B K E H N I H M I U Q I E K B ? B D H D K B M J E D F T @ B } H K E N M @ Q Q K L @ B K F I @ E H T I F JQ D K N I E O @ B O K E I y K F I @ E H I E I E N A H F B ? K H T D Q Q K H O @ S D B E R D E F K O D E M I D H Wj J D B D > @ B D P T I F J F J D D v I H F I E O F B K I E I E O I E K E K Q ? F I M H I E � @ @ N R K E � H � � � U B @ O B K R P F J DC � � I E I F I K F I S D T I Q Q H I O E I > I M K E F Q ? H A L H F K E F I K F D � B @ M } � E I S D B H I F ? � H U B D H D E M D K E NQ D K N D B H J I U I E K E K Q ? F I M H B D H D K B M J W � I F J F J D D H F K L Q I H J R D E F @ > F J I H C D E F B D P � B @ M } T I Q Q� @ I E F J D K L @ S D > D T I E H F I F A F I @ E H I E C K E K N K F J K F K B D Q D K N I E O F J I H B D H D K B M J > B @ E F I D B W� D L D Q I D S D F J D C D E F B D T I Q Q O I S D � B @ M } K A E I � A D M @ R U D F I F I S D K N S K E F K O D I EK F F B K M F I E O H M J @ Q K B H K E N O B K N A K F D H F A N D E F H W= E F D B E K Q Q ? P F J D C � � I H N I > > D B D E F > B @ R D v I H F I E O N D U K B F R D E F H K E N M D E F B D H K F� @ @ N R K E K E N F J D A E I S D B H I F ? L D M K A H D �w ~ = F T I Q Q B D Q ? @ E H F B @ E O F I D H T I F J U B I S K F D K E N U A L Q I M I E N A H F B ? U K B F E D B H K H I F HR K I E H @ A B M D @ > B D S D E A D P N K F K K E N @ F J D B B D H @ A B M D H I E F J D Q @ E O F D B R �z ~ = F J K H K > @ M A H @ E N K F K K E N M @ R U A F K F I @ E K Q Q ? V N B I S D E B D H D K B M J T I F J K M M D H H F @U B D S I @ A H Q ? I E K M M D H H I L Q D N K F K F J B @ A O J F J D H D U K B F E D B H J I U H Wm b Y e Y ` [ e b [ \ s � [ a e h o [ _ \ ] e b [ ^ [ _ [ Y ` a b c [ d e ` [ f g d _ e h e i e [ uj J D R K I E @ L � D M F I S D H @ > C � � K B D � C B D K F D K E K M F I S D B D H D K B M J D E S I B @ E R D E F I EN K F K R K E K O D R D E F K E N L A H I E D H H K E K Q ? F I M H F @ > K M I Q I F K F D N I H M @ S D B ? PI E E @ S K F I @ E K E N R K E K O D B I K Q L D H F U B K M F I M D H W j @ D E J K E M D K M K N D R I MB D H D K B M J B @ @ F D N I E B D K Q U B @ L Q D R H P C � � R D R L D B H T I Q Q D E O K O D T I F J U B I S K F DK E N U A L Q I M D E F I F I D H F J B @ A O J U K B F I M I U K F I @ E I E M @ E H A Q F I E O U B @ � D M F H W

j J D C � � T I Q Q H D B S D K H K Q I E } L D F T D D E I E N A H F B ? K E N� B @ M } � E I S D B H I F ? I E D E J K E M I E O H F A N D E F F B K I E I E O F J B @ A O J D v U D B I D E F I K QQ D K B E I E O I E K M M @ B N K E M D T I F J M J K E O D H I E F J D R K B } D F W \ [ _ e b [ ^ [ _ [ Y ` a b c [ d e ` [ f g d _ e h e i e [ h d a t i q [ h d o \ t o [ Z [ d e \ ] d \ d ¡ i d h o [ ` _ h e �\ ` � Y d h ¢ Y e h \ d _ u● � D H ○ � @= > ? D H P Q I H F F J D @ B O K E I y K F I @ E H K E N N D H M B I L D F J D I B B @ Q D W� B D Q I R I E K B ? D E O K O D R D E F T I F J > I E K E M I K Q @ B O K E I y K F I @ E H P N K F K K E K Q ? F I M H > I B R H P K E NH @ > F T K B D S D E N @ B H J K S D K Q B D K N ? F K } D E U Q K M D W = E @ B N D B F @ R K F D B I K Q I y D F J D H DB D Q K F I @ E H J I U H P F J D C � � T I Q Q I E S @ Q S D F J D > @ Q Q @ T I E O E @ E V A E I S D B H I F ? @ B O K E I y K F I @ E H K E NF J D I B B D U B D H D E F K F I @ E I E K E � N S I H @ B ? C @ R R I F F D D W j J D C � � T I Q Q J K S D K E � N S I H @ B ?C @ R R I F F D D T J I M J I E M Q A N D H @ E D R D R L D B V K F V Q K B O D > B @ R H U @ E H @ B I E O @ B O K E I y K F I @ E H P@ E D R D R L D B V K F V Q K B O D > B @ R H @ > F T K B D U K B F E D B @ B O K E I y K F I @ E H | D W O W P � � � ~ P @ E DR D R L D B V K F V Q K B O D > B @ R N K F K U K B F E D B H P K E N @ E D R D R L D B V K F V Q K B O D > B @ R O @ S D B E R D E F@ B B D O A Q K F @ B ? L @ N I D H | D W O W P U B I S K M ? D v U D B F @ E F J D A H D K E N K U U Q I M K F I @ E H @ > N K F K ~ Wj J I H T I Q Q L D I E K N N I F I @ E F @ F T @ K M K N D R I M R D R L D B H > B @ R @ F J D B K M K N D R I MI E H F I F A F I @ E H W [ _ a ` h s [ e b [ ^ [ _ [ Y ` a b c [ d e ` [ f g d _ e h e i e [ n _ a \ d _ e h e i e h \ d � g ] e b [ ` [ Y ` [Z [ Z s [ ` _ ] ` \ Z \ i e _ h q [ £ ` \ a � ¤ d h o [ ` _ h e � p ] i t t � q [ _ a ` h s [ e b [ h ` ` \ t [ ¥ [ � � � p g _ h eY d Y q o h _ \ ` � \ d [ u ¦ p r Y ` e h a i t Y ` t � b \ § h e ` [ t Y e [ _ e \ q [ a h _ h \ d _ Z Y q [ Y s \ i e e b [c [ d e ` [ f g d _ e h e i e [ �

j J D C � � � D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D D | J D B D K > F D B k � D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D D l ~ I H F J D M @ B DM @ E H F I F A D E F L @ N ? @ > F J D C � � P M @ R U B I H D N @ > K Q Q C � � R D R L D B H I E O @ @ N H F K E N I E O W� Q Q C � � R D R L D B H I E O @ @ N H F K E N I E O J K S D F J D B I O J F H K E N N A F I D H F @ U K B F I M I U K F D I E F J DK > > K I B H @ > F J D � D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D D Ww W w W j J D R D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D D T I Q Q R D D F K F Q D K H F @ E M D D K M J K M K N D R I M ? D K B W� D D F I E O H @ > F J D � D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D D M K E L D M K Q Q D N K F F J D N I H M B D F I @ E @ >F J D C � � x I B D M F @ B @ B F J B @ A O J U D F I F I @ E L ? K F Q D K H F J K Q > @ > F J D C � �R D R L D B H J I U W � F Q D K H F F T @ T D D } H @ > E @ F I M D R A H F L D O I S D E L D > @ B D D K M J� D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D D R D D F I E O Ww W z W � Q Q R D D F I E O H @ > F J D � D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D D T I Q Q > @ Q Q @ T � @ L D B F � H � A Q D H @ >� B N D B I E I F H U B @ M D D N I E O H Ww W � W { S D B ? R D R L D B I E O @ @ N H F K E N I E O @ > C � � J K H @ E D S @ F D I E F J D � D R L D B HC @ R R I F F D D U B @ M D D N I E O H W � D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D D S @ F D H R K ? L D M @ E N A M F D N I E V

U D B H @ E @ B D Q D M F B @ E I M K Q Q ? W � A @ B A R > @ B F J D R D D F I E O H I H K F Q D K H F � � ¨ @ > F J DR D R L D B H J I U P D v M D U F > @ B D Q D M F B @ E I M S @ F D H W � E Q D H H @ F J D B T I H D I E N I M K F D N I EF J D H D � A Q D H @ > � B @ M D N A B D P N D M I H I @ E @ > F J D � D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D D T I Q Q L DF K } D E L ? H I R U Q D R K � @ B I F ? S @ F D Ww W � W j J D � D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D D J K H F J D > @ Q Q @ T I E O B I O J F H G N A F I D H I E F J D C � �O @ S D B E K E M D �•

{ Q D M F F J D C � � x I B D M F @ B•

{ Q D M F F J D R D R L D B H @ > H F K E N I E O M @ R R I F F D D H | � D H D K B M J C @ R R I F F D D ~•

� D S I D T F J D K E E A K Q B D U @ B F @ > F J D C � � x I B D M F @ B•

� D M D I S D K E N B D S I D T B D U @ B F H > B @ R F J D C � � � N S I H @ B ? C @ R R I F F D D•

� R D E N F J D C � � B A Q D H @ > U B @ M D N A B D•

� K B F I M I U K F D I E F J D N D S D Q @ U R D E F K E N K U U B @ S K Q @ > F J D H F B K F D O I M U Q K EK E N K E E A K Q K M F I @ E U Q K E @ > F J D C � �•

� D S I D T P K U U B @ S D K E N U A L Q I H J I F H B A Q D H @ > U B @ M D N A B D L ? � M F @ L D B @ >D K M J ? D K B P T I F J M @ U I D H U B @ S I N D N F @ D K M J R D R L D B @ > F J D C D E F B D P F J Dx D K E P � @ @ N R K E � M J @ @ Q @ > � A H I E D H H P K E N F J D � E I @ E | K H U D B � B F I M Q Dw � W � � O @ > F J D C @ Q Q D M F I S D � O B D D R D E F ~ Wz W w W j J D C � � C @ R R I F F D D T I Q Q L D M J K I B D N L ? F J D C � � x I B D M F @ B | J D B D K > F D B © F J Dx I B D M F @ B � ~ @ B J I H G J D B N D H I O E K F D Wz W z W j J D x I B D M F @ B R A H F L D K C � � R D R L D B I E O @ @ N H F K E N I E O Wz W � W j J D x I B D M F @ B T I Q Q E @ B R K Q Q ? H D B S D K F J B D D V ? D K B F D B R T J I M J R K ? L D B D E D T D N Wz W � W j J D x I B D M F @ B T I Q Q L D H D Q D M F D N F J B @ A O J F J D > @ Q Q @ T I E O U B @ M D N A B D K H H D F @ A F I E� B F I M Q D z ª W � � @ > F J D C @ Q Q D M F I S D � O B D D R D E F �z W � W w W x A B I E O F J D > K Q Q F D B R @ > F J D > I E K Q ? D K B @ > K x I B D M F @ B � H F D B R P F J DC @ R R I F F D D H J K Q Q B D M @ B N K S @ F D I E N I M K F I E O I F H M J @ I M D > @ B F J DE D v F x I B D M F @ B Wz W � W z W j J I H M J @ I M D T I Q Q L D > @ B T K B N D N F @ F J D x D K E P � @ @ N R K E � M J @ @ Q@ > � A H I E D H H | J D B D K > F D B k � � � l ~ T J @ R K ? M @ E H A Q F > A B F J D B Wz W � W � W j J D x D K E T I Q Q > @ B T K B N F J D B D H A Q F H @ > F J D S @ F D K E N J I H G J D BB D M @ R R D E N K F I @ E F @ F J D � B D H I N D E F T J @ T I Q Q K U U @ I E F F J D E D v Fx I B D M F @ B Wz W « W j J D x I B D M F @ B T I Q Q J K S D F J D B D H U @ E H I L I Q I F I D H K H H D F @ A F I E � B F I M Q D z ª W � w @ > F J DC @ Q Q D M F I S D � O B D D R D E F K H T D Q Q K H F J D > @ Q Q @ T I E O N A F I D H �z W « W w W x D S D Q @ U P I R U Q D R D E F K E N R @ E I F @ B H F B K F D O I M N I B D M F I @ E H K E NK M F I S I F I D H > @ B C � � P I E M @ E H A Q F K F I @ E T I F J F J D � D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D D P F J D� D H D K B M J C @ R R I F F D D P F J D � N S I H @ B ? C @ R R I F F D D K E N F J D x D K E @ >� � � Wz W « W z W � M F K H K Q I K I H @ E L D F T D D E D v F D B E K Q @ B O K E I y K F I @ E H P O @ S D B E R D E FK O D E M I D H P U K B F E D B H K E N C � � Wz W « W � W C J K I B B D O A Q K B C � � R D D F I E O H P H F B I } D M @ R R I F F D D H K H B D � A I B D N K E NI E F D B K M F T I F J F J D � D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D D K E N � N S I H @ B ? C @ R R I F F D D Wz W « W � W � B @ S I N D K T B I F F D E B D U @ B F K E N U B D H D E F K F I @ E F @ F J D � D R L D B HC @ R R I F F D D P F J D � N S I H @ B ? C @ R R I F F D D K E N F J D x D K E @ > � � �K E E A K Q Q ? W j J D B D U @ B F K E N U B D H D E F K F I @ E T I Q Q H A R R K B I y D F J D K M F I S I F I D H

@ > C � � K E N I E S I F D H H A O O D H F I @ E H K E N K N S I M D @ E > A F A B D H F B K F D O I MN I B D M F I @ E H K E N I R U B @ S D R D E F H W = F T I Q Q L D N I H F B I L A F D N K F Q D K H F F T @T D D } H L D > @ B D F J D K E E A K Q R D D F I E O Wz W « W « W � B @ S I N D B D U @ B F H K H B D � A I B D N L ? C � � I E I F I K F I S D H W� W w W j J D C � � � D H D K B M J C @ R R I F F D D N D K Q H T I F J F J D K M F I S I F I D H K E N > A F A B DN I B D M F I @ E @ > F J D C � � I E � D H D K B M J K E N = E E @ S K F I @ E W = E K N N I F I @ E P F J D C � �� D H D K B M J C @ R R I F F D D K N R I E I H F D B H U B @ U @ H K Q H > @ B B D H D K B M J > A E N I E O > B @ R� B @ M } � E I S D B H I F ? > K M A Q F ? R D R L D B H W� W z W j J D C � � � D H D K B M J C @ R R I F F D D T I Q Q M @ E H I H F @ > �•

j J D C � � x I B D M F @ B | D v V @ > > I M I @ ~•

j T @ C � � R D R L D B H � K F Q D K H F @ E D C � � R D R L D B T I Q Q L D > B @ R F J D� � � W•

� E D D v F D B E K Q � B @ M } � E I S D B H I F ? > K M A Q F ? R D R L D B T J @ I H E @ F K R D R L D B@ > F J D C � � � D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D D W� W � W � D H D K B M J C @ R R I F F D D R D R L D B H T I Q Q L D H D Q D M F D N L ? S @ F D @ > F J D C � �� D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D D W j J D E @ B R K Q F D B R @ > @ > > I M D > @ B K C � � � D H D K B M JC @ R R I F F D D R D R L D B T I Q Q L D F J B D D ? D K B H K E N R K ? L D B D E D T D N > @ B K H D M @ E NF J B D D V ? D K B F D B R W� W � W { K M J ? D K B I E F J D > K Q Q P F J D � D H D K B M J C @ R R I F F D D T I Q Q K N R I E I H F D B U B @ U @ H K Q H> @ B B D H D K B M J > A E N I E O > B @ R � B @ M } � E I S D B H I F ? > K M A Q F ? W � U @ E F J D B D M D U F I @ E @ >U B @ U @ H K Q H > @ B B D H D K B M J > A E N I E O P F J D C � � x I B D M F @ B T I Q Q H D D } D v F D B E K Q | L Q I E N ~B D S I D T H @ > F J D H A L R I F F D N U B @ U @ H K Q H W j J D � D H D K B M J C @ R R I F F D D T I Q Q R D D F F @M @ E H I N D B K Q Q K U U Q I M K F I @ E H > @ B > A E N I E O K Q @ E O T I F J F J D B D S I D T D B H � B D U @ B F H W j J Dx I B D M F @ B P I E M @ E H A Q F K F I @ E T I F J F J D � D H D K B M J C @ R R I F F D D P T I Q Q N D F D B R I E DT J I M J U B @ U @ H K Q H T I Q Q B D M D I S D > A E N I E O K E N F J D K R @ A E F @ > > A E N I E O W� W « W j @ L D H A M M D H H > A Q P K U B @ U @ H K Q R A H F R D D F F J D M B I F D B I K H D F L ? F J D � D H D K B M JC @ R R I F F D D K E N B D M D I S D K R K � @ B I F ? @ > S @ F D H > B @ R F J D C � � � D H D K B M JC @ R R I F F D D W� W w W j J D C � � � N S I H @ B ? C @ R R I F F D D | J D B D K > F D B © F J D � N S I H @ B ? C @ R R I F F D D � ~ I H KM @ E H A Q F K F I S D L @ N ? F J K F K N S I H D H F J D C � � � D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D D @ E F J DH F B K F D O I M N I B D M F I @ E @ > F J D C � � W = F I H M J K I B D N L ? F J D x D K E @ > � � � | @ BN D H I O E K F D ~ K E N I H M @ R U B I H D N @ > F J D > @ Q Q @ T I E O R D R L D B H @ > F J D L A H I E D H H PO @ S D B E R D E F K E N G @ B K M K N D R I M M @ R R A E I F I D H T I F J K N S I H @ B ? B @ Q D H �•

j J D x D K E @ > � � � | C J K I B ~•

j J D x I B D M F @ B @ > C � � | E @ E V S @ F I E O P D v V @ > > I M I @ ~•

� E D R D R L D B V K F V Q K B O D > B @ R H U @ E H @ B I E O @ B O K E I y K F I @ E H•

� E D R D R L D B V K F V Q K B O D > B @ R H @ > F T K B D U K B F E D B @ B O K E I y K F I @ E H | D W O W P� � � P = � � ~•

� E D R D R L D B V K F V Q K B O D > B @ R @ F J D B U K B F E D B @ B O K E I y K F I @ E H | D W O W P N K F KU K B F E D B H ~•

� E D R D R L D B V K F V Q K B O D > B @ R O @ S D B E R D E F G B D O A Q K F @ B ? L @ N I D H

•j T @ R D R L D B V K F Q K B O D | K M K N D R I M ~ > B @ R @ F J D B K M K N D R I M I E H F I F A F I @ E H� W z W j J D R D R L D B H V K F V Q K B O D @ > F J D � N S I H @ B ? C @ R R I F F D D H I F > @ B F J B D D V ? D K B F D B R H W� W � W j J D R D R L D B H V K F V Q K B O D @ > F J D � N S I H @ B ? C @ R R I F F D D R K ? L D E @ R I E K F D N L ?K E ? R D R L D B I E O @ @ N H F K E N I E O F @ F J D � D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D D K E NK U U @ I E F R D E F H F @ F J D � N S I H @ B ? C @ R R I F F D D K B D R K N D L ? H I R U Q D R K � @ B I F ? S @ F D@ > F J D � D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D D W� W � W j J D � N S I H @ B ? C @ R R I F F D D T I Q Q R D D F K F Q D K H F @ E M D D K M J K M K N D R I M ? D K B W� N S I H @ B ? C @ R R I F F D D R D D F I E O H K B D M K Q Q D N L ? F J D M J K I B | x D K E P � � � ~ W� W « W j J D B I O J F H G N A F I D H @ > F J D � N S I H @ B ? C @ R R I F F D D I E M Q A N D F J D > @ Q Q @ T I E O �

•� D S I D T F J D K E E A K Q B D U @ B F @ > F J D x I B D M F @ B K E N D S K Q A K F D F J D H F B K F D O I MN I B D M F I @ E @ > C � � W

•C @ R R D E F K E E A K Q Q ? F @ F J D � D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D D @ E F J D H F B K F D O I MN I B D M F I @ E @ > C � � W

•� B @ S I N D K N S I M D F @ F J D � D H D K B M J C @ R R I F F D D K H B D � A D H F D N L ? F J D� D H D K B M J C @ R R I F F D D W� W � W � D R L D B H @ > F J D � N S I H @ B ? C @ R R I F F D D R K ? H I F K H @ L H D B S D B H @ E F J D� D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D D K E N F J D � D H D K B M J C @ R R I F F D D P L A F F J D ? N @ E @ F J K S DE @ R I E K F I E O @ B S @ F I E O B I O J F H @ E D I F J D B @ > F J D H D L @ N I D H W [ _ a ` h s [ e b [ a ` h e [ ` h Y Y d q a Y e [ � \ ` h [ _ \ ] Z [ Z s [ ` _ b h r ] \ ` e b [ ^ [ _ [ Y ` a bc [ d e ` [ f g d _ e h e i e [ �m b Y e Y ` [ e b [ r ` h o h t [ � [ _ Y d q ` [ _ r \ d _ h s h t h e h [ _ \ ] Z [ Z s [ ` _ b h r u« W w W C � � R D R L D B H J I U I H @ U D E F @ K Q Q > K M A Q F ? K E N H F K > > R D R L D B H T J @ M K E R K } DK N D R @ E H F B K L Q D K E N U @ H I F I S D M @ E F B I L A F I @ E F @ F J D C � � � H R I H H I @ E K E N@ L � D M F I S D H W« W z W j J D U B @ M D H H > @ B L D M @ R I E O K R D R L D B @ > C � � I H K H > @ Q Q @ T H �

•� B @ H U D M F I S D K U U Q I M K E F H R A H F H A L R I F K C � K E N K @ E D F @ F T @ U K O DH F K F D R D E F @ > I E F D E F @ A F Q I E I E O F J D B D Q D S K E M D @ > F J D I B B D H D K B M J F @ C � � K E NF J D I B U Q K E E D N M @ E F B I L A F I @ E F @ C � � W

•j J D x I B D M F @ B | @ B N D H I O E K F D ~ H J K Q Q L B I E O > @ B T K B N K Q Q R D R L D B H J I UK U U Q I M K F I @ E H F @ F J D � D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D D K F I F H E D v F H M J D N A Q D N R D D F I E O PT J D B D R D R L D B H J I U N D M I H I @ E H T I Q Q L D N D M I N D N L ? K H I R U Q D R K � @ B I F ? S @ F D W

•j J D x I B D M F @ B | @ B N D H I O E K F D ~ H J K Q Q E @ F I > ? D K M J K U U Q I M K E F @ > F J D B D H A Q F H @ >F J D R D R L D B H J I U S @ F D W« W � W � Q Q C � � R D R L D B H R K ? B D H I O E F J D I B R D R L D B H J I U F J B @ A O J K Q D F F D B @ >B D H I O E K F I @ E F @ F J D x I B D M F @ B K E N T I Q Q F K } D D > > D M F I R R D N I K F D Q ? W« W � W C � � R D R L D B H T J @ J K S D L D D E N D F D B R I E D N L ? F J D � D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D D F @J K S D L D M @ R D I E K M F I S D | I W D W P F J D ? J K S D E @ F U K B F I M I U K F D N I E F J D � D R L D B HC @ R R I F F D D @ B @ F J D B C � � K M F I S I F I D H > @ B K F Q D K H F F T @ ? D K B H ~ @ B F @ J K S D K M F D NM @ E F B K B ? F @ F J D C � � � H R I H H I @ E K E N @ L � D M F I S D H P R K ? J K S D F J D I B R D R L D B H J I UM K E M D Q Q D N F J B @ A O J F J D A E K E I R @ A H S @ F D @ > F J D � D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D D W � B I @ BF @ H A M J K M F I @ E H P K Q D F F D B > B @ R F J D x I B D M F @ B T I Q Q L D H D E F F @ F J D R D R L D B F @B D � A D H F D v U Q K E K F I @ E W

« W « W � Q Q C � � R D R L D B H J I U N D M I H I @ E H | E D T R D R L D B H J I U K U U B @ S K Q H P E D TR D R L D B H J I U B D � D M F I @ E H K E N R D R L D B H J I U M K E M D Q Q K F I @ E H ~ M K E L D @ S D B B I N N D EF J B @ A O J K F T @ V F J I B N H R K � @ B I F ? S @ F D W« W � W � Q Q R D R L D B H K B D D v U D M F D N F @ U K B F I M I U K F D I E K F Q D K H F @ E D C � � I E I F I K F I S DK E E A K Q Q ? W� W w W = E N I S I N A K Q H T J @ K B D F D R U @ B K B I Q ? K > > I Q I K F D N T I F J � B @ M } � E I S D B H I F ? R K ?U K B F I M I U K F D I E C � � K M F I S I F I D H F J B @ A O J C � � K H H @ M I K F D R D R L D B H J I U W C � �� H H @ M I K F D H | J D B D K > F D B F J D © � H H @ M I K F D H � ~ R K ? L D � @ H F V x @ M F @ B K Q � D H D K B M J� D Q Q @ T H P � I H I F I E O � M J @ Q K B H K E N � D H D K B M J � H H @ M I K F D H K F � B @ M } � E I S D B H I F ?T J @ M K E R K } D K N D R @ E H F B K L Q D K E N U @ H I F I S D M @ E F B I L A F I @ E F @ C � � � H R I H H I @ EK E N @ L � D M F I S D H W� W z W � H H @ M I K F D H R K ? U K B F I M I U K F D I E K Q Q C � � K M F I S I F I D H P K F F D E N R D D F I E O H @ > F J D� D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D D P L A F R K ? E @ F S @ F D I E � D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D DU B @ M D D N I E O H P E @ B R K ? F J D ? H F K E N > @ B D Q D M F I @ E @ B J @ Q N @ > > I M D I E K E ? @ > C � �C @ R R I F F D D H W� W � W j J D U B @ M D H H > @ B L D M @ R I E O K E � H H @ M I K F D I H K H > @ Q Q @ T H �•

� B @ H U D M F I S D � H H @ M I K F D H R A H F L D E @ R I E K F D N L ? K � D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D DR D R L D B W•

� B @ H U D M F I S D K U U Q I M K E F H R A H F H A L R I F K C � K E N K @ E D F @ F T @ U K O DH F K F D R D E F @ > I E F D E F @ A F Q I E I E O F J D B D Q D S K E M D @ > F J D I B B D H D K B M J F @ C � �K E N G @ B F J D I B U Q K E E D N M @ E F B I L A F I @ E F @ C � � W•

j J D x I B D M F @ B | @ B N D H I O E K F D ~ H J K Q Q L B I E O > @ B T K B N K Q Q R D R L D B H J I UK U U Q I M K F I @ E H F @ F J D � D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D D K F I F H E D v F H M J D N A Q D N R D D F I E O PT J D B D R D R L D B H J I U N D M I H I @ E H T I Q Q L D N D M I N D N L ? K H I R U Q D R K � @ B I F ? S @ F D W•

j J D x I B D M F @ B | @ B N D H I O E K F D ~ H J K Q Q E @ F I > ? D K M J K U U Q I M K E F @ > F J D B D H A Q F H @ >F J D R D R L D B H J I U S @ F D W� W � W � Q Q � H H @ M I K F D H R K ? B D H I O E F J D I B R D R L D B H J I U F J B @ A O J K Q D F F D B @ > B D H I O E K F I @ EF @ F J D x I B D M F @ B K E N T I Q Q F K } D D > > D M F I R R D N I K F D Q ? W� W « W � H H @ M I K F D H T J @ J K S D L D D E N D F D B R I E D N L ? F J D � D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D D F @J K S D L D M @ R D I E K M F I S D | I W D W P F J D ? J K S D E @ F U K B F I M I U K F D N I E F J D � D R L D B HC @ R R I F F D D @ B @ F J D B C � � K M F I S I F I D H > @ B K F Q D K H F F T @ ? D K B H ~ @ B J K S D K M F D NM @ E F B K B ? F @ F J D R I H H I @ E K E N @ L � D M F I S D H @ > C � � P R K ? J K S D F J D I BR D R L D B H J I U M K E M D Q Q D N F J B @ A O J K F T @ V F J I B N H R K � @ B I F ? S @ F D @ > F J D � D R L D B HC @ R R I F F D D W � B I @ B F @ H A M J K M F I @ E H P K Q D F F D B > B @ R F J D x I B D M F @ B T I Q Q L D H D E F F @F J D R D R L D B F @ B D � A D H F D v U Q K E K F I @ E W� W � W � Q Q K H H @ M I K F D R D R L D B H J I U N D M I H I @ E H @ > F J D � D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D D| K U U B @ S K Q H P B D � D M F I @ E H K E N M K E M D Q Q K F I @ E H ~ M K E L D @ S D B B I N N D E F J B @ A O J K F T @ VF J I B N H R K � @ B I F ? S @ F D W� W ª W � Q Q � H H @ M I K F D H K B D D v U D M F D N F @ U @ H I F I S D Q ? M @ E F B I L A F D F @ K F Q D K H F @ E D C � �I E I F I K F I S D K E E A K Q Q ? W

ª W w W = E N I S I N A K Q H K E N O B @ A U H T J @ K B D E @ F K > > I Q I K F D N T I F J � B @ M } � E I S D B H I F ? R K ?U K B F I M I U K F D I E C � � K M F I S I F I D H F J B @ A O J C � � K > > I Q I K F I @ E W C � � � > > I Q I K F D H| J D B D K > F D B © � > > I Q I K F D H � ~ R K ? L D M @ R R A E I F ? R D R L D B H P L A H I E D H H D H P � � � H @ BB D H D K B M J D B H > B @ R @ F J D B A E I S D B H I F I D H T J @ M K E R K } D K N D R @ E H F B K L Q D K E NU @ H I F I S D M @ E F B I L A F I @ E F @ C � � � H R I H H I @ E K E N @ L � D M F I S D H Wª W z W � > > I Q I K F D H R K ? U K B F I M I U K F D I E K Q Q C � � K M F I S I F I D H P K F F D E N R D D F I E O H @ > F J D� D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D D P L A F R K ? E @ F S @ F D I E � D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D DU B @ M D D N I E O H P E @ B R K ? F J D ? H F K E N > @ B D Q D M F I @ E @ B J @ Q N @ > > I M D I E K E ? @ > C � �C @ R R I F F D D H Wª W � W j J D U B @ M D H H > @ B L D M @ R I E O K E � > > I Q I K F D I H K H > @ Q Q @ T H �•

� B @ H U D M F I S D � > > I Q I K F D H R A H F L D E @ R I E K F D N L ? K � D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D DR D R L D B W•

� B @ H U D M F I S D K U U Q I M K E F H R A H F H A L R I F K C � K E N K @ E D F @ F T @ U K O DH F K F D R D E F @ > I E F D E F T J I M J @ A F Q I E D H F J D B D Q D S K E M D @ > F J D I B B D H D K B M J F @C � � K E N G @ B F J D I B U Q K E E D N M @ E F B I L A F I @ E F @ C � � W•

j J D x I B D M F @ B | @ B N D H I O E K F D ~ H J K Q Q L B I E O > @ B T K B N K Q Q R D R L D B H J I UK U U Q I M K F I @ E H F @ F J D � D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D D K F I F H E D v F H M J D N A Q D NR D D F I E O P T J D B D R D R L D B H J I U N D M I H I @ E H T I Q Q L D N D M I N D N L ? K H I R U Q DR K � @ B I F ? S @ F D W•

j J D x I B D M F @ B | @ B N D H I O E K F D ~ H J K Q Q E @ F I > ? D K M J K U U Q I M K E F @ > F J D B D H A Q F H@ > F J D R D R L D B H J I U S @ F D Wª W � W � Q Q � > > I Q I K F D H R K ? B D H I O E F J D I B R D R L D B H J I U F J B @ A O J K Q D F F D B @ >B D H I O E K F I @ E F @ F J D x I B D M F @ B K E N T I Q Q F K } D D > > D M F I R R D N I K F D Q ? Wª W « W � > > I Q I K F D H T J @ J K S D L D D E N D F D B R I E D N L ? F J D � D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D D F @ J K S DL D M @ R D I E K M F I S D | I W D W P F J D ? J K S D E @ F U K B F I M I U K F D N I E F J D � D R L D B HC @ R R I F F D D @ B @ F J D B C � � K M F I S I F I D H > @ B K F Q D K H F F T @ ? D K B H ~ @ B J K S D K M F D NM @ E F B K B ? F @ F J D R I H H I @ E K E N @ L � D M F I S D H @ > C � � P R K ? J K S D F J D I B K > > I Q I K F I @ EM K E M D Q Q D N F J B @ A O J K F T @ V F J I B N H R K � @ B I F ? S @ F D L ? F J D � D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D D W� B I @ B F @ H A M J K M F I @ E H P K Q D F F D B > B @ R F J D x I B D M F @ B T I Q Q L D H D E F F @ F J D R D R L D BF @ B D � A D H F D v U Q K E K F I @ E Wª W � W � Q Q K > > I Q I K F I @ E N D M I H I @ E H @ > F J D � D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D D | E D T K U U B @ S K Q H PB D � D M F I @ E H P K E N M K E M D Q Q K F I @ E H ~ M K E L D @ S D B B I N N D E F J B @ A O J K F T @ V F J I B N HR K � @ B I F ? S @ F D Wª W ª W � Q Q � > > I Q I K F D H K B D D v U D M F D N F @ U @ H I F I S D Q ? M @ E F B I L A F D F @ K F Q D K H F @ E DC � � I E I F I K F I S D K E E A K Q Q ? W¬ W w W � F A N D E F H | A E N D B O B K N A K F D K E N O B K N A K F D ~ K B D D E M @ A B K O D N F @ K F F D E NK E N U K B F I M I U K F D I E K Q Q C � � K M F I S I F I D H K E N D S D E F H F J K F K B D @ U D E F @ F J D� B @ M } M @ R R A E I F ? W¬ W z W � F A N D E F H R K ? U K B F I M I U K F D I E K Q Q C � � K M F I S I F I D H K E N R K ? K F F D E N R D D F I E O H @ >F J D � D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D D P L A F R K ? E @ F S @ F D I E � D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D D

U B @ M D D N I E O H P E @ B R K ? F J D ? H F K E N > @ B D Q D M F I @ E @ B J @ Q N @ > > I M D I E K E ? @ > F J DC � � C @ R R I F F D D H W¬ W � W � B @ M } O B K N A K F D H T J @ K B D I E F D B D H F D N I E K E K Q ? F I M H @ B N K F K V N B I S D E B D H D K B M JK E N K U U Q I M K F I @ E H K B D D E M @ A B K O D N F @ L D M @ R D C � � � > > I Q I K F D H W� R D E N R D E F @ > F J D C � � � @ S D B E K E M D K E N � A Q D H @ > � B @ M D N A B D H M K EL D U B @ U @ H D N L ? K E ? R D R L D B @ > F J D � D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D D K E N R A H FL D U K H H D N L ? K F T @ V F J I B N H R K � @ B I F ? S @ F D @ > F J D � D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D D Wc \ Z r t [ e [ e b [ e Y s t [ s [ t \ § h d q h a Y e h d � e b [ d i Z s [ ` \ ] b h � b t � i Y t h ] h [ qr [ ` _ \ d d [ t e ` Y h d [ q f Z [ d e \ ` [ q s � c [ d e ` [ f g d _ e h e i e [ Z [ Z s [ ` _ �� E N D B O B K N A K F D� F A N D E F H � K H F D B H� F A N D E F H � J x� F A N D E F H � @ H F V x @ M F @ B K Q� D Q Q @ T H� W { � K y � J R D N w w w « w ª �� E F D E D J � ? K E H @ ¬ w � V V{ B E D H F � I } F I R I B @ S � w � V V® @ J E � @ E E D F F z w w ¯ V° K B D D E � B @ T E w � w z V± J @ E O y J I | � K T B D E M D ~� D V w � V V� K B F I E ° A H ? V � V V� K Q I N � D E � R B K E D V � V V� @ D Q @ > � K } } D E V V V V° D S I E � @ E O D @ E V � w V� D D E K � @ @ O K Q I E O K R � � V V² ³ ´ µ ¶

c \ Z r t [ e [ e b [ e Y s t [ s [ t \ § \ i e t h d h d � ` [ _ [ Y ` a b ] i d q h d � \ ] e b [^ [ _ [ Y ` a b c [ d e ` [ f g d _ e h e i e [ n _ Z [ Z s [ ` _ ] \ ` e b [ r Y _ e ] h o [ � [ Y ` _ �· ¸ · ¸ · ¸ · ¸ · ¸� W { � K y � J R D N z � w � z w � ° z � ° w ª ¬ °z � w � Vz � w � w ¬ ° ¬ °z � w w Vz � w � w w � � ° w � � °z � w z Vz � w � w w � ° w � °� E F D E D J� ? K E H @{ B E D H F� I } F I R I B @ S w � W « ° � W « ° � W « °® @ J E � @ E E D F F « w � � ° « � � ° « � z °� ¬ ° � z °° K B D D E � B @ T E z � w « w � ° � ° w « W ¬ °z � w � w w z W ¬ ° w z W ¬ °± J @ E O y J I| � K T B D E M D ~ � D z � � ¯ Vz � w � w « ¯ ° « ¯ ° « ¯ °z � w � Vz � w � w � � ° � � ° � � °� K B F I E ° A H ?� K Q I N � D E� R B K E D z � � ¯ Vz � w � w � � ° � � ° � � °� @ D Q @ >� K } } D E° D S I E� @ E O D @ E � W ¯ ª ° � W ¯ ª ° � W ¯ ª °� D D E K� @ @ O K Q I E O K R

c \ Z r t [ e [ e b [ e Y s t [ s [ t \ § \ i e t h d h d � e b [ d i Z s [ ` \ ] r i s t h a Y e h \ d _ Y d q\ e b [ ` ] \ ` Z _ \ ] ` [ _ [ Y ` a b \ i e r i e \ ] e b [ ^ [ _ [ Y ` a b c [ d e ` [ f g d _ e h e i e [ n _Z [ Z s [ ` _ ] \ ` e b [ r Y _ e ] h o [ � [ Y ` _ �� W { � K y � J R D N � � w � « z « ª� E F D E D J � ? K E H @ w z w w z z ª{ B E D H F � I } F I R I B @ S ¯ V V « w z® @ J E � @ E E D F F z w V V w �° K B D D E � B @ T E « V V V w �± J @ E O y J I| � K T B D E M D ~ � D ª V V � �� K B F I E ° A H ? � V V w ª� K Q I N � D E � R B K E D � V V w � w �� @ D Q @ > � K } } D E z w V « z° D S I E � @ E O D @ E ¯ V z V w z� D D E K� @ @ O K Q I E O K R z V V w ª [ _ a ` h s [ ] i d q h d � p r i s t h a Y e h \ d _ p Y d q ` [ _ [ Y ` a b \ i e r i e \ ] e [ Y ZZ [ Z s [ ` _ h d e b [ \ o [ ` Y t t a \ d e [ � e \ ] � \ i ` ] h [ t q �j D K R R D R L D B H � B D H D K B M J I E F J D M @ E F D v F @ > K E K Q ? F I M H I H M D E F D B D N K B @ A E NN D H M B I U F I S D P U B D N I M F I S D K E N U B D H M B I U F I S D F D M J E I � A D H K E N F J D I B K U U Q I M K F I @ E H I ES K B I @ A H K U U Q I M K F I @ E N @ R K I E H W � D H D K B M J L K M } O B @ A E N K E N > A E N I E O J I H F @ B ? @ > F D K RR D R L D B H B K E O D > B @ R L A H I E D H H N I H M I U Q I E D H I E = E > @ B R K F I @ E � ? H F D R H P � U D B K F I @ E H� K E K O D R D E F P � I E K E M D K E N � M M @ A E F I E O F @ { M @ E @ R I M H P � K F J D R K F I M H P � U @ B F H� K E K O D R D E F K E N x I O I F K Q � A R K E I F I D H W � D L D Q I D S D F J K F F J D B D I H K E K U U B @ U B I K F DH D F F I E O K E N L Q D E N I E O @ > N I H M I U Q I E D H F @ D > > D M F I S D Q ? K U U Q ? K E K Q ? F I M H K E N N K F K V N B I S D EM @ Q Q K L @ B K F I S D B D H D K B M J K M F I S I F I D H W � D S D B K Q R D R L D B H @ > F J D F D K R J K S D L D D EB D M I U I D E F H @ > D v F D B E K Q K E N I E F D B E K Q > A E N I E O > @ B B D H D K B M J B D Q K F D N F @ N K F KR K E K O D R D E F P @ U D B K F I @ E K Q K E N > I E K E M I K Q N K F K K E K Q ? H I H P R K M J I E D Q D K B E I E O P B I H }R @ N D Q I E O P � A K E F I F K F I S D I E S D H F R D E F K E N > I E K E M I K Q F B K N I E O H F B K F D O I D H P U @ B F > @ Q I @R K E K O D R D E F P L K E } B A U F M ? U B D N I M F I @ E R @ N D Q Q I E O P > I E K E M I K Q D M @ E @ R D F B I M H PM @ R U A F K F I @ E K Q > I E K E M D P D K B E I E O H R K E K O D R D E F P K U U Q I M K F I @ E H @ > H I R A Q K F I @ E V@ U F I R I y K F I @ E R D F J @ N H P K U U Q I M K F I @ E H @ > U B D H M B I U F I S D K E N R K E K O D R D E F H M I D E M DR @ N D Q H P J I O J V U D B > @ B R K E M D M @ R U A F I E O I E H @ M I K Q H M I D E M D H K E N F J D J A R K E I F I D H PS I H A K Q K E K Q ? F I M H P K R @ E O @ F J D B H W¹ \ § b \ Z § h t t e b [ ^ [ _ [ Y ` a b c [ d e ` [ f g d _ e h e i e [ ` [ r \ ` e uj J D C � � T I Q Q B D U @ B F F @ F J D � � � x D K E W

¤ _ h d � e b [ e Y s t [ s [ t \ § p \ i e t h d [ e b [ c [ d e ` [ f g d _ e h e i e [ n _ s i q � [ e �j J D C � � I H U Q K E E D N @ E K F T @ V U J K H D R @ N D Q > @ B I F H L A N O D F W = E F J D > I B H F F T @ ? D K B H PF J D C � � T I Q Q B D Q ? @ E I E F D B E K Q > A E N I E O F @ R D D F H @ R D @ > I F H @ L � D M F I S D H W j J D C � � T I Q QA H D F J I H H F K B F V A U > A E N I E O F @ H F B D E O F J D E F J D M A B B D E F I E I F I K F I S D K E N U K B F E D B H J I U T I F JU @ F D E F I K Q I E N A H F B ? U K B F E D B H K E N H U @ E H @ B I E O @ B O K E I y K F I @ E H F @ O D E D B K F D I F H Q @ E O V F D B R> A E N I E O W j J D > @ Q Q @ T I E O > K M I Q I F I D H K B D D v U D M F D N F @ L D K S K I Q K L Q D F J B @ A O J F J D � � � @ B� B @ M } � H D v I H F I E O B D H @ A B M D H �•

j J D x I B D M F @ B T I Q Q A H D J I H G J D B D v I H F I E O @ > > I M D T I F J I F H > A B E I H J I E O H K E N = j �H A U U @ B F W•

� M M D H H F @ R D D F I E O B @ @ R H T I F J H F K E N K B N > K M I Q I F I D H W•

� M M D H H F @ H U K M D > @ B M @ Q Q K L @ B K F I S D B D H D K B M J R D D F I E O H P T @ B } H J @ U H K E NH ? R U @ H I A R H W•

� M M D H H F @ M @ R U A F D B Q K L @ B K F @ B ? P K M K N D R I M H @ > F T K B D P K E N F D M J E I M K Q H A U U @ B F| K R D D F I E O T K H J D Q N T I F J � B @ M } = j � F @ M B D K F D K T K B D E D H H @ > F J I H I E I F I K F I S DK E N N I H M A H H F J D D v U K E N D N A H D @ > D v I H F I E O B D H @ A B M D H ~ W•

C @ Q Q K L @ B K F I @ E K E N H A U U @ B F > B @ R F J D � B @ M } = E H F I F A F D > @ B � M I D E F I > I M C @ R U A F I E O| � = � C ~ > @ B K M M D H H I E O � � � � C � D F � I O J � D B > @ B R K E M D C @ R U A F I E O | � � C ~B D H @ A B M D H | U Q D K H D H D D H A U U @ B F Q D F F D B I E K U U D E N I M D H > B @ R F J D x I B D M F @ B @ >� = � C P x B W j J K N � K B B @ A E ~ W•

� A U U @ B F > B @ R � B @ M } � I L B K B ? T I F J B D H U D M F F @ B D H @ A B M D H K H T D Q Q K H K M M D H HK E N K B M J I S K Q E D D N H | U Q D K H D H D D H A U U @ B F Q D F F D B I E K U U D E N I M D H > B @ R = E F D B I R� E I S D B H I F ? � I L B K B I K E P � B W ® @ E K F J K E � @ A E } D B ~ W� D H D K B M J U B @ U @ H K Q H K H T D Q Q K H D v U D E H D H B D Q K F D N F @ I E I F I K F I S D H H A M J K HH ? R U @ H I A R H K E N I E F D B K M F I S D T @ B } H J @ U H K B D D H F I R K F D N L K H D N @ E � @ @ N R K E � HD v I H F I E O B D H D K B M J C D E F B D H W j J D C � � T I Q Q B D Q ? @ E I E F D B E K Q > A E N I E O > @ B F J D > I B H F F T @? D K B H W � D K E F I M I U K F D F J K F F J D C D E F B D T I Q Q L D > A E N D N L ? H U @ E H @ B I E O @ B O K E I y K F I @ E HK > F D B F J D > I B H F F T @ ? D K B H @ > @ U D B K F I @ E Wj J D > @ Q Q @ T I E O F K L Q D @ A F Q I E D H F J D U Q K E E D N I E F D B E K Q K E N D v F D B E K Q L A N O D F I F D R H > @ BF J D > I B H F > I S D ? D K B H W j J D F @ F K Q U B D Q I R I E K B ? L A N O D F > @ B F J D > I B H F > I S D ? D K B H I Hº w � � P � � � P @ > T J I M J º � � P � � � I H F @ L D H A U U @ B F D N L ? F J D � � � > @ B F J D > I B H F F T @ ? D K B H| º z � P � � � G ? D K B ~ K E N F J D B D R K I E I E O º ¯ � P � � � I H D v U D M F D N F @ L D > A E N D N L ? U @ F D E F I K QH U @ E H @ B I E O @ B O K E I y K F I @ E H W j J A H P F J D U B @ U @ H D N L A N O D F I F D R H K E N K R @ A E F H K B DH A L � D M F F @ U @ F D E F I K Q > I E K E M I K Q H A U U @ B F > B @ R H U @ E H @ B I E O @ B O K E I y K F I @ E H W

� A Q Q V j I R D � K Q K B I D H» � D E D > I F H� K B F V j I R D � K Q K B I D HK E N � D E D > I F H{ � A I U R D E F| U A B M J K H D H K E NR K I E F D E K E M D ~� B I E F I E O PU J @ F @ M @ U ? I E O PF D Q D M @ R R A E I M K F I @ E Hj B K S D Q� F J D B | � A E N I E O > @ B� D H D K B M J� B @ U @ H K Q H ~ º w « P � � � G ? D K B > @ BF J D > I B H F z ? D K B H º z � P � � � G ? D K B > @ B? D K B � V « º ¯ � P � � �� F J D B| � ? R U @ H I A R H PI E F D B K M F I S D B D H D K B M JT @ B } H J @ U H ~ º « P � � � G ? D K B > @ BF J D > I B H F z ? D K B H º w � P � � � G ? D K B > @ B? D K B � V « W º � � P � � �m b Y e [ � e [ ` d Y t Y d q h d e [ ` d Y t ` [ _ \ i ` a [ _ Y d q ] Y a h t h e h [ _ Y ` [ d [ [ q [ q e \ ] i t ] h t t e b [Z h _ _ h \ d \ ] e b [ ^ [ _ [ Y ` a b c [ d e ` [ f g d _ e h e i e [ uC � � � H @ U D B K F I @ E K Q O @ K Q H I E S @ Q S D Q K B O D H M K Q D K U U Q I M K F I @ E @ > N K F K V N B I S D EB D H D K B M J K E N B D Q K F D N K M F I S I F I D H W j J I H B D � A I B D H B D H D K B M J > K M I Q I F I D H T J I M J I E M Q A N DM @ R U A F I E O B D H @ A B M D H P H @ > F T K B D P K E N F J D x I B D M F @ B � H D v I H F I E O @ > > I M D > @ B U J ? H I M K QH U K M D > @ B F J D N K ? V F @ V N K ? J K E N Q I E O @ > F J D C D E F B D � H @ U D B K F I @ E H W j J D C � � T I Q QA F I Q I y D D v I H F I E O H @ > F T K B D U K B F E D B H J I U H K E N @ U D E H @ A B M D F @ @ Q H > @ B K E K Q ? F I M K QH @ > F T K B D H A U U @ B F > @ B B D H D K B M J K M F I S I F I D H I E F J D H J @ B F F D B R W � D K E F I M I U K F D F J K FK N N I F I @ E K Q H @ > F T K B D > K M I Q I F I D H T I Q Q L D U B @ S I N D N L ? U K B F E D B @ B O K E I y K F I @ E H I E F J DQ @ E O F D B R W j J D C D E F B D T I Q Q A H D � B @ M } � H D v I H F I E O E D F T @ B } K E N M @ R U A F I E OB D H @ A B M D H F @ B A E F J D J K B N T K B D K E N H @ > F T K B D > K M I Q I F I D H W � @ F D E F I K Q M @ Q Q K L @ B K F I @ EK E N H A U U @ B F R D M J K E I H R H J K S D L D D E N I H M A H H D N T I F J F J D N I B D M F @ B @ > F J D � B @ M }= E H F I F A F D > @ B � M I D E F I > I M C @ R U A F I E O | � = � C ~ > @ B K M M D H H I E O � � � � C � D F � H � I O J� D B > @ B R K E M D C @ R U A F I E O | � � C ~ B D H @ A B M D H | U Q D K H D H D D H A U U @ B F Q D F F D B I EK U U D E N I M D H > B @ R F J D x I B D M F @ B @ > � = � C P x B W j J K N � K B B @ A E ~ W � I R I Q K B N I H M A H H I @ E HJ K S D L D D E J D Q N T I F J � B @ M } = j � K E N � B @ M } � I L B K B ? W � @ @ N R K E � H D v I H F I E OH @ > F T K B D U K B F E D B H A M J K H � � � C K E K N K P > @ B D v K R U Q D P J K H U B @ S I N D N F J D I BK E K Q ? F I M H H @ > F T K B D > @ B D N A M K F I @ E K Q K E N B D H D K B M J @ L � D M F I S D H W � N N I F I @ E K Q

U K B F E D B H K B D L D I E O H @ A O J F F @ D v U K E N F J D F D K R � H K M M D H H F @ N K F K H @ A B M D H K E NK U U Q I M K F I @ E F @ @ Q H W [ _ a ` h s [ b \ § e b [ c [ d e ` [ f g d _ e h e i e [ b Y _ \ s e Y h d [ q e b [ d [ a [ _ _ Y ` �[ � e [ ` d Y t ` [ _ \ i ` a [ _ ` [ i h ` [ q �� D R L D B H @ > F J D F D K R J K S D K Q B D K N ? L D D E R D D F I E O B D U B D H D E F K F I S D H @ > U @ F D E F I K QU K B F E D B @ B O K E I y K F I @ E H > @ B F J D C D E F B D W = E V U D B H @ E S I H I F H F @ H @ R D @ > F J D H D@ B O K E I y K F I @ E H K B D K Q B D K N ? F K } I E O U Q K M D F @ N I H M A H H F J D B D H @ A B M D E D D N H @ > F J DC D E F B D I E F D B R H @ > N K F K H @ A B M D H P H U @ E H @ B H J I U H K E N H @ > F T K B D K U U Q I M K F I @ E H W j J DF D K R I H M A B B D E F Q ? D E O K O I E O I E K M F I S D N I K Q @ O A D H T I F J H D S D B K Q U @ F D E F I K Q U K B F E D B H K E NT D K E F I M I U K F D F J K F R @ B D M @ E M B D F D @ > > D B I E O H T I Q Q M @ R D @ E M D F J D C D E F B D B D M D I S D H> @ B R K Q K U U B @ S K Q @ > I F H R I H H I @ E P @ L � D M F I S D H K E N M @ E H F I F A F I @ E K Q H F B A M F A B D K F F J DI E H F I F A F I @ E K Q Q D S D Q W [ _ a ` h s [ b \ § e b [ c [ d e ` [ f g d _ e h e i e [ b Y _ Z [ e Y d � h d e [ ` d Y t q [ Z Y d q _ �� @ Q Q @ T I E O F J D B D M D E F H A M M D H H > A Q Q K A E M J I E O @ > F J D L A H I E D H H K E K Q ? F I M H F B K I E I E OU B @ O B K R K F F J D O B K N A K F D Q D S D Q | T J I M J F @ @ } K H D B I D H @ > N I H M A H H I @ E H T I F J H D S D B K QA E I F H K F � B @ M } � E I S D B H I F ? K H T D Q Q K H D v F D B E K Q @ B O K E I y K F I @ E H ~ P F J D E D D N > @ BM @ Q Q K L @ B K F I S D B D H D K B M J K M F I S I F I D H T K H D v U B D H H D N L ? F J D F D K R K H T D Q Q K H F J D x D K E@ > � � � I E T B I F F D E A U N K F D H F @ F J D � K M A Q F ? W = E I F I K Q N I H M A H H I @ E H T I F J H @ R D � @ @ N R K EC @ V @ U D R U Q @ ? D B H | D W O W P C K E K N I K E j I B D � I E K E M I K Q � D B S I M D H P F J D C @ @ U D B K F @ B H K E N� D B I N I K E C B D N I F � E I @ E ~ M Q D K B Q ? I N D E F I > I D N L A H I E D H H K E K Q ? F I M H K H K M B I F I M K Q K B D K @ >H F A N D E F F B K I E I E O K E N B D H D K B M J W j J B @ A O J � @ @ N R K E � H � K B } D F I E O K E NC @ R R A E I M K F I @ E H A E I F P F J D U Q K E T K H M @ R R A E I M K F D N F @ F J D x D K E � H � N S I H @ B ?C @ A E M I Q W j J D � N S I H @ B ? C @ A E M I Q N I H M A H H D N F J D U Q K E K E N U B @ S I N D N K H A U U @ B F Q D F F D BF @ F J D x D K E | U Q D K H D H D D K M @ U ? @ > F J D H A U U @ B F Q D F F D B I E K U U D E N I M D H ~ W j J D � � �x D K E K Q H @ H D E F @ A F A U N K F D H @ E F J D U Q K E F @ D H F K L Q I H J F J D C D E F B D K E N K E @ U D EI E S I F K F I @ E F @ K Q Q > K M A Q F ? R D R L D B H T J @ J K S D I E F D B D H F F @ � @ I E F J I H D E N D K S @ B W � K H D N@ E F J I H I E S I F K F I @ E P F J D C D E F B D J K H K Q H @ K F F B K M F D N K N N I F I @ E K Q F D K R R D R L D B H W � K M A Q F ?R D R L D B H > B @ R @ F J D B � K M A Q F I D H J K S D L D D E K Q H @ M @ E F K M F D N L K H D N @ E E @ R I E K F I @ E H> B @ R @ F J D B > K M A Q F ? R D R L D B H W j J D F D K R B D M D I S D N A U N K F D H > B @ R F J D � � � x D K E @ EF J D B D M D E F K U U Q I M K F I @ E B D � A I B D R D E F H W � M M @ B N I E O Q ? P F J D @ B I O I E K Q K U U Q I M K F I @ E T K H B D VT B I F F D E L K H D N @ E F J I H E D T F D R U Q K F D W � H U K B F @ > F J D > @ B R K Q K U U Q I M K F I @ E U B @ M D H H P F J DF D K R I H K Q H @ B D K N ? F @ R D D F K E ? @ F J D B I E H F I F A F I @ E K Q B D � A I B D R D E F H > B @ R � B @ M }� E I S D B H I F ? W¼ ½ � ¾ i e t h d [ e b [ ^ [ _ [ Y ` a b c [ d e ` [ f g d _ e h e i e [ n _ ] h o [ ¡ � [ Y ` r t Y d � ¿ \ ` h d _ e Y d a [ p § b [ ` [ q \� \ i _ [ [ e b [ c [ d e ` [ f g d _ e h e i e [ h d ] h o [ � [ Y ` _ u À \ § q \ � \ i r t Y d e \ Z [ [ e e b h _ o h _ h \ d u \ � \ i a i ` ` [ d e t � b Y o [ e b [ ` [ _ \ i ` a [ _ e \ q \ _ \ u g ] d \ e p b \ § q \ � \ i r t Y d e \ Y a i h ` [e b [ _ [ ` [ _ \ i ` a [ _ u

x A B I E O F J D E D v F > I S D ? D K B H P F J D C � � T I Q Q > @ M A H @ E I F H M @ B D H F B D E O F J H I E N K F K V N B I S D EM @ Q Q K L @ B K F I S D B D H D K B M J K F � B @ M } � E I S D B H I F ? W j J I H > @ M A H T I Q Q M @ E F B I L A F D F @ K Q I O E F J DC D E F B D � H R I H H I @ E T I F J F J D A E I S D B H I F ? B D H D K B M J R I H H I @ E K E N K B D K H T J D B D � B @ M } I H} E @ T E > @ B K M K N D R I M K Q Q ? W � D L D Q I D S D F J K F F J I H > @ M A H K E N H F B K F D O I M K Q I O E R D E F T I Q QK Q H @ J D Q U F @ H F B D E O F J D E � B @ M } � E I S D B H I F ? � H � F B K F D O I M � K E N K F D � O B D D R D E F T I F J F J D� I E I H F B ? @ > j B K I E I E O P C @ Q Q D O D H K E N � E I S D B H I F I D H | z � w � V z � w ª ~ I E K E A R L D B @ > T K ? H WÁ Â ³ Ã Ä Å Æ Ç È Æ È ³ É Ê Ë µ É Ì µ ´ Í Îk £ ` \ a � ¤ d h o [ ` _ h e � [ d o h _ h \ d _ h e _ [ t ] Y _ Y q � d Y Z h a r \ _ e _ [ a \ d q Y ` � [ q i a Y e h \ d Y th d _ e h e i e h \ d e b Y e Ï ¼ ¦ Ð Y � [ _ Y q h ] ] [ ` [ d a [ h d e b [ t h o [ _ \ ] h d q h o h q i Y t _ h d \ i `£ ` \ a � a \ Z Z i d h e � p e b [ X h Y � Y ` Y ^ [ � h \ d p c Y d Y q Y p Y d q e b [ § \ ` t q Ñ Ò ¦ [ Z \ d _ e ` Y e [ _ t [ Y q [ ` _ b h r Y d q h d d \ o Y e h \ d h d e [ Y a b h d � Y d q t [ Y ` d h d � Y a ` \ _ _q h _ a h r t h d [ _ Ñ Y d q ½ ¦ Ó � e [ d q _ � d \ § t [ q � [ e b ` \ i � b [ � a [ t t [ d a [ h d ` [ _ [ Y ` a b p_ a b \ t Y ` _ b h r p Y d q a ` [ Y e h o h e � � Ôj J D C D E F B D � H M @ B D O @ K Q H J K S D F J B D D } D ? U I Q Q K B H T J I M J I E M Q A N D B D H D K B M J K E NI E E @ S K F I @ E P D E O K O D R D E F T I F J U A L Q I M K E N U B I S K F D H D M F @ B H K E N H F A N D E F F B K I E I E O Wx A B I E O F J D E D v F > I S D ? D K B H P F J D C D E F B D T I Q Q > @ H F D B N D D U D B D E O K O D R D E F T I F J � B @ M }> K M A Q F ? P I E N A H F B ? K E N F J D � I K O K B K M @ R R A E I F ? F @ D v U K E N F J D H M @ U D @ >F B K E H N I H M I U Q I E K B ? B D H D K B M J K M F I S I F I D H K F � B @ M } � E I S D B H I F ? W � H I E O I E I F I K QM @ Q Q K L @ B K F I @ E H K H R @ N D Q H K E N B D H D K B M J O B K E F H K H I E M D E F I S D H > B @ R F J D H F K B F V A U> A E N I E O P F J D C D E F B D T I Q Q D v F D E N I F H H M @ U D F @ E D T T @ B } I E O O B @ A U H K E NM @ Q Q K L @ B K F I @ E H WÁ Â ³ Ã Ä Å Æ Õ Í Ö × Â Í µ Æ ³ Ø Ù È Ø Ø Í Â Í É ´ È µ ´ È ³ ÉÚ £ ` \ a � ¤ d h o [ ` _ h e � n _ Y ` [ Y _ \ ] _ e ` [ d � e b h d a t i q [ Ï i d q [ ` � ` Y q i Y e [ e [ Y a b h d �[ � a [ t t [ d a [ § h e b ] \ a h \ d § \ ` � ¡ h d e [ � ` Y e [ q p _ [ ` o h a [ p Y d q _ Z Y t t ¡ � ` \ i r t [ Y ` d h d � Ñ` [ � h \ d Y t r Y ` e d [ ` _ b h r _ Ñ Y d q a \ d e h d i [ q [ � a [ t t [ d a [ h d ` [ _ [ Y ` a b Y d qY _ _ \ a h Y e [ q � ` Y q i Y e [ r ` \ � ` Y Z _ p § h e b Y _ r [ a h Y t ] \ a i _ \ d e ` Y d _ q h _ a h r t h d Y ` �` [ _ [ Y ` a b b i s _ b h � b t h � b e h d � Y ` [ Y _ \ ] _ e ` [ d � e b e b Y e a \ d e ` h s i e [ e \ e b [ _ \ a h Y t p[ a \ d \ Z h a p Y d q a i t e i ` Y t q [ o [ t \ r Z [ d e \ ] e b [ X h Y � Y ` Y ^ [ � h \ d � Ôx A B I E O F J D E D v F > I S D ? D K B H P F J D C D E F B D T I Q Q D v U K E N I F H @ A F B D K M J F @ L B I E O I E E D TU K B F E D B H > B @ R U B I S K F D K E N U A L Q I M M @ R R A E I F I D H T J @ M K E L D E D > I F N I B D M F Q ? > B @ R N K F K VN B I S D E B D H D K B M J K E N L A H I E D H H U B K M F I M D H W j J D C D E F B D T I Q Q L D F J D M K F K Q ? H F > @ BM @ Q Q K L @ B K F I S D K E N F B K E H N I H M I U Q I E K B ? B D H D K B M J I E N K F K K E K Q ? F I M H L ? @ U D E I E O E D TK S D E A D H > @ B A E N D B O B K N A K F D K E N O B K N A K F D D v U D B I D E F I K Q Q D K B E I E O I E F J D > @ B R @ >M @ A B H D U B @ � D M F H T I F J H R K Q Q L A H I E D H H D H K E N E @ E V U B @ > I F H W = E K N N I F I @ E P F J D C D E F B DU Q K E H F @ @ U D E E D T @ U U @ B F A E I F I D H > @ B > K M A Q F ? F @ D E O K O D T I F J U B I S K F D K E N U A L Q I MD E F I F I D H F J B @ A O J M @ E H A Q F I E O U B @ � D M F H I E N K F K V N B I S D E U B @ L Q D R H K E N N D M I H I @ E R K } I E O WÛ ³ Ü Æ Ý Þ É É ³ ß µ ´ È ³ É µ É Ì à Ã ³ É ³ á È Ã Ù Í ß Í ¶ ³ â á Í É ´

� E N D B F J I H U I Q Q K B @ > F J D � � � P F J D C D E F B D T I Q Q J K S D N I B D M F M @ E F B I L A F I @ E L ?H F B D E O F J D E I E O � B @ M } � H M @ Q Q K L @ B K F I S D T @ B } T I F J D R U Q @ ? D B H P M @ R R A E I F ? U K B F E D B HK E N B D O I @ E H W x A B I E O F J D E D v F > I S D ? D K B H P F J D C D E F B D U Q K E H F @ D E J K E M D H F A N D E F H �@ U U @ B F A E I F ? I E F J D � @ L R K B } D F L ? M @ R U Q D R D E F I E O M Q K H H B @ @ R F B K I E I E O T I F J I E N A H F B ? VB D Q D S K E F M A B B I M A Q A R P > B D D K M M D H H F @ I E N A H F B ? H F K E N K B N H @ > F T K B D K U U Q I M K F I @ E HF J B @ A O J K M K N D R I M K Q Q I K E M D H K E N U B @ > D H H I @ E K Q M D B F I > I M K F I @ E H I E K E K Q ? F I M K Q H } I Q Q H W j J DC D E F B D U Q K E H F @ D H F K L Q I H J L A H I E D H H K E K Q ? F I M H R D F J @ N H K E N F @ @ Q H K H K M M D H H I L Q DK E N K F F B K M F I S D U K F J H > @ B � B @ M } O B K N A K F D H F A N D E F H D E B @ Q Q D N I E F J D H I H V L K H D NK M K N D R I M U B @ O B K R H W= E F J D I E I F I K Q ? D K B H @ > I F H @ U D B K F I @ E P F J D C D E F B D T I Q Q > @ M A H @ E I E M B D K H I E O K T K B D E D H HK E N D v U K E N I E O I F H E D F T @ B } @ > U K B F E D B H I E S K B I @ A H > B @ E F H W j @ K M M @ R U Q I H J F J I H P F J DC D E F B D T I Q Q B D Q ? @ E > @ A E N I E O U K B F E D B H F @ J @ Q N M @ R R A E I M K F I @ E > @ B A R H I E F J D > @ B R @ >T @ B } H J @ U H > @ B M @ E M B D F D D v M J K E O D @ > I N D K H K E N Q @ E O V F D B R N I B D M F I @ E H W j J D C D E F B DT I Q Q D H F K L Q I H J I F H B D H D K B M J K E N I E E @ S K F I @ E U K F J H L K H D N @ E F J D N I H M A H H I @ E H K E NU K B F E D B H � I E I F I K Q M @ Q Q K L @ B K F I S D K M F I S I F I D H T I F J F J D C D E F B D W j J D C D E F B D T I Q Q D H F K L Q I H JT @ B } I E O U K U D B H D B I D H F @ F B K M } M @ Q Q K L @ B K F I S D B D H D K B M J A E N D B F K } I E O H L ? I F HR D R L D B H Wj J D C D E F B D T I Q Q D v F D E N I F H N @ M A R D E F K F I @ E K E N N I H H D R I E K F I @ E @ > B D H D K B M J K E NI E E @ S K F I S D K M F I S I F I D H L K H D N @ E F J D U K F J H D H F K L Q I H J D N W j J D C D E F B D U Q K E H F @ J @ Q N KT @ B } H J @ U D S D B ? ? D K B > @ B I E I F I K Q N I H H D R I E K F I @ E @ > B D H D K B M J @ A F U A F H K H T D Q Q K HR @ E I F @ B I E O H F B K F D O I M N I B D M F I @ E H @ > F J D C D E F B D @ E F J D B D H D K B M J > B @ E F W = E @ B N D B F @M Q D K B Q ? K H H D H H F J D M @ E F B I L A F I @ E H K E N I R U K M F @ > F J D C D E F B D P U D B > @ B R K E M D R D K H A B D HT I Q Q L D N D S D Q @ U D N W j J B @ A O J I F H B D O A Q K B R D D F I E O H @ > F J D � D R L D B H C @ R R I F F D D P F J D� D H D K B M J C @ R R I F F D D K E N F J D � N S I H @ B ? C @ R R I F F D D P F J D K E E A K Q K M F I S I F I D H T I Q Q L DB D S I D T D N K E N K E ? E D M D H H K B ? M J K E O D H T I Q Q L D K U U Q I D N W � > F D B K B D S I D T @ > B D H D K B M JK M F I S I F I D H I E F J D I E I F I K Q ? D K B P F J D C D E F B D T I Q Q H D F K E E A K Q F K B O D F H @ E B D H D K B M J @ A F U A F HI E F J D > @ B R @ > H M J @ Q K B Q ? � @ A B E K Q U A L Q I M K F I @ E H P F D M J E I M K Q B D U @ B F H K E NM @ E > D B D E M D G T @ B } H J @ U U B D H D E F K F I @ E H Wx A B I E O F J D > I B H F F T @ ? D K B H P F J D F D K R U Q K E H F @ M Q D K B Q ? N D R @ E H F B K F D F J D I R U K M F K E NM @ E F B I L A F I @ E H @ > F J D C D E F B D K F F J D I E H F I F A F I @ E K Q Q D S D Q K E N K R @ E O E D I O J L @ B I E OH M J @ @ Q H I E F J D U B @ S I E M D @ > � E F K B I @ W = E > I S D ? D K B H P F J D F D K R U Q K E H F @ O D F F J DC D E F B D � H B D M @ O E I F I @ E E K F I @ E K Q Q ? K E N I E F D B E K F I @ E K Q Q ? F J B @ A O J I E E @ S K F I S D U A L Q I M K F I @ E HK E N M @ Q Q K L @ B K F I @ E H T I F J I E N A H F B ? K E N @ F J D B I E H F I F A F I @ E H I E � @ B F J � R D B I M K W j J D F D K RD v U D M F H F @ D v U K E N I F H R D R L D B H J I U L K H D F J B @ A O J K M F I S D D E O K O D R D E F T I F J > K M A Q F ?R D R L D B H I E N I > > D B D E F N I H M I U Q I E D H W � H I E O F J D S K B I @ A H @ A F U A F H @ > F J D C D E F B D @ S D BF I R D K H D S I N D E M D H K E N R @ N D Q H P F J D F D K R U Q K E H F @ D v U K E N I F H B D H @ A B M D L K H DF J B @ A O J K N N I F I @ E K Q M @ Q Q K L @ B K F I @ E H K E N H U @ E H @ B H J I U H W j @ F J I H D E N P F J D C D E F B D U Q K E HF @ M @ E E D M F I F H K M F I S I F I D H K E N N I H H D R I E K F I @ E @ > @ A F U A F H F J B @ A O J I E F D B E K F I @ E K Q> @ B A R H P H U D M I K Q I E F D B D H F O B @ A U H P T @ B } H J @ U H K E N M @ E > D B D E M D H @ > S K B I @ A HN I H M I U Q I E D H @ > I F H R D R L D B H W j J D C D E F B D K Q H @ U Q K E H F @ M @ Q Q K L @ B K F D T I F J H I R I Q K BC D E F B D H I E H M J @ @ Q H K M B @ H H � @ B F J � R D B I M K K E N @ F J D B B D O I @ E H > @ B } E @ T Q D N O DH J K B I E O W

K W � E ? K N N I F I @ E K Q I E > @ B R K F I @ E F J K F I H E @ F M @ S D B D N L ? F J D K L @ S D W● � D H ○ � @L W { v D M A F I S D H A R R K B ? F J K F U B @ S I N D H F J D E K R D @ > F J D � D H D K B M JC D E F B D G = E H F I F A F D P K N D H M B I U F I @ E K E N � A H F I > I M K F I @ E > @ B I F H M B D K F I @ E P K E N@ > I F H M @ E H F I F A F I @ E K E N R K E K O D R D E F W● � D H ○ � @M W � I H F @ > > K M A Q F ? R D R L D B H T J @ T I Q Q L D C D E F B D G = E H F I F A F D R D R L D B H K E N KM @ U ? @ > F J D I B C � H W● � D H ○ � @

•••

å æ ç è é ê ë ì í î ï ð ñ ò ó ò ô ê õ

ö ÷ ø ù ú û ü ý ö þ ÿ � ø �ö ú ÷ û � ü ÷ � � ø �� ÷ � � ø �� ú û ú ý ú � ü � û þ ø ü �� û � ú ÷ ü ü � � ÷ � ü ÷ û ø � ø � ú û ø � �

� ü � ü ú ÷ � �� ÷ ú ø � ø � � � � � þ � û ø � � þ ÷ ÷ ø � þ � þ �� ÷ � � � � � �� ü � ü ú ÷ � � � � ø � � �� ü ÷ ù ø � ü � ü ú ÷ � ø � � � � � ü û ø û ø � � � ü ÷ û ø � ø � ú û ø � � �

•••

��

��

�

��

�

��

�

�� !�� " ��

�� #� $�� " ��

�� "��%� � ��

��" �� !�� "�� !��

��!�� "��" ��!��%��

�� %��

�� "�� &��

�� '�" ��%��"��(��

�� "�� "��"��!��

�� !��#��" ��

��!� ��

�� %�� "��"��"�� )��

��%��!��!�� (��"�%��%�%�

�� %�� %��

�� *��

�� %��!��

+ �� *�� "��!��

��!� � �!�� "�%�

�� !�

�� %�� #�%�� " ��

"�%��!� �"�� " �� !� ��%��,�

��"� �� %��

�� %� �� "�� !� �

��%��%�� %��%��*��

�� " �� !� � "�� %� �� ,�� !� �

��"�� %�� -�� %��!��

%�� "� �� %�� "�� '

��-��

&��%� �� !�!��#�� %�� #�� !��

�� #�� !�� "��

��

�� !�� "��

��"��%��"�� )��

!� �� !��!�� "�� " ��

,�� !�� #��%�� "��

�� " ��

.�"��

�

��

&�� /�� )##��

�� /��

��

��

Brock Institute forScientific Computing Brock University

Niagara Region

500 Glenridge Ave.

St. Catharines, Ontario

L2S 3A1, Canada

T 905.688.5550 x5905

E [email protected] Committee:

Thad Harroun (Director)

Sidney Segalowicz

Thomas Wolf

April 5, 2016

Dear Anteneh,

It was a pleasure to meet you recently and hear of your efforts to create a ‘Big Data’

initiative in the Goodman School of Business. I believe there may some important

synergies with the Brock Institute for Scientific Computing (BISC), and continued col-

laboration will be beneficial to Brock.

The Brock Institute for Scientific Computing (BISC) advances scholarship at Brock Uni-

versity through enabling research utilizing high performance computing (HPC). We

have experience working with the hardware and software resources provided by Com-

pute Canada, Compute Ontario, and SHARCnet. Thus we are well positioned to provide

training and advice to Goodman faculty and students involved on how to access HPC

resources, and demonstrate best practices of computationally driven research.

Together with data archival and digital scholarship initiatives from the Brock Library,

there is potential to develop a training and support network that takes lessons learned

from research at the Goodman School and apply them back into the ongoing health

and physical science research at Brock.

We look forward to continued discussions,

Sincerely,

Thad Harroun

� � � � � � � � � � � � �� ! � � " # � � $ % � � $ & ' � (! ) * + � ) , � � � � � # - . �/ ! 0 1 � + � � � 2 �3 4 5 6 7 8 9 � � 8 7 7 7 6: ; < = > ? @ A B C > D E F B C G ; G HI J K L J L M I N O J P QI P P Q R S O K L T U Q V L P P Q U Q V W J V Q U X O K S Q J Y N P K L X PZ Q Q [ X O J Y R M Q Q \ Q V ] ^ P S J L P P_ L ` T U Q a Q P O \ V Q U b L J K U L V Q U ] ^ P S J L P P I J O \ N K S R P c b ] I dI a U S \ e f g h i jk L O U I J K L J L M fl M O J m N Q ^ V Q U K O \ m S J n o S K M X L L O U \ S L U K M S P o L L m O p Q ^ K N Q ^ U a U Q a Q P O \ K Q L P K O p \ S P M Ob L J K U L V Q U ] ^ P S J L P P I J O \ N K S R P c b ] I d O K ] U Q R m q J S r L U P S K N s W K M S J m K M O K K M S P S P Oo Q U K M o M S \ L S J S K S O K S r L f O J [ o S \ \ p L O r O \ ^ O p \ L U L P Q ^ U R L V Q U P K ^ [ L J K P f U L P L O U R M L U P fV O R ^ \ K N f O J [ X L X p L U P Q V K M L a ^ p \ S R Q J R L S K M O P p L L J O a a U Q r L [ O J [ S X a \ L X L J K L [ sl M L t S p U O U N M O P O \ o O N P P ^ a a Q U K L [ U L P L O U R M O J [ U L P L O U R M L U P O K ] U Q R m f O J [ o L O U LR Q X X S K K L [ K Q p L S J n O R K S r L a O U K S R S a O J K P [ ^ U S J n K M L L J K S U L U L P L O U R M R N R \ L f V U Q X K M L[ S P R Q r L U N O J [ R U L O K S Q J f K M U Q ^ n M O J O \ N P S P O J [ r S P ^ O \ S u O K S Q J f O J [ V S J O \ \ N K Q R Q \ \ L R K S Q J f[ S P P L X S J O K S Q J f O J [ O U R M S r S J n P K O n L P sl M L t S p U O U N S P o L \ \ a Q P S K S Q J L [ o S K M m J Q o \ L [ n L O p \ L O J [ L v a L U S L J R L [ P K O V V O J [\ S p U O U S O J P K Q P ^ a a Q U K K M L J L L [ P Q V V O R ^ \ K N O J [ U L P L O U R M L U P f S J R \ ^ [ S J n c p ^ K J Q K\ S X S K L [ K Q d K M L [ O K O O U R M S r S J n f [ S P P L X S J O K S Q J f O J [ a U Q R L P P S J n O P a L R K P Q V O J N [ O K OS J S K S O K S r L P f O J [ o L O U L S J K L U L P K L [ S J P ^ a a Q U K S J n K M L U L P L O U R M O J [ S J J Q r O K S Q J fL [ ^ R O K S Q J f O J [ R Q X X ^ J S K N Q ^ K U L O R M n Q O \ P Q V K M L b ] I sY S J R L U L \ N fw Q J O K M O J l s x Q ^ J m L UW J K L U S X q J S r L U P S K N t S p U O U S O J

y z { | } ~ � � � � � � � � } � � � � � � � � � } � � � � } � � � � } � � y � } � � � � � � �� } � � � � � � } � � � � � � � � � � � } � � � � � � � � } � � � � � � � � � � � � } � � � � y � � � � � �{ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � } � � � � � � � � � � � } � � � � � � � � } � � � � � � � � � � � � } � � � � y � � � � � �� } � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� } � � � � � � � � � � � � } � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� ~ � � � } � � � � � � ¡ � � � � � } � � � � � � � � � � � } � � � � � � � � } � � � � � � � � � � � � } � � � � y � � � � � �� } � � � � � � � � � � � } � � � � � � � � � � � } � � � � � � � � } � � � � � � � � � � � � } � � � � y � � � � � �¢ } £ � � � � � � � � } � � � � � } � � � � � � � � � � � } � � � � � � � � } � � � � � � � � � � � � } � � � � y � � � � � �¤ � � £ � � � } � � � � � � � } � � � � � � � � � � � } � � � � � � � � } � � � � � � � � � � � � } � � � � y � � � � � �� } � � � � � � � � y � � � � � } � } � � � � � �¤ � � � } ¥ � � � } £ � � � } � � � � } � � � � � � � � � � � } � � � � � � � � } � � � � � � � � � � � � } � � � � y � � � � � �

‐1‐

TO: Chabriol Colebatch, Secretary to the University and General Counsel Brock University FROM: Heather Gordon Chair, Senate Undergraduate Program Committee

DATE: Tuesday 17 May, 2016

REPORT TO SENATE Meeting #641, Wednesday 25 May, 2016 ACTION/DECISION ITEMS

1. FHB III: A 9.2.4 Retention of Papers MOVED (Gordon / )

THAT the following revisions to FHB III A.9.2.4 Undergraduate Academic Regulations be approved:

9.2.4 Retention of Papers

When an instructor transmits grades for a course to the Office of the Registrar, the

examination scripts shall be turned over by the instructor to the Department/Program for

safekeeping for a period of not less than six twelve months. After that time, they must be

shredded. It is the responsibility of each Department/Program to ensure that a breakdown

of each student's grade used in the determination of the final grade is available, upon

request, for twelve months after the completion of the course. Rationale: Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) personal information must be kept for one year after use. Completed exams contain a student’s personal information, and therefore in accordance with FIPPA final exams must be retained for a full 12 months. This is in line with other Ontario Universities.

2. New Context Credit Courses MOVED (Gordon / )

THAT POLI 1P97 Politics and Sports be accepted as a context credit course in Social Sciences as outlined on page 1 of the Appendix.

‐2‐

3. Adult Education and Community Outreach MOVED (Gordon / )

THAT Senate approves the changes to the course restrictions for ADED 1P31, ADED 1P32, ADED 1P33, ADED 1P41, ADED 2P11, ADED 2P21, ADED 2P22, ADED 3P11, ADED 3P21, ADED 3P22, ADED 3P31, ADED 3P41, ADED 3P51, ADED 4P71, ADED 4P81, ADED 4P85, ADED 4P91, ADED 4P93, ADED 4P94, ADED 4P95, ADED 4P96, ADED 4P97, ADED 4P98 as outlined on pages 1 to 4 of the Appendix.

4. Teacher Education

MOVED (Gordon / )

THAT Senate approves (i) the addition of EDBE 8N50 and EDBE 8P08 to the coursebank, (ii) the removal of EDUC 8N15 and EDUC 8N52 from the coursebank, (iii) the renaming of EDBE 8P07, 8Y04, 8Y06, 8Y12, 8Y14 and EDUC 8N53, (iv) the revisions of course format and/or course notes and/or course description and/or contact hours and/or exclusions/restrictions as described to EDBE 8N15, 8N46, 8N51, 8N52, 8N53, 8N54, 8N55, 8N58, 8N59, 8N60 and 8Y14, EDUC 8N51 and 8N53 as outlined on pages 4 to 9 of the Appendix.

5. Geography MOVED (Gordon / )

THAT Senate approves (i) the changes in program notes, (ii) the revisions to the course offerings list, (iii) the revisions to the Geography programs BA Hon and BA Hon (Co-op) in Human Geography, BA Hon and BA Hon (Co-op) in Geography, BSc Hon and BSc Hon (Co-op) in Geography, (iii) the removal of the articulation agreement (BA Hon and BSc Hon in Geography with a Concentration in Geomatics), and (iv) the reintroduction of GEOG 3P04 Digital Mapping and GEOG 3P80 Geography and International Development as outline on pages 9 to 15 of the Appendix.

6. Tourism Management MOVED (Gordon / )

THAT Senate approves (i) the revisions to program notes, (ii) the changes to the Tourism and Environment programs (BA Hon and BA Hon (Co-op), BA with Major, BA Pass) for Tourism Environment and Tourism Management streams, and to the minor in Tourism Studies, (iii) the addition of TOUR 2P34, 3P34, 3P33, 3P36, 3P94, 3P95, 4P33, 4P34, and 3Q97 to the coursebank, (iv) the removal of TMGT 2P13, 2P14, 3F94, 3P15, 3P17, 3P19, 3P23, 3P25, 3P70, 3P98, 4P11,

‐3‐

4P14, and 4P91 from the coursebank, (v) the renaming to TOUR and renumbering of TMGT 2P10, 2P12, 2P26, 2P93, 3F70, 3P10, 3P11, 3P18, 3P71, 4P90, 3P90, 3P91, 4P12, 4P19, 4P13, 4P15, 4P17, and 4P95 as described, (vi) the renaming to TOUR of all other TMGT courses, (vii) the change in course title for TOUR 1P91, 1P92, 3V90-3V95, and 4P31, (viii) the crosslisted courses (homed in Geography) TOUR 2P07, 2P13, 2P21, 3F90, 3F93, 3P21, 3P22, 3P50, 3P57, 3P91, 4F90 and 4F99 be added to the coursebank, (ix) the revisions to prerequisites/co-requisites, restrictions/exclusions, course descriptions and notes to TOUR 1P91, 1P92, 2C03, 2P30, 2P31, 2P32, 2P41, 2P29, 2P33, 2P94, 3P30, 3P35, 3P86, 3Q91, 3P96, 3P97, 3V90-3V95, 4F80, 3P93, 4P31, 4P32, 4P50, and 4P35 as outlined on pages 15 to 35 of the Appendix

Political Science

Proposal(s) and Effective Date(s)

All new programs being introduced or the termination of programs will be effective beginning 2016 Spring Session:

Context in Social Sciences POLI 1P97 be introduced

Explanation for Proposed Addition(s)/Deletion(s)

is designed to introduce students to foundational concepts in the social sciences, with a particular emphasis on the

connections between people, politics and sport. It will consist of weekly two-hour lectures and one-hour seminars. Students

will be graded on their active participation in seminar discussions, which will examine critically readings and issues raised

in the lecture. Students will have to make a presentation in their small-group seminars and will also be required to

undertake a major research essay.

Adult Education and Community Outreach


All changes will be effective beginning 2016 Spring Session:

ADED 1P31, ADED 1P32, ADED 1P33, ADED 1P41, ADED 2P11, ADED 2P21, ADED 2P22, ADED 3P11, ADED 3P21, ADED 3P22,

ADED 3P31, ADED 3P41, ADED 3P51, ADED 4P71, ADED 4P81, ADED 4P85, ADED 4P91, ADED 4P93, ADED 4P94, ADED 4P95,

ADED 4P96, ADED 4P97, ADED 4P98 course restriction be added/revised.

Explanation of Proposed Change(s)

to allow students who require course priority access

Course Additions/Deletions/Revisions (for information)

ADED 1P31

Learning for Success

Self-management, goal setting, study skill and academic integrity, designed to develop the capacity for critical self-reflection

about learning.

Facilitated online seminar, 36 hours per term.

Restriction: open to students admitted to Adult Education, BECE students and Adult Education minors until date specified in

Registration guide.

ADED 1P32

Learning in Digital Contexts

Introduction to learning with contemporary media in digital university-level contexts. Facilitated online seminar, 36 hours per

term.


Registration guide.

ADED 1P33

Scholarly Writing for Adult Learners

Writing fundamentals of grammar conventions, research skills, essay writing, editing skills and APA formatting. Facilitated online

seminar, 36 hours per term.


Registration guide.

ADED 1P41

History of Adult Learning in Canada

Evolution and development, individual informal and formal learning practices, adult education structures through five historical

timeframes, and impact of international developments.

Facilitated online seminar, 36 hours per term


Registration guide.

1Appendix to UPC Report to Senate Meeting #641

ADED 2P11

Conflict Management: Resolutions and Relationships

Introduction to the concepts and strategies of non-adversarial conflict resolution as it relates to family, the workplace and the

community focusing on a conceptual framework for resolving differences in order to maintain and strengthen interpersonal

relationships.



Registration guide.

ADED 2P21

Fostering Adult Creativity and Imagination

Alternate approaches to inform and generate knowledge and personal reflective practice.



Registration guide.

ADED 2P22

Gender Issues in Adult Learning

Significant themes influencing adult learners and related educational implications.



Registration guide.

ADED 3P11

Geragogy: Educating the Third Age Learner

Psychological, sociological and philosophical issues surrounding older adult learning.



Registration guide.

ADED 3P21

Teaching Adults Using Technology

Integrated approach to the practical and theoretical aspects of teaching with computer technology.



Registration guide.

ADED 3P22

Adult Learning Disabilities

Best practices in support and accommodation of learning disabled adults. Topics include current research, signs, symptoms and

gifts of learning disabilities, current legislation and impact in the academic and workplace environments.



Registration guide.

ADED 3P31

Intercultural Communication in Adult Education

Topics include cultural identity, communication variables and values, and culture as context for communication.



Registration guide.

ADED 3P41

Community Outreach and Adult Literacy

Introduction to community outreach in Canada. Community theories, definitions, principles, outreach relation, adult literacy and

social advocacy. Outreach for empowering societal change and betterment.


Restriction: students must have minimum of 5.0 overall credits.


Registration guide.


ADED 3P51

Facilitating Adult English Learners

Theoretical constructs, language learning contexts, English as a Subsequent Language (ESL) skill areas, integrated approaches,

technology in language teaching, assessment and concerns and controversies. Topics in adult learning theory, including

immigration, cultural considerations and Canadian culture and language in the Canadian ESL context.



Registration guide. Students students must have a minimum of 5.0 overall credits.

Prerequisite(s): one credit numbered 3(alpha)00 or above or permission of the Centre.

ADED 4P71

Cost Benefit Analysis in Adult Education Contexts

Knowledge and decision-making skills required to review and assess the costs, benefits, conflicts and tradeoffs associated with

educational and training initiatives by exploring assumptions, models and methodologies used in all segments of Canadian

society.

Facilitated seminar, 3 hours per week.


Registration guide.

ADED 4P81

Discretion in Educational Decision Making

Conceptual elements of discretion in educational decision making. Socio-legal character of discretion, its connection with ethics

and the contribution of the use of discretion to the acquisition of personal and professional wisdom.




Note: cases and practical applications will be used.

ADED 4P91

Power, Practice and Process in Learning

Theoretical, pedagogical, curricular and practical issues of power dynamics and differentials in post-secondary and community

outreach.



Registration guide.

ADED 4P93

Adult Education in the Global Context

Examination of global social, economic and political contexts of adult education.



Registration guide.

ADED 4P94

Evaluating Learning

Methods and strategies used to develop criteria to evaluate learning in academic, work, community and not-for-profit contexts.

Topics include planning for evaluation in both face to face and online environments.



Registration guide.

Prerequisite(s): ADED 4F33 or permission of the Centre.

ADED 4P95

Evaluating Adult Education Programs

Theoretical, ethical and methodological foundations of program evaluation relevant to social and adult educational

programming.



Registration guide.

ADED 4P96

Introduction to Leadership Theory in Adult Learning

Major theories, approaches, models and themes related to the study of organizational leadership.




Registration guide.

ADED 4P97

Application of Leadership Theory in Adult Learning

Specific leadership skills relevant to authentic workplace situations.




ADED 4P98

Aid and Adult Education in Developing Nations

Topics may include policy issues, intricacies of funding provided by government, voluntary and institutional agencies, program

development, research and program implementation.



Registration guide.

Teacher Education



1. EDBE 8N15 course format, contact hours be deleted, course restriction and note be revised.

2. EDBE 8N46 course format, contact hours be deleted, course restriction and note be revised.

3. EDBE 8N50 Religious Education (Roman Catholic) Primary/Junior/Intermediate/Senior be added to course bank

4. EDBE 8N51, EDBE 8N52, EDBE 8N53, EDBE 8N54, EDUC 8N51 course format, contact hours be deleted, course note be

revised and exclusion be revised/deleted.

5. EDBE 8N55 and 8N58 course restriction be revised.

6. EDBE 8N59 course restriction be revised and note be added.

7. EDBE 8N60 course restriction be revised and note be added.

8. EDBE 8P07 French as a Second Language Junior/Intermediate be renamed French as a Second Language I

Junior/Intermediate.

9. EDBE 8P08 French as a Second Language II Junior/Intermediate be added to course bank.

10. EDBE 8Y04 Special Topics in Teacher Education Intermediate/Senior be renamed Special Topics: Teaching in Middle

School (Grades 7-8), EDBE 8Y06 Special Topics in Teacher Education Intermediate/Senior be renamed Special Topics:

Environmental Education in Secondary Schools, EDBE 8Y12 Special Topics in Teacher Education Intermediate/Senior be

renamed Special Topics: Student Success Programs (Grades 7-12) and EDBE 8Y14 Special Topics in Teacher Education

Intermediate/Senior be renamed Special Topics: Aboriginal Education in Secondary Schools and course description be

revised.

11. EDUC 8N15 Environmental/Outdoor Education to be removed from course bank.

12. EDUC 8N52 Religious Education (Roman Catholic) Primary/Junior/Intermediate to be removed from course bank.

13. EDUC 8N53 Religious Education (Roman Catholic) I Intermediate/Senior be renamed Religious Education (Roman

Catholic) Intermediate/Senior, course note and exclusion be revised.


1. to make more accessible to teacher candidates; to allow concurrent students to register without having to receive an

override

2. to make more accessible to teacher candidates; to allow concurrent students to register without having to receive an

override; to alert students of requirement

3. have had difficulty running course in two parts over two years (.25 course weight per part) therefore running one online

course once over two years makes it more accessible and manageable to teacher candidates

4. to make more accessible to teacher candidates; remove incorrect exclusions– not applicable to these courses

5. to allow concurrent students to register without having to receive an override

6. consecutive students have their own technology course and adding them was in erro, to alert student how the course

may be offered

7. to allow concurrent students to register without having to receive an override; to alert student how the course may be

offered; to alert students of requirement

8. to reflect addition of EDBE 8P08 to course bank


9. to provide more instructional hours to teacher candidates to better prepare them for the demands of French teaching

placements as they navigate through the two year program and secure French teaching placements in the field

10. to distinguish between Special Topics electives; to provide clearer outline of each specific course

11. has been replaced by EDBE 8N15.

12. to correct a previous error

13. to correct a previous error as there is no second part course in course bank; to make more accessible to teacher

candidates


EDBE 8N15

Environmental/Outdoor Education

Approaches to and philosophies of outdoor/environmental education and its development. Application of skills and knowledge in

curricular decision-making processes.

Lectures, seminar, 3 hours per week.

Restriction: open to students admitted to Primary/Junior and Junior/Intermediate and Intermediate/Senior, and to BA CHYS

(Honours)/BEd (Primary/Junior), BA (Honours) Integrated Studies/BEd (Junior/Intermediate), BPhEd (Honours)/BEd

(Junior/Intermediate), BSc (Honours) Integrated Studies/BEd (Junior/Intermediate), BA (Honours)/BEd (Intermediate/Senior),

BPhEd (Honours)/BEd (Intermediate/Senior) and BSc (Honours)/BEd (Intermediate/Senior) majors with a minimum of 20.0 overall

credits. In Spring Session open to BA CHYS (Honours)/BEd (Primary/Junior), BA (Honours) Integrated Studies/BEd

(Junior/Intermediate), BPhEd (Honours)/BEd (Junior/Intermediate), BSc (Honours) Integrated Studies/BEd

(Junior/Intermediate), BA (Honours)/BEd (Intermediate/Senior), BPhEd (Honours)/BEd (Intermediate/Senior) and BSc

(Honours)/BEd (Intermediate/Senior) majors with a minimum of 17.5 overall credits.

Completion of this course will replace previous assigned grade in EDUC 8N15 and 8Y15.

Note: offered on-site, online or blended. Course course not required for Outdoor Education teaching placement. An additional

fee is levied for this course.

Completion of this course will replace previous assigned grade in EDUC 8N15 and 8Y15.

EDBE 8N46

Special Topics—Early Primary Learning in Kindergarten Classrooms

Developmental experience of the young child and the philosophical and pedagogical foundations of the full-day kindergarten

program.


Restriction: open to students admitted to the Primary/Junior program, and to BA CHYS (Honours)/BEd (Primary/Junior) majors

with a minimum of 20.0 overall credits. In Spring session open to BA CHYS (Honours)/BEd (Primary/Junior) majors with a

minimum of 17.5 overall credits.

Note: may be offered on-site, blended, or online. This course is required in order to request a kindergarten practicum

placement.

Completion of this course will replace previous assigned grade and credit obtained in EDUC 8P46.

EDBE 8N50

Religious Education (Roman Catholic) Primary/Junior/Intermediate/Senior

Introduction to the history of Catholic schools and education in Ontario and the theological and pedagogical underpinnings of

religious education programs. Focus on integration of gospel values as foundational throughout the curriculum.

Restriction: open to students admitted to the Primary/Junior/Intermediate/Senior program.

Note: offered online. This course is not a substitute for Part I of the OECTA/OCSTA Religious Education course. Designed to

implement the Guidelines in Preparation of Students to Teach Religion in Catholic Schools approved by the Institute for Catholic

Education, the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association, and the Ontario Separate School Trustees Association. Materials fee

required.

EDBE 8N51

Religious Education (Roman Catholic) I Primary/Junior/Intermediate

Introduction to the history of Catholic schools and education. Role of Christian belief and tradition, belief, and behaviour in the

curriculum and instruction process as found in the Catholic schools in Ontario and as defined by the Catechism of the Catholic

Church.

Lectures, seminar, 3 hours per week for 12 weeks.

Restriction: open to students admitted to the Primary/Junior and Junior/Intermediate programs.

Note: may be offered on-site, online or blended. This this course is not a substitute for Part I of the OECTA/OCSTA Religious

Education course. Designed to implement the Guidelines in Preparation of Students to Teach Religion in Catholic Schools

approved by the Institute for Catholic Education, the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association, and the Ontario Separate

School Trustees Association. Materials fee required.

Completion of this course will replace previous assigned grade and credit obtained in EDUC 8N51 and 8Y51.


EDBE 8N52

Religious Education (Roman Catholic) II Primary/Junior/Intermediate

Theological and pedagogical foundation for the Catholic Education curriculum taught in Ontario Catholic Schools. Integration of

gospel values as foundational throughout the curriculum.


Restriction: open to students admitted to the Primary/Junior and Junior/Intermediate programs.

Prerequisite(s): EDBE 8N51.


Note: offered on-site, online or blended. This this course is not a substitute for Part I of the OECTA/OCSTA Religious Education

course. Designed to implement the Guidelines in Preparation of Students to Teach Religion in Catholic Schools approved by the

Institute for Catholic Education, the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association, and the Ontario Separate School Trustees

Association. Materials fee required.

Completion of this course will replace previous assigned grade and credit obtained in EDUC 8N52 and 8Y51.

EDBE 8N53

Religious Education (Roman Catholic) I Intermediate/Senior

Introduction to the history of Catholic schools and education. Role of Christian belief and tradition, belief and behaviour in the


Church.


Restriction: open to students admitted to the Intermediate/Senior program.





Completion of this course will replace previous assigned grade and credit obtained in EDUC 8Y52.

EDBE 8N54

Religious Education (Roman Catholic) II Intermediate/Senior




Restriction: open to students admitted to the Intermediate/Senior program.







EDBE 8N55

The Occasional Teacher

Addresses strategies that occasional teachers can employ to implement effective classroom management techniques, preparing

to teach a wide range of subjects and grade levels.

Restriction: open to students admitted to the Primary/Junior, Junior/Intermediate, Intermediate/Senior programs, and to BA

CHYS (Honours)/BEd (Primary/Junior), BA (Honours) Integrated Studies/BEd (Junior/Intermediate), BPhEd (Honours)/BEd







Note: offered on-site, online or blended.


EDBE 8N58

Coaching School Athletes

Teacher candidates engage in a critical examination of the structures of coaching pedagogy within the context of the Ontario

educational system.


CHYS (Honours)/BEd (Primary/Junior), BA (Honours) Integrated Studies/BEd (Junior/Intermediate), BPhEd (Honours)/BEd








Note: may be offered on-site, online or blended.

EDBE 8N59

Computers and Instructional Technologies in Secondary Schools

Provides Intermediate/Senior teacher candidates with strategies for integrating computers and other instructional technologies

into the curriculum.

Restriction: open to students admitted to the Intermediate/Senior programs, and to BA (Honours)/BEd (Intermediate/Senior),

BPhEd (Honours)/BEd (Intermediate/Senior), and BSc (Honours)/BEd (Intermediate/Senior) majors with a minimum of 20.0

overall credits.



EDBE 8N60

Teaching Internationally

Explores educational, political, social, economic, and cultural perspectives related to teaching internationally.


(Honours)/BEd (Intermediate/Senior), BA CHYS (Honours)/BEd (Primary/Junior), BA Integrated Studies (Honours)/BEd

(Junior/Intermediate), BPhEd (Honours)/BEd (Intermediate/Senior), BPhEd (Honours)/BEd (Junior/Intermediate), BSc

(Honours)/BEd (Intermediate/Senior), and BSc Integrated Studies (Honours)/BEd (Junior/Intermediate) majors with a minimum

of 20.0 overall credits. In Spring Session open to BA CHYS (Honours)/BEd (Primary/Junior), BA (Honours) Integrated Studies/BEd




Note: may be offered on-site, online or blended. This course is required to request an international practicum placement.


EDBE 8P07

French as a Second Language I Junior/Intermediate

Ontario Junior/Intermediate curriculum in French as a Second Language emphasizing practice and theory.


Restriction: open to students admitted to the Junior/Intermediate program.


EDBE 8P08

French as a Second Language II Junior/Intermediate

Ontario Junior/Intermediate curriculum in French as a Second Language emphasizing practice and theory, focusing on

spontaneous oral interaction in meaningful contexts, action oriented tasks, unit planning through the lens of differentiated

instruction, a range of instructional, assessment and evaluation strategies, and creating a positive learning environment to foster

the development of language skills.


Restriction: open to students admitted to the Junior/Intermediate program with a minimum of 5.0 overall credits.

Prerequisite(s): EDBE 8P07.

EDBE 8Y04

Special Topics: in Teacher Education Intermediate/Senior Teaching in Middle School (Grades 7 and 8)

Possibilities to enrich educational understandings and address individual interests. Topics may include Aboriginal education,

coaching, environmental education, international teaching, middle school teaching and urban education. Introduction to the

middle school context: being a generalist teacher, the grade 7 and 8 curriculum, the culture of elementary/middle schools, and

the transition to secondary school.


Restriction: open to students admitted to the Intermediate/Senior program with a minimum of 5.0 overall credits.


EDBE 8Y06

Special Topics: in Teacher Education Intermediate/Senior Environmental Education in Secondary Schools


coaching, environmental education, international teaching, middle school teaching and urban education. Introduction to

environmental education in Secondary Schools. Integrating Environmental Education across all curricular areas and school-wide

initiatives (e.g. Ecoschools Ontario).Lectures, seminar, 3 hours per week.




EDBE 8Y12

Special Topics: in Teacher Education Intermediate/Senior Student Success Programs (Grades 7 to 12)


coaching, environmental education, international teaching, middle school teaching and urban education. Introduction to

alternative programming that exists in Secondary Schools: Specialist High Skills Major, alternative credit options, Cooperative

education, Dual Credit Programs.




EDBE 8Y14

Special Topics: in Teacher Education Intermediate/Senior Aboriginal Education in Secondary Schools


coaching, environmental education, international teaching, middle school teaching and urban education. Introducing Indigenous

perspectives and issues to Secondary students. Integrating Aboriginal content and strategies across the curriculum.




EDUC 8N15

Environmental/Outdoor Education

Approaches to and philosophies of outdoor/environmental education and its development. Application of skills and knowledge in

curricular decision-making processes.


Restriction: open to BA CHYS (Honours)/BEd (Primary/Junior), BA Integrated Studies (Honours)/BEd (Junior/Intermediate),

BPhEd(Honours)/BEd (Junior/Intermediate), and BSc Integrated Studies (Honours)/BEd (Junior/Intermediate) majors with a


Note: course not required for Outdoor Education teaching placement. An additional fee is levied for this course.

Completion of this course will replace previous assigned grade in EDBE 8N15 and EDUC 8Y15.

EDUC 8N51

Religious Education (Roman Catholic) Primary/Junior/Intermediate

Introduction to the history of Catholic schools and education. Role of Christian belief and tradition, belief, and behaviour in the


Church.



BPhEd(Honours)/BEd (Junior/Intermediate), and BSc Integrated Studies (Honours)/BEd (Junior/Intermediate) majors with a


Note: may be offered on-site, blended, or online. This this course is not a substitute for Part I of the OECTA/OCSTA Religious


approved by the Institute for Catholic Education, the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association, and the Ontario Separate


Completion of this course will replace previous assigned grade and credit obtained in EDBE 8N51 and EDUC 8Y51.

EDUC 8N52

Religious Education (Roman Catholic) Primary/Junior/Intermediate





BPhEd(Honours)/BEd (Junior/Intermediate) and BSc Integrated Studies (Honours)/BEd (Junior/Intermediate) majors with a



Note: this course is not a substitute for Part I of the OECTA/OCSTA Religious Education course. Designed to implement the

Guidelines in Preparation of Students to Teach Religion in Catholic Schools approved by the Institute for Catholic Education, the

Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association and the Ontario Separate School Trustees Association. Materials fee required.

Completion of this course will replace previous assigned grade and credit obtained in EDBE 8N52 and EDUC 8Y52.


EDUC 8N53

Religious Education (Roman Catholic) I Intermediate/Senior

Introduction to the history of Catholic schools and education. Role of Christian belief and tradition, belief and behaviour in the

curriculum and instruction process as found in the Catholic Schools in Ontario and as defined by the Catechism of the Catholic

Church.

Restriction: open to BA (Honours)/BEd (Intermediate/Senior), BPhEd(Honours)/BEd (Intermediate/Senior) and BSc (Honours)/BEd

(Intermediate/Senior) majors with a minimum of 20.0 overall credits.

Note: may be offered on-site, online or blended. This this course is not a substitute for Part I of the OECTA/OCSTA Religious


approved by the Institute for Catholic Education, the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association and the Ontario Separate


Completion of this course will replace previous assigned grade and/or credit obtained in EDBE 8N53 and EDUC 8Y52.

Geography



1. Geography Program Notes be revised.

2. Course Offerings List and Geography programs be revised.

3. Geography programs be revised.

4. GEOG 3P04 Digital Mapping and GEOG 3P80 Geography and International Development (also offered as INTC 3P80) be re-

added to course bank.


1. to correct an oversight

2. to correct an oversight; to reflect change in course bank

3. department has reversed its decision to remove from course bank

Program Changes

Program Notes

1. GEOG 2P07, 2P13, 2P21, 2P33, 2P94, 3F93, 3P04, 3P05, 3P07, 3P21, 3P22, 3P34, 3P50, 3P83, 3P95, 4F99, 4P07 and 4P83 can

be taken for either BA or BSc credit.

2. In the case of GEOG 3V60-3V69, 3V90-3V99, 4F90, 4P95 and 4P96 the content in a given year determines whether the course

yields BA credit or BSc credit.

3. Students may hold credit for only one of GEOG 3P56 or 3P57.

4. For students with a specific interest in geomorphology and soils the following ERSC courses are recommended as elective

credits: ERSC 2P16 and 4P61.

5. This credit must be other than GEOG.

6. The Social Science credit must be from CHYS, COMM, ECON, FILM, LABR, POLI, PCUL, PSYC, SOCI, TOUR or WGST.

7. One Science credit is required and must be from BCHM, BIOL, CHEM, COSC, ERSC, MATH and PHYS (excluding ASTR 1P01,

1P02, BIOL 1F25, CHEM 1P00, ERSC 1P92, SCIE 1P50 and 1P51).

8. One Science credit is required, must be from BCHM, BIOL, CHEM, COSC, ERSC, MATH and PHYS and must be numbered

2(alpha)00 or above.

9. In 20 credit degree programs a maximum of eight credits may be numbered 1(alpha)00 to 1(alpha)99; at least three credits

must be numbered 2(alpha)90 or above; at least three credits must be numbered 3(alpha)90 or above; and the remaining credits

must be numbered 2(alpha)00 or above.

In 15 credit degree programs a maximum of eight credits may be numbered 1(alpha)00 to 1(alpha)99; at least three credits must

be numbered 2(alpha)90 or above; and the remaining credits must be numbered 2(alpha)00 or above.

In some circumstances, in order to meet university degree and program requirements, more than 15 or 20 credits may be taken.


Course Offerings

Courses offered by the Department fall into two main groups, group A in human geography and group B in physical geography. A

third group (C) emphasizes geomatics approaches to geographical problems and a fourth (D) emphasizes the environment.

Group A: Human Geography

GEOG 1F90

GEOG 2P01, 2P03, 2P06, 2P21, 2P30, 2P66

GEOG 3F90, 3F93, 3F97, 3P21, 3P22, 3P30, 3P34, 3P45, 3P57, 3P66, 3P70, 3P80, 3P86, 3P91, 3Q91, 3V60-3V69, 3V90-3V99

GEOG 4F90, 4F99, 4P11, 4P32, 4P50, 4P66, 4P68, 4P70, 4P71, 4P95, 4P96

Group B: Physical Geography

GEOG 1F91

GEOG 2P04, 2P05, 2P21

GEOG 3F93, 3P09, 3P12, 3P13, 3P14, 3P21, 3P22, 3P24, 3P25, 3P26, 3P33, 3P35, 3P56, 3P85, 3Q99, 3V60-3V69, 3V90-3V99

GEOG 4F90, 4F99, 4P12, 4P26, 4P28, 4P80, 4P85, 4P95, 4P96, 4P97

Group C: Geomatics

GEOG 2P07

GEOG 3P04, 3P05, 3P07, 3P95

GEOG 4P07

Group D: Environment

GEOG 2P13, 2P33, 2P94

GEOG 3P34, 3P50, 3P83

GEOG 4P83

Honours Program


Year 1

GEOG 1F90 and 1F91 (may be taken in Year 2)

one Humanities context credit

one Social Sciences context credit (see program note 5)

one elective credit

Year 2

GEOG 2P07 and 2P21

two credits from GEOG 2P01, 2P03, 2P06, 2P13, 2P30, 2P33, 2P66, 2P94

one Social Sciences credit (see program note 6)

one elective credit (to include GEOG 1F91 if not completed in Year 1)

Year 3

GEOG 3P21 or 3P22

GEOG 3P57

one and one-half GEOG credits numbered 2(alpha)90 to 3(alpha)89 from Group A

one GEOG credit numbered 2(alpha)90 to 3(alpha)89 from either Group A, C or D

one and one-half elective credits

Year 4

GEOG 3P21 or 3P22 (not taken in year 3)

GEOG 4F99

one and one-half GEOG credits numbered 3(alpha)90 or above from Group A

one-half GEOG credit numbered 3(alpha)90 or above from Group A, C or D


Bachelor of Arts in Human Geography Co-op (Honours only)

Students admitted to the Co-op program must follow an approved program pattern. The most common pattern is listed below.

For other approved programs consult the Co-op office.

Year 1

GEOG 1F90 and 1F91




one elective credit

Spring/Summer Sessions:

One elective credit

Year 2

GEOG 0N90, 2P07and 2P21

two credits from GEOG 2P01, 2P03, 2P06, 2P13, 2P30, 2P33, 2P66, 2P94

one-half GEOG credit numbered 2(alpha)90 to 3(alpha)89 from Group A


one-half elective credit


GEOG 0N01 and 2C01

Year 3

Fall Term:

GEOG 3P21 or 3P22

GEOG 3P57

one GEOG credit numbered 2(alpha)90 to 3(alpha)89 from Group A

one-half GEOG credit numbered 2(alpha)90 to 3(alpha)89 from either Group A, C or D

Winter Term:

GEOG 0N02 and 2C02


GEOG 0N03 and 2C03

Year 4



one-half GEOG credit numbered 2(alpha)90 to 3(alpha)89 from Group A, C or D

two GEOG credits numbered 3(alpha)90 or above from Group A

one GEOG credit numbered 3(alpha)90 or above from Group A, C or D



One and one-half elective credits

Bachelor of Arts in Geography

Honours

Year 1

GEOG 1F90 and 1F91



one elective credit

Year 2

GEOG 2P04, 2P05, 2P07 and 2P21

one and one-half credits from GEOG 2P01, 2P03, 2P06, 2P13, 2P30, 2P33, 2P66, 2P94



Year 3

GEOG 3P21 or 3P22

GEOG 3P57

one and one-half GEOG credits numbered 2(alpha)90 to 3(alpha)89 from Group A

one GEOG credit numbered 2(alpha)90 to 3(alpha)89 from Group B, C or D


Year 4



GEOG 4F99


one-half GEOG credit numbered 3(alpha)90 or above from Group B, C or D


Bachelor of Arts in Geography Co-op (Honours only)

Year 1

GEOG 1F90 and 1F91



one elective credit


One elective credit

Year 2

GEOG 0N90, 2P04, 2P05, 2P07and 2P21

one credit from GEOG 2P01, 2P03, 2P06, 2P13, 2P30, 2P33, 2P66, 2P94





GEOG 0N01 and 2C01

Year 3

Fall Term:

GEOG 3P21 or 3P22

GEOG 3P57


one-half GEOG credit numbered 2(alpha)90 to 3(alpha)89 from Group B, C or D

Winter Term:

GEOG 0N02 and 2C02


GEOG 0N03 and 2C03

Year 4



one-half GEOG credit numbered 2(alpha)90 to 3(alpha)89 from Group B, C or D

two GEOG credits numbered 3(alpha)90 or above from Group A

one GEOG credit numbered 3(alpha)90 to or above from Group B, C or D




Bachelor of Science in Geography

Year 1

GEOG 1F90 and 1F91

MATH 1P97


one Sciences context credit (see program note 7)

one-half elective credit (see program note 9)

Year 2

GEOG 2P04, 2P05, 2P07and 2P21


one Science credit (see program note 7)


one elective credit

Year 3

GEOG 3P21 or 3P22

GEOG 3P56

one GEOG credit numbered 2(alpha)90 to 3(alpha)89 from Group A, C or D

one and one-half GEOG credits numbered 2(alpha)90 to 3(alpha)99 from Group B



Year 4


GEOG 4F99

one-half GEOG credit numbered 3(alpha)90 or above from Group A, C or D

one and one-half GEOG credits numbered 3(alpha)90 or above from Group B


Bachelor of Science in Geography Co-op (Honours only)

Year 1

GEOG 1F90 and 1F91

MATH 1P97





One elective credit

Year 2

GEOG 0N90, 2P04, 2P05, 2P07 and 2P21


one-half GEOG credit from 2(alpha)90 to 3(alpha)89 from Group A

one-half GEOG credit from 2(alpha)90 to 3(alpha)89 from Group B



GEOG 0N01 and 2C01

Year 3

Fall Term:

GEOG 3P21 or 3P22

GEOG 3P56

one GEOG credit numbered 2(alpha)90 to 3(alpha)89 from Group B

one-half Science credit(see program note 8)

Winter Term:

GEOG 0N02 and 2C02


GEOG 0N03 and 2C03

Year 4


one-half GEOG credit numbered 2(alpha)90 to 3(alpha)89 from Group A, C or D

one-half GEOG credit numbered 2(alpha)90 to 3(alpha)89 from Group B

oneGEOG credit numbered 3(alpha)90 or above from Group A, C or D

two GEOG credits numbered 3(alpha)90 or above from Group B

one-half Science credit(see program note 8)




Brock/Colleges Articulation Agreement

Concentration in Geomatics-Niagara College

The Concentration in Geomatics combines an education in the fields of cartography, geographic information systems (GIS),

remote sensing and surveying with an education in Geography.

This is a four-year Honours program and involves courses offered through Brock University and Niagara College. Students

completing the program receive a Brock Honours degree in Geography with a Concentration in Geomatics and a post-graduate

certificate in Geographic Information Systems - Geospatial Management from Niagara College. The degree may be a BA or BSc,

depending on whether human or physical geography is emphasized.

The program caters to the demand in society for professionals who possess both a solid background in Geomatics and the

substantive knowledge necessary to apply those technologies successfully in the real world. Normally, this involves attending

college after gaining a university degree, but the Brock and Niagara program combines the two in a single integrated package.

Students should note the following about this program:

1. Students normally enter the program at the start of Year 2 and should apply for admission at the end of Year 1. Enrolment is

limited, depending on the availability of lab space at Niagara College. Admission to the Concentration will include concurrent

admission to the Niagara College post-graduate certificate program in Geographic Information Systems - Geospatial Management.

2. The Niagara College courses are taken in Year 3 and extend over three terms, Fall, Winter, and Spring. They are taught at the

college's Glendale Campus.

3. Upon completion of the requirements for the post-graduate certificate at Niagara College, with a minimum 70 percent overall

average, students will have 5.0 unspecified transfer credits applied to their Brock degree.

BA (Honours) Geography with Concentration in Geomatics

Year 1

GEOG 1F90 and 1F91



one elective credit

Year 2

One credit from GEOG 2P01, 2P03, 2P06, 2P30, 2P66

GEOG 2P07, 2P21, 3P05, 3P07 and 3P21



Year 3

taken at Niagara College

Year 4

GEOG 3P22, 3P57, 4F99 and 4P07

one-half GEOG credit numbered 2(alpha)90 or above from Group A



BSc (Honours) Geography with Concentration in Geomatics

Year 1

GEOG 1F90 and 1F91

MATH 1P97




Year 2

GEOG 2P04, 2P05, 2P07, 2P21, 3P05, 3P07 and 3P21

one GEOG credit numbered 2(alpha)90 to 3(alpha)89 from Group B



Year 3

taken at Niagara College

Year 4

GEOG 3P22, 3P56, 4F99 and 4P07

one-half GEOG credit numbered 2(alpha)90 or above from Group B

one and one-half GEOG credits numbered 3(alpha)90 or above from Group B



GEOG 3P04

Digital Mapping

Principles of cartography and advanced aspects of map design. Topics include geographic coordinate systems, cartographic

techniques, data analysis, advances in online mapping, and use of mapping software.

Lectures, lab, 4 hours per week.

Prerequisite(s): GEOG 2P07 or permission of the instructor.

Note: practical experiences in mapping quantitative data and digital map production using commercially available software.

* GEOG 3P80

Geography and International Development

(also offered as INTC 3P80)

Analysis of international development theory, policy and practice. Development's relation to globalization, imperialism and neo-

colonialism. Development solutions to environmental problems. Selected case studies from the developing world.


Prerequisite(s): one of GEOG 2P01, 2P13, INTC 1F90 or permission of the instructor.

Tourism Management


All programs being changed will be effective beginning 2016 Spring Session.

1. Tourism Studies Program Notes be revised.

2. Tourism and Environment programs be revised.

3. Tourism Management programs be revised.

4. Tourism Studies Minor program be revised.

5. TMGT 1P91 Principles of Tourism be changed to TOUR 1P91, be renamed Introduction to Tourism and exclusion be

revised.

6. TMGT 1P92 Management in Tourism Industry be changed to TOUR 1P92, be renamed Tourism Industry Sectors, course

description and exclusion be revised.

7. TMGT 2C01 be renumbered TOUR 2C01, TMGT 2C02 be renumbered TOUR 2C02 and TMGT 2C03 be renumbered TOUR

2C03 course prerequisite and co-requisite be deleted.

8. TMGT 2P10 be renumbered TOUR 2P30, cross listing as GEOG 2P30 be added, course restriction, exclusion be revised

and home in the Department of Tourism Management.

9. TMGT 2P12 be renumbered TOUR 2P31, course restriction and exclusion be revised.

10. TMGT 2P13, TMGT 2P14, TMGT 3F94 (also offered as GEOG 3F94 and INTC 3F94), TMGT 3P15, TMGT 3P17, TMGT

3P19, TMGT 3P23, TMGT 3P25 (also offered as INTC 3P25), TMGT 3P70, TMGT 4P11, TMGT 4P14 and TMGT 4P91 be

removed from course bank

11. TMGT 2P26 be renumbered TOUR 2P32, course description, restriction and exclusion be revised.

12. TMGT 2P28 cross listed as ECON 2P28 be renamed TOUR 2P28, TMGT 2P41 cross listed as ECON 2P41 be renamed

TOUR 2P41, course restriction and exclusion be revised.

13. TMGT 2P29 cross listed as ECON 2P29 be renamed TOUR 2P29 and course exclusion be revised.

14. TMGT 2P93 be renumbered TOUR 2P33,cross listing as GEOG 2P33 be added, course restriction, exclusion be revised

and homed in the Department of Tourism Management.

15. TMGT 2P94 be renamed TOUR 2P94, cross listing as GEOG 2P94 be added, course restriction, prerequisite, exclusion

be revised and homed in the Department of Tourism Management.

16. TMGT 3F70 be renumbered TOUR 3F97 cross listing as GEOG 3F97 be and homed in the Department of Tourism

Management.

15

Appendix to UPC Report to Senate Meeting #641

17. TMGT 3P10 be renumbered TOUR 3P30 cross listing as GEOG 3P30 be added, course description, exclusion be revised

and homed in the Department of Tourism Management.

18. TMGT 3P11 (also offered as INTC 3P11) be renumbered TOUR 3P31 (also offered as INTC 3P31), TMGT 4P15 be

renumbered TOUR 3P35, course description and exclusion be revised.

19. TMGT 3P18 be renumbered TOUR 3P34 cross listing as GEOG 3P34 be added and homed in the Department of Tourism

Management.

20. TMGT 3P71 be renumbered TOUR 3P37 and TMGT 4P90 be renumbered TOUR 4P30.

21. TMGT 3P86 cross listed as GEOG 3P86 be renumbered TOUR 3P86 course description, prerequisite, exclusion be

revised and restriction deleted.

22. TMGT 3P90 be renumbered TOUR 3Q90, TMGT 3P91 be renumbered 3Q91, course restriction and exclusion be

revised.

23. TMGT 3P96 be renumbered TOUR 3P96 course description and exclusion be revised.

24. TMGT 3P97 be renumbered TOUR 3P97, course restriction and exclusion be revised.

25. TMGT 3P98 cross listed as GEOG 3P98 be removed from course bank

26. TMGT 3V90-3V95 Selected Topics in Tourism Management be renamed TOUR 3V90-3V95 Selected Topics in Tourism

Studies, course description and exclusion be revised.

27. TMGT 4F80 be renamed TOUR 4F80, course restriction, note and exclusion be revised.

28. TMGT 4F90 be renumbered TOUR 4F90 cross listing as GEOG 4F90 be added, course restriction, note, exclusion be

revised, prerequisite be deleted and homed in the Department of Geography.

29. TMGT 4P12 be renumbered TOUR 3P92, TMGT 4P19 (also offered as IASC 4P19 be renumbered TOUR 3P93 (also

offered as IASC 3P93), course description, restriction and exclusion be revised.

30. TMGT 4P13 Sustainable Destination Management and Issues be renumbered TOUR 4P31, renamed Destination

Marketing and Management, course description and exclusion be revised.

31. TMGT 4P17 be renumbered TOUR 4P32 cross listing as GEOG 4P32 be added, course description and exclusion be

revised.

32. TMGT 4P50 cross listed as INTC 4P50 be renamed TOUR 4P50 and course exclusion be revised.

33. TMGT 4P95 be renumbered TOUR 4P35 and course exclusion be revised.

34. TOUR 2P07 Introduction to Geospatial Technologies cross listed as GEOG 2P07 (also offered as ERSC 2P07 and IASC

2P07), TOUR 2P13 Resource and Environmental Geographies cross listed as GEOG 2P13, TOUR 2P21 Introduction to

Research Design and Methodology cross listed as GEOG 2P21, TOUR 3F90 London Field Course cross listed as GEOG 3F90,

TOUR 3F93 Costa Rica Field Course cross listed as GEOG 3F93, TOUR 3P21 Qualitative Research Design and Methodology

cross listed as GEOG 3P21, TOUR 3P22 Quantitative Research Design and Methodology cross listed as GEOG 3P22, TOUR

3P50 Resource Management: Discourse, Policies and Ethics cross listed as GEOG 3P50, TOUR 3P57 Human Geography Field

course cross listed as GEOG 3P57, TOUR 3P91 Chicago Field Trip cross listed as GEOG 3P91, TOUR 4F99 Honours Internship

cross listed as GEOG 4F99 be added to course bank and homed in the Department of Geography.

35. TOUR 2P34 Strategic Management for Tourism, TOUR 3P32 Evolution of Tourism in Niagara, TOUR 3P33 Tourism in

Parks and Protected Areas, TOUR 3P36 Operations Management for Tourism, TOUR 3P94 Revenue Management for

Tourism, TOUR 3P95 Visitor Attraction Management, TOUR 4P33 Tourism Crisis Management and TOUR 4P34 The Business

of Ecotourism be added to course bank.

36. TOUR 3Q97 Events Management cross listed as COMM 3Q97 (also offered as PCUL 3Q97) be added to course bank.

37. all other TMGT courses be renamed TOUR course prerequisite, co–requisite and/or exclusion be revised.

Explanation for Proposed Change(s)

1. to reflect changes in course bank; to reflect change in program requirements

2. to reflect change in course bank; to reflect change in Program Notes; to take advantage of the merger with Geography

as well as reflecting the loss of Tourism and Environment faculty members in recent year

3. to reflect change in course bank; to reflect change in Program Notes; we have enhanced the program in collaboration

with the Goodman School of Business

4. to reflect change in course bank; strengthens the program and allows students to be better prepared for taking new

and cross listed courses with Geography

5. to reflect change from Tourism Management to Tourism Studies; to better reflect course content


7. to reflect change from Tourism Management to Tourism Studies; course is automatically added once a student registers

in the work term therefore information is not necessary

8. to reflect change from Tourism Management to Tourism Studies; in order to use existing resources more effectively;

wanted to minimize impediments to student progress as soon as possible in year 2

9. to reflect change from Tourism Management to Tourism Studies; wanted to minimize impediments to student progress

as soon as possible in year 2

10. to reflect loss in faculty members; courses not offered for several years

11. to reflect change from Tourism Management to Tourism Studies

16




14. to reflect change from Tourism Management to Tourism Studies; ; in order to use existing resources more effectively;

wanted to minimize impediments to student progress as soon as possible in year 2; reflects outcome of curriculum review


wanted to minimize impediments to student progress as soon as possible in year 2


to avoid conflict with GEOG course codes


reflects outcome of curriculum review

18. to reflect change from Tourism Management to Tourism Studies; reflects outcome of curriculum review


reflects outcome of curriculum review


21. to reflect change from Tourism Management to Tourism Studies; to reflect change made in the Department of

Geography

22. to reflect change from Tourism Management to Tourism Studies; to allow for the cross listing of GEOG 3P91 with TOUR


24. To alert students to possibility of registering with permission

25. to reflect change made in the Department of Geography


27. to reflect change from Tourism Management to Tourism Studies; Geography does not allow group thesis

28. to reflect change from Tourism Management to Tourism Studies; in line with the revisions to the degree program to

allow cross listing of courses; to reflect GEOG 4F90

29. to reflect change from Tourism Management to Tourism Studies; reflects outcome of curriculum review; to better

reflect course content

30. to reflect change from Tourism Management to Tourism Studies; reflects outcome of curriculum review; to better

reflect course content


to avoid conflict with GEOG course codes; to better reflect course content



34. in order to use existing resources more effectively; to provide additional course options for students

35. to reflect revision of curriculum including an examination of course offerings at other universities

36. to provide additional course options for students

37. to reflect change from Tourism Management to Tourism Studies; to reflect the new department name of Geography

and Tourism Studies

38. updating information

Program Changes

Program Notes

1. A minimum grade of 60 percent in TOUR TMGT 1P91 and 1P92 is required to continue as a major.

2. Students must take one Humanities context credit and one Sciences context credit to satisfy context requirements no later

than the end of Year 3.

3. If field courses are taken as electives, a maximum of 1.5 credits may be taken from TMGT 3F70, 3F94, 3P70, 3P71.

4. Students pursuing an Honours program must complete TMGT 3P23. Students pursuing a Pass degree may substitute a 0.5

TMGT credit for this requirement.

5. ENTR 3P92, ENTR 3P93, ENTR 3P94, MKTG 2P52 and OBHR 2P52 are recommended.

2. Students are strongly recommended to take GEOG 1F91 as an elective credit to be able to take Physical Geography courses

yet cannot use it to satisfy the Sciences context requirement.

3. Students pursuing a Pass degree may substitute a 1.0 TOUR credit for TOUR 3P21 and 3P22.

4. One additional credit from Goodman School of Business is strongly recommended.

17


5 6. TOUR TMGT 4F90 is restricted to students with a minimum 75 80 percent (single or combined) major average in all Year 3

TOUR courses and approval to year 4 (honours) or permission of the Department Chair.

7. Students in the Tourism Management stream with a minimum of 13.5 overall credits may apply to enroll in RECL 4F15.

Permission of the instructor, on an individual basis, is required prior to registration.

6 8. In 20 credit Honours degree programs a maximum of eight credits may be numbered 1(alpha)00 to 1(alpha)99; at least

three credits must be numbered 2(alpha)90 or above; at least three credits must be numbered 3(alpha)90 or above; and the

remaining credits must be numbered 2(alpha)00 or above.

In this 20 credit BA with Major degree program a maximum of eight credits may be numbered 1(alpha)00 to 1(alpha)99; at least

four and one-half credits must be numbered 2(alpha)90 or above; at least one and one-half credits must be numbered

3(alpha)90 or above; and the remaining credits must be numbered 2(alpha)00 or above.

In 15 credit degree programs a maximum of eight credits may be numbered 1(alpha)00 to 1(alpha)99; at least three credits

must be numbered 2(alpha)90 or above; and the remaining credits must be numbered 2(alpha)00 or above.

In some circumstances, in order to meet university degree and program requirements, more than 20 credits may be taken.

Honours Program

Tourism and Environment

Year 1

TOUR TMGT 1P91 and 1P92 (see program note 1)

GEOG 1F90



one two elective credit credits (see program note 2)

Year 2

TMGT 2P13

TOUR 2P07 and 2P21

one credit from TOUR 2P30, 2P31, 2P32, 2P33, 2P34

COMM 1P96 or 1P97

ECON 2P28 or 2P29

GEOG 2P66

three TMGT credits numbered 2(alpha)00 or above (see program note 8)

one and one-half non-TMGT elective credits credit (see program note 6)


Year 3

TOUR 3P21, 3P22, 3P30 and 3P57 (see program note 3)

TMGT 3P23 (see program note 4)

one and one-half three TOUR TMGT credits numbered 2(alpha)90 or above (see program note notes 3 and 6 8)

one and one-half non-TMGT elective credits (see program note notes 6 3 and 8)

Year 4

One of TOUR TMGT 4F80, 4F90, or one TOUR TMGT credit numbered 3(alpha)90 or above (see program note 5 6)

TOUR 4F99

one TOUR credit numbered 2(alpha)90 or above (see program note 6)

one GEOG credit numbered 2(alpha)90 or above (see program note 6)

two TMGT credits numbered 3(alpha)90 or above

one two non-TMGT elective credit credits

Tourism Management Stream

Combining courses from various areas provides a broad background with a specialization in Tourism Management

Year 1


COMM 1P97

GEOG 1F90

one of ENTR 2P51, ITIS 2P51, MKTG 2P51, OBHR 2P51


18


one Sciences context credit

three and one-half elective credit credits (see program note 2)

Year 2

TOUR 2P07 and 2P21

TMGT 2P12 and 2P13

two credits from TMGT 2P10, 2P26, 2P41, 2P93, 2P94 (see program note 5)


COMM 1P96

one credit from ENTR 2P51, or ITIS 2P51, MKTG 2P51, OBHR 2P51

MKTG 2P51 and 2P52

one non-TGMT elective credit

Year 3

TOUR 3P21, 3P22 and 3P57


one TOUR credit numbered 2(alpha)90 to 3(alpha)99 (see program note 6)

two and one-half credits from TMGT 3P10, 3P11, 3P17, 3P18, 3P19, 3P25, 3P90

one of ENTR 2P51, or ITIS 2P51, MKTG 2P51, OBHR 2P51 (not taken in year 2)

OBHR 2P51 and 2P52

one and one-half elective credit credits (see program note 3 and 5)

Year 4

TOUR One of TMGT 4F80. 4F90, or one TOUR TMGT credit numbered 3(alpha)90 or above (see program note 5 6)

TOUR 4F99

TMGT 4P91 or 4P95


one and one-half TMGT credit numbered 3(alpha)90 or above

one credit from ENTR, ITIS, MKTG, OBHR

one two non-TMGT elective credit credits (see program note notes 4 5 and 7)

Tourism Management Stream Co-op (Honours only)

Year 1


COMM 1P97

GEOG 1F90



one Sciences context credit



TOUR 0N01, 0N90 and 2C01

Year 2

TOUR 2P07 and 2P21

TMGT 0N90, 2P12 and 2P13

two credits from TMGT 2P10, 2P26, 2P41, 2P93, 2P94 (see program note 5)


COMM 1P96


MKTG 2P51 and 2P52

one non-TGMT elective credit


TOUR 0N02 and 2C02

TMGT 0N01 and 2C01

Year 3


19



one TOUR credit numbered 2(alpha)90 to 3(alpha)99 (see program note 6)

two and one-half credits from TMGT 3P10, 3P11, 3P17, 3P18, 3P19, 3P25, 3P90


OBHR 2P51 and 2P52

one and one-half elective credit credits (see program note 3 and 5)


TOUR 0N03 and 2C03

TMGT 0N02 and 2C02

Year 4

TOUR One of TMGT 4F80. 4F90, or one TOUR TMGT credit numbered 3(alpha)90 or above (see program note 5 6)

TMGT 4P91 or 4P95


one and one-half TMGT credit numbered 3(alpha)90 or above

one credit from ENTR, ITIS, MKTG, OBHR

two non-TMGT elective credits (see program note notes 4 5 and 7)


TMGT 0N03 and 2C03

BA with Major Program



GEOG 1F90


one Science context credit

one two elective credit credits (see program note 2)

Year 2

TOUR 2P07 and 2P21


COMM 1P96 or 1P97

ECON 2P28 or 2P29

GEOG 2P66

TMGT 2P13

three TMGT credits numbered 2(alpha)00 or above (see program note 8)

one non-TMGT elective credit

one and one-half elective credits credit (see program note 6)

Year 3

TOUR 3P20, 3P21, 3P30 and 3P57 (see program note 3)

one and one-half Three TOUR TMGT credits numbered 2(alpha)90 or above (see program note notes 6 3 and 8)

one and one-half two elective credits (see program note notes 6 3 and 8)

Year 4

Two One TOUR TMGT credits credit (see program note 6 8)

one GEOG credit numbered 2(alpha)90 or above (see program note 6)

one and one-half TMGT credits numbered 3(alpha)90 or above

two and one-half non-TMGT elective credits (see program note 6 8)


Year 1


COMM 1P97

GEOG 1F90


20



one Science context credit


Year 2

TOUR 2P07 and 2P21


COMM 1P96

TMGT 2P12 and 2P13

two credits from TMGT 2P10, 2P26, 2P41, 2P92, 2P93, 2P94 (see program note 5)


MKTG 2P51 and 2P52

one non-TMGT elective credit

Year 3


Two credits from TMGT 3P10, 3P11, 3P17, 3P18, 3P19, 3P25, 3P90

one TOUR TMGT credit numbered 2(alpha) to 3(alpha)99 (see program note notes 3 and 6 5)


OBHR 2P51 and 2P52

one and one-half elective credit credits (see program note 5)

Year 4

TMGT 4P91 or 4P95

One-half TOUR credit numbered 2(alpha)90 or above (see program note 6)

one two and one-half TOUR TMGT credits numbered 3(alpha)90 or above

one ACTG, ENTR, FNCE, ITIS, MGMT, MKTG, OBHR, OPER credit

two non-TMGT elective credits (see program note notes 4 5 and 7)

Pass Program


Satisfactory completion of the first three years of the Honours program entitles a student to apply for a Pass degree.


Year 1

TMGT 1P91 and 1P92 (see program note 1)

one of ENTR 2P51, ITIS 2P51, MKTG 2P51, OBHR 2P51 three and one-half elective credits (see program note 2)

Year 2

TMGT 2P12 and 2P13

two credits from TMGT 2P10, 2P26, 2P41, 2P92, 2P93, 2P94 (see program note 5)

one credit from ENTR 2P51, ITIS 2P51, MKTG 2P51, OBHR 2P51 one non-TMGT elective credit

Year 3

TMGT 3P10 or 3P25

one and one-half credit from TMGT 3P11, 3P17, 3P18, 3P19 one TMGT credit (see program notes 3 and 5)

one of ENTR 2P51, ITIS 2P51, MKTG 2P51, OBHR 2P51 one and one-half elective credits (see program note 5)

Minor in Tourism Studies

Students in other disciplines can obtain a Minor in Tourism Studies within their degree program by completing the following

courses with a minimum 60 percent overall average:

TOUR TMGT 1P91 and 1P92


two three TOUR credits from TMGT 2P10, 2P12, 2P26, 2P93, 2P94, 3P10, 3P11, 3P17, 3P18, 3P19, 3P25, 3P97, 4P11, 4P12,

4P15, 4P17, 4P90, 4P91, 4P95

21



TOUR TMGT 0N01

Work Placement I

First co-op work placement (4 months) with an approved employer.

Restriction: open to Tourism Management stream Co-op students.

Completion of this course will replace previous assigned grade and credit obtained in TMGT (TREN) 0N01.

TOUR TMGT 0N02

Work Placement II

Second co-op work placement (4 months) with an approved employer.



TOUR TMGT 0N03

Work Placement III

Third co-op work placement (4 months) with an approved employer.



TOUR TMGT 0N90

Co-op Training and Development

Framework for the development of learning objectives by students for individual work terms. Includes orientation to the Co-op

experience goal setting, résumé preparation and interview skills preparation.

Lectures, presentation, site visits, 2 hours per week.



TOUR TMGT 1P91

Introduction to Principles of Tourism

Understanding the fundamental principles and theories of tourism including scope, demand, supply, destination and visitor

management, and socio-cultural, environmental and economic impacts of tourism in the context of sustainable tourism.


Completion of this course will replace previous assigned grade and credit obtained in TREN 1F90 and TMGT (TREN) 1P91.

TOUR TMGT 1P92

Management in Tourism Industry Sectors

Understanding the Current industry trends, structure, operating characteristics nature, and sustainable management practices

in operations of key tourism industry sectors. in the context of the principles of sustainability. Aspects of management,

including human resources, marketing, and finance applied to tourism sectors of hospitality, transportation, entertainment and

travel services.


Completion of this course will replace previous assigned grade and credit obtained in TREN 1F90, 1P92 and 2P11 and TMGT

(TREN) 1P92.

TOUR TMGT 2C01

Co-op Reflective Learning and Integration I

Provides student with the opportunity to apply what they've learned in their academic studies through career-oriented work

experiences at employer sites.


Prerequisite(s): TMGT (TREN) 0N90.

Co-requisite(s): TMGT 0N01.

Note: students will be required to prepare learning objectives, participate in a site visit write a work term report and receive a

successful work term performance evaluation.

Completion of this course will replace previous assigned grade and credit obtained in TMGT (TREN) 2C01.

TOUR TMGT 2C02

Co-op Reflective Learning and Integration II

Provides student with the opportunity to apply what they've learned in their academics studies through career-oriented work



22







TOUR TMGT 2C03

Co-op Reflective Learning and Integration III

Provides student with the opportunity to apply what they've learned in their academic studies through career-oriented work








# TOUR 2P07

Introduction to Geospatial Technologies

(also offered as ERSC 2P07, GEOG 2P07 and IASC 2P07)

Concepts and applications of geographic information systems (GIS), global positioning systems (GPS) and remote sensing.

Properties of digital maps, airborne data and satellite imagery. Principles of map compilation and design. Practical experience

in computer mapping, image interpretation in GIS analysis.


TMGT 2P10

Culture, Heritage and Tourism

Principles of preservation, conservation, and management of built and cultural resources for heritage tourism destinations on a

variety of scales from World Heritage Sites to local heritage and cultural tourism attractions. Regional identities and

environments and the importance of small and medium sized enterprises.

Lectures, 3 hours per week.

Restriction: students must have a minimum of 4.0 overall credits.

Completion of this course will replace previous assigned grade and credit obtained in TREN 2P10.

TMGT 2P12

Tourist Behaviour

Socio-cultural dimensions of tourists and tourists' behaviours during the process of taking a holiday. Issues of motivation, social

role, and attitudes in tourist settings. Ethical and delinquent behaviours, host and guest relationships, typology of tourists, and

decision-making processes.


Restriction: students must have a minimum of 4.0 credits overall.


TMGT 2P13

Research Methods and Application in Tourism

Introduction to the process of conducting and evaluating research in the field of tourism.




TMGT 2P14

Institutional Arrangements in Tourism and Environment

Systems of decision making in tourism and the environment. Institutional models and solutions. Analysis of Canadian, provincial,

and regional case studies.




23


# TOUR 2P13

Resource and Environmental Geographies

(also offered as GEOG 2P13)

Analysis of the relation between resources, global environmental dynamics, and the management of uncertainty. Emphasis on

the changing pattern of energy flows.


Prerequisite(s): one of TOUR (TMGT/TREN) 1P91 and 1P92, GEOG 1F90, 1F91, ERSC 1F01,INTC 1F90, or permission of the

instructor.

* TOUR 2P21

Introduction to Research Design and Methodology


Concepts related to research design. Properties of knowledge, preparing for research, describing and interpreting data.


Prerequisite(s): one of TREN 1F90, TOUR (TMGT) 1P91 and 1P92, GEOG 1F90, 1F91, or permission of the instructor.

TMGT 2P26

Nature-based Tourism

Emergence and global importance of different forms of nature based tourism emphasizing non-consumptive (ecotourism) and

consumptive (fishing) forms.




# TOUR TMGT 2P28

Economics of the Environment

(also offered as ECON 2P28)

Economic perspectives on environmental and natural resource issues. Topics may include valuing environment improvements,

population growth issues, sustainable development, forestry and fishery management, ozone depletion and climate change.


Restriction: open to TMGT and TREN majors until date specified in Registration guide. Students must have a minimum of 4.0

overall credits.

Completion of this course will replace previous assigned grade and credit obtained in TMGT (TREN) 2P28.

# TOUR TMGT 2P29

Sustainable Development


Aspects of sustainable development. Topics may include energy, transportation and climate, water availability, trade and

globalization, agriculture and food availability, boundary and governance issues, cities and population growth, and resource

depletion.


Restriction: open to students with a minimum of 4.0 overall credits.

Note: offered as a blended format.


* TOUR 2P30

Culture, Heritage and Tourism


Principles of preservation, conservation, and management of built and cultural resources for heritage tourism destinations on a

variety of scales from World Heritage Sites to local heritage and including indigenous cultural tourism attractions. Regional

identities and environments, and the importance of small and medium sized enterprises.




TOUR 2P31

Tourist Behaviour

Socio-cultural dimensions of tourists and tourists' behaviours during the process of taking a holiday. Issues of motivation, social

role and attitudes in tourist settings, including indigenous cultural heritage attractions. Ethical and delinquent behaviours, host

and guest relations, typology of tourists, and decision-making processes.


24




TOUR 2P32

Nature-based Tourism

Emergence and global importance of nature-based tourism as a global phenomenon, Emphasis on different forms of nature-

based tourism in reference to sustainability and other forms of alternative tourism, including definition, impacts, policy, tour

operation, ethics, development, and marketing.




* TOUR 2P33

Sustainable Integrated Waste Management


Waste reduction, reuse and recycling and environmentally sensible design. Waste auditing, optimal materials use and life cycle

analysis. Sewage treatment technologies. Composting for managing organic waste and sewage. Tourism and waste management

on land, on the water and in the air; managing wastes in remote and environmentally sensitive areas, camps and resorts.

Policy, legislation and case studies.

Lectures, seminar, workshop, 3 hours per week.



TOUR 2P34

Strategic Management for Tourism

Strategic management theories, tools and methods as applied to organizations in the tourism sector. Topics include strategy

formulation and implementation, mission and vision statements, micro environmental and macro environmental analysis, core

competences and value chain, SWOT analysis, competitive strategy, differentiation and low cost strategies, mergers,

acquisitions and strategic alliances in tourism and hospitality sectors.



* TOUR TMGT 2P41

Economics of Tourism and Leisure Activities


Introduction to the economic analysis of the tourism industry. Determinants of the demand and supply for tourism and

recreation; impact of tourism, recreation and leisure on regional and national economies. Topics may include ecotourism and

the impact of government policies on tourism and recreation.


Restriction: open to TMGT and TREN majors until date specified in Registration guide. Students must hold a minimum of 4.0

overall credits. Not open to BBE, ECON (single or combined), ECAN, INPE majors and ECON minors.

Note: major credit will not be granted to BBE, ECON (single and combined), ECAN and INPE majors.


TMGT 2P93

Sustainable Integrated Waste Management

Waste reduction, reuse and recycling; environmentally sensible design. Waste auditing, optimal materials use and life cycle analysis.

Sewage treatment technologies. Composting for managing organic waste and sewage. Tourism and waste management on land, on

the water and in the air; managing wastes in remote and environmentally sensitive areas, camps and resorts. Policy, legislation and

case studies.




* TOUR TMGT 2P94

Human-Dominated Ecosystems


Human impacts in natural and built ecosystems from local to global scales. Key environmental issues, principles, policy options,

problem solving and possibilities for creative planned change. Local examples from the Greenbelt and Niagara.


Restriction: students must have a minimum of 3.0 4.0 overall credits.

25


Prerequisite(s): one of TOUR (TMGT/(TREN) 1P91 and 1P92 (1F90), GEOG 1F90, 1F91 or permission of the instructor.

Note: the majority of classroom lectures will be replaced by 3-4 full-day field programs within the Niagara Region on Saturdays and

Sundays in September and October; (final scheduling details to be determined in consultation with students class members).

Students are expected to pay their own expenses.

completion of this course will replace previous assigned grade and credit obtained in TREN 2P16 and TMGT (TREN) 2P94.

TMGT 3F70

Field Course

Intensive field course with relevance to Tourism and Environment.


Note: consult the Department prior to registration. Students are expected to pay their own expenses.

Completion of this course will replace previous assigned grade and credit obtained in TREN 3F70.

# TOUR 3F90

London Field Course

(also offered as GEOG 3F90)

Growth and development of London as a global city, capital of Britain and major metropolitan area examining its major

functions, institutions, peoples and internal spatial structures. Major planning issues involved in achieving an enriched urban

environment.

Restriction: permission of the Department.

Prerequisite(s): two TOUR (TMGT/TREN) credits, two GEOG credits or permission of the instructor.

Note: students are expected to pay their own expenses.

Completion of this course will replace previous assigned grade and credit obtained in GEOG 3F92.

# TOUR 3F93

Costa Rica Field Course


Natural tropical environments occurring along a cross-country transect. Historical and contemporary uses and development of

these different environments. Current management practices within the context of environmental sustainability.


Prerequisite(s): two TOUR (TMGT/TREN) credits, two GEOG credits or permission of the instructor.

Note: students are expected to pay their own expenses and ensure all required vaccinations have been obtained before

departure.

*TMGT 3F94

International Field Course

(also offered as GEOG 3F94 and INTC 3F94)

Intensive field course in another country, with relevance to Tourism and Environment.



Completion of this course will replace previous assigned grade and credit obtained in TREN 3F94.

* TOUR 3F97

Tourism Field Course


Intensive field course with relevance to Tourism Studies.



Completion of this course will replace previous assigned grade and credit obtained in TMGT (TREN) 3F70.

TMGT 3P10

Tourism Planning and Development

Planning and development of tourism resorts, attractions, tourism sites and regional economies through tourism; consideration

of regional, provincial and national developments.




26


*TMGT 3P11

International Tourism


Changes in power relations, environment, society, culture and economy through the globalization of tourism. Human rights and

inequality in international tourism.




TMGT 3P15

Environmental Management

Contextual background and perspectives for managing the environment and natural resources. Examination of associated

theories and principles. Applied considerations (assessment, planning, implementation, evaluation/monitoring) gained through

development of a management plan.




TMGT 3P17

Strategic Program Planning in Ecotourism

Intersection of theory and practice for the policy and planning of sustainable ecotourism programs.



Note: field trip during the second week of class. Field trip fee.


*TMGT 3P18

Sustainable Transportation


Interdisciplinary survey of the environmental, cultural, social and economic effects of automobiles, airplanes, trains and

watercraft in built and natural environments. Impacts of tourist mobility. Principles, policies, and planning for sustainable

transportation.




TMGT 3P19

Corporate Social Responsibility in Tourism Business

Theory and practice of corporate social responsibility including principles, implementation and evaluations in tourism

businesses.




* TOUR 3P21

Qualitative Research Design and Methodology


Aspects of qualitative research: project formulation, methodologies, writing-up; relation of theory and methodology.


Prerequisite(s): TOUR (TMGT/TREN) 2P21 or permission of the instructor.

Completion of this course will replace previous assigned grade and credit obtained in GEOG 2P10.

* TOUR 3P22

Quantitative Research Design and Methodology


Geographical concepts and applications of descriptive and inferential statistics. Use of measures of central tendency,

hypothesis testing (t-test and ANOVA), regression analysis, non-parametric tests, spatial statistics and use of geographic

information systems (GIS).


Prerequisite(s): TOUR (TMGT/TREN) 2P21 or permission of the instructor.

Students will not receive earned credit for GEOG 3P22 if MATH 1F92 has been successfully completed. Completion of this course

27


will replace previous assigned grade and credit obtained in GEOG 2P11, 2P12 and MATH 1P98.

TMGT 3P23

Research Design

Research on focused issues or tasks emphasizing problem definition, establishment of terms of reference, report preparation,

communication and formal presentation.

Seminar, workshop, 3 hours per week.

Prerequisite(s): TMGT (TREN) 2P13 or permission of instructor.


*TMGT 3P25

Global Issues in Tourism and the Environment


Interaction of tourism mobility and the environment with the politics of nation states and regions. Political economy of tourism,

implications of foreign policy, travel restrictions, borders and barriers to the movement of people, resources and trade.




* TOUR 3P30

Tourism Planning and Development


Role and function of tourism policy and planning. Planning and development of tourism resorts, attractions, tourism sites and

regional economies through tourism; consideration of regional, provincial and national developments.




* TOUR 3P31

International Tourism


Changes in power relations, environment, society, culture and economy through the globalization of tourism. Security issues,

human rights and inequality in international tourism.




TOUR 3P32

Evolution of Tourism in Niagara

Overview of historical patterns of tourism in the Niagara Peninsula from the arrival of European settlers. Temporal and spatial

changes in tourism destinations. Importance of commercial and noncommercial attractions in Niagara tourism. Anchor

attractions. Evolution of tourist facilities in different tourism sectors. Tourism-mediated human impacts in natural and built

ecosystems from local to global scales. Policy options, problem solving and possibilities for creative planned change. Local

examples from the Niagara peninsula.

Lectures, seminar 3 hours per week for part of the term.


Note: the majority of classroom lectures will be replaced by 3-4 full-day field programs within the Niagara Region on Saturdays and

Sundays in September and October (final scheduling details to be determined in consultation with class members). Students are

expected to pay their own expenses.

TOUR 3P33

Tourism in Parks and Protected Areas

Broad survey of the many different types of protected areas at international, national, state, and local levels. How

preservation and conservation initiatives are both challenged and aided by park use.

Restriction: students must have a minimum of 8.0 overall credits

* TOUR 3P34

Sustainable Transportation


Interdisciplinary survey of the environmental, cultural, social and economic effects of automobiles, airplanes, trains and

watercraft in built and natural environments. Impacts of tourist mobility. Principles, policies, and planning for sustainable

28


transportation.




TOUR 3P35

Tourism Ethics

Application of ethical theory to different tourism phenomena (e.g., sex tourism, cruise line tourism, aspects of

underdevelopment, slum tourism, corporate social responsibility) in the context of socio-cultural, economic, and ecological

impacts.




TOUR 3P36

Operations Management for Tourism

Examination of concepts and techniques necessary for designing, managing, and improving service operations in tourism. Topics

include service design, planning and delivery, quality management, facility layout and location decisions, capacity planning,

waiting line models, supply chain management and project management.



TOUR 3P37

Tourism Field Course

Intensive field course of relevance to Tourism Studies.

Restriction: open to students who hold a minimum of 8.0 overall credits


Completion of this course will replace previous assigned grade and credit obtained in TMGT (TREN) 3P70 and 3P71.

# TOUR 3P50

Resource Management: Discourses, Policies and Ethics

(also offered as GEOG3P50)

Ethical and political implications of competing discourses of both human and natural resource management. Emphasis on the

production and uses of power from the level of individual leadership and network-building to that of the global governance of

resources.

Lectures/seminar, 4 hours per week.

Prerequisite(s): GEOG 2P13 or permission of the instructor.

# TOUR 3P57

Human Geography Field Course


Application of geographical principles and field techniques to problems in human geography.


Prerequisite(s): completion of Year 2 TOUR requirements in the BA TOUR (single or combined) programs or completion of Year 2

GEOG requirements in the BA GEOG (single or combined) programs.

Note: field work in October in the week following Thanksgiving Day. Students must register with the Department by April of the

preceding academic year. Students are expected to pay their own expenses.

Completion of this course will replace previous assigned grade and credit obtained in GEOG 3P56 or 3P57.

*TMGT 3P70

International Field Course


Intensive field course in another country of relevance to Tourism and Environment.

Restriction: students must have a minimum of 8.0 overall credits or permission of the instructor.



TMGT 3P71

Field Course

Intensive field course of relevance to Tourism and Environment.

Restriction: open to students who hold a minimum of 8.0 overall credits and permission of the instructor.

29




# TOUR TMGT 3P86

Place, Belonging and Exclusion Themes in Cultural Geography


Ways that places Geographies of culture and cultural identities produce one another through ongoing processes of contestation.

Analyzes power, belonging, transgression and resistance politics emphasizing heritage issues focusing on ways in which relation

of power become manifest in material and symbolic landscapes.


Restriction: open to TMGT, TREN, GEOG (single or combined) and GEOG (Honours)/BEd (Intermediate/Senior) majors until date

specified in Registration guide. After that date open to TMGT, TREN, GEOG (single or combined), GEOG (Honours)/BEd

(Intermediate/Senior), GHUM, SOSC majors and GEOG minors until date specified in Registration guide.

Prerequisite(s): one of TOUR (TMGT/(TREN) 2P10, TOUR 2P30, GEOG 2P01, 2P03, 2P06 or permission of the instructor.


TMGT 3P90

Directed Studies I

Topics and readings to be chosen in consultation with a faculty member who is willing to supervise the student.

Restriction: open to TMGT and TREN majors with a minimum of 8.0 overall credits and permission of Chair.


TMGT 3P91

Directed Studies II


Restriction: open to TMGT and TREN majors with a minimum of 8.0 overall credits and permission of Chair.


# TOUR 3P91

Chicago Field Course


Cultural and historical geographies of Chicago. Emphasis on the urban spectacle of the modern city and the contrasting

geographies of race and class inequalities through the examination of public space, architecture, housing and suburbanization,

and cultural production.


Prerequisite(s): two TOUR (TMGT/TREN) credits or two GEOG credits or permission of the instructor.

Note: students are expected to pay their own expenses.

TOUR 3P92

Tourism, Sex and Health

Health and wellness tourism, medical tourism, tourist's risk-taking behaviours and health issues. Sex tourism paradigms,

infectious disease, issues of birth tourism and suicide tourism.




* TOUR 3P93

Heritage Interpretation in the Digital Age

(also offered as IASC 3P93)

Use of web-based and mobile digital platforms to identify, inventory, interpret, and conserve Niagara's natural and cultural

heritage. Role of environmental heritage in tourism and education.

Lectures, tutorial, project workshop, 3 hours per week.

Restriction: students must have a minimum of 8.0 overall credits or permission of instructor.

Note: tutorials and class meetings held throughout the term. Independent field work fieldwork for production of an online

thematic interpretive resource focusing on heritage features in Niagara.


TOUR 3P94

Revenue Management for Tourism

Examination of the concepts, tools and techniques used to maximize revenue from fixed, perishable resources in the tourism-

related industries. Topics include demand forecasting methods, role of value in pricing, price differentiation, dynamic value-

30


based pricing, overbooking, and inventory management. Concepts are illustrated using examples from airline, hotel, and cruise

sectors.



TOUR 3P95

Visitor Attraction Management

Critical evaluation of principles and practices of managing visitor attractions and assessing their economic, socio-culture and

environmental impacts.



TOUR TMGT 3P96

Tourism, Animals and Ethics

Historical and current practices in the contermporary use of animals in the tourism industry, from both consumption and

production perspectives. Examination of current animal ethics theories, and the implications for industry and continued

research provides scope to determine the rightness or wrongness of these practices, with the aim of discussing how tourism

practitioners and theorists might think about these issues in a different light.



Completion of this course will replace previous assigned grade and credit obtained in TREN 3P93 (taken in 2011), and TMGT

(TREN) 3P96.

TOUR TMGT 3P97

Culinary Tourism

Exploration of culinary tourism through culture, history, food and wine, festivals, regional identity and sustainable

development and consumption of places. Creation of a culinary tourism product and marketing strategies.



Completion of this course will replace previous assigned grade and credit obtained in TREN 3P93 (taken in 2012) and TMGT

(TREN) 3P97.

#TMGT 3P98

Niagara's Changing Economic Geography


Changes in Niagara's industries and occupations, international trade and specialization, circular and cumulative causation,

agglomeration and the contemporary world economy, regional growth machines, economic restructuring and income inequality,

deindustrialization, agricultural decline, tourism, structural unemployment, brain drain, and transition to cognitive-cultural

economy.


Restriction: open to TMGT, TREN, GEOG (single or combined) and GEOG (Honours)/BEd (Intermediate/Senior) majors until date

specified in Registration guide. After that date open to TMGT, TREN, GEOG (single or combined), GEOG (Honours)/BEd

(Intermediate/Senior), GHUM, SOSC majors and GEOG minors until date specified in Registration guide.

Prerequisite(s): one of TMGT (TREN) 2P13, 2P41, GEOG 2P02, 2P03, 2P07, 2P12, 3P13 or permission of the instructor.

Completion of this course will replace previous assigned grade and credit obtained in GEOG 3P93 and TREN 3P98.

TOUR 3Q90

Directed Studies I


Restriction: open to students with a minimum of 8.0 overall credits and permission of Chair.


TOUR 3Q91

Directed Studies II


Restriction: open to students with a minimum of 8.0 overall credits and permission of Chair.


31


# TOUR 3Q97

Events Management

(also offered as COMM 3Q97 and PCUL 3Q97)

Introduction to events management. Topics include event types and contexts; conceptualization, planning and design;

marketing and sponsorship; budgeting and financial management; managing human and volunteer resources; staging and

logistics; risk management, evaluation and sustainability.

Seminar, 3 hours per week.

Restriction: open to TMGT, TREN, BCMN, COMM, FILM (single or combined) and PCUL majors with approval to year 4 (honours)

or permission of the instructor.

Prerequisite(s): PCUL 2P20 or TOUR 2P31.

TOUR TMGT 3V90-3V95

Selected Topics in Tourism Studies Management

Issues in Tourism Studies Management.



Completion of this course will replace previous assigned grade and credit obtained in TMGT (TREN) 3V90-3V95.

TOUR TMGT 4F80

Honours Group Research Project

Original group research project under faculty supervision.

Restriction: open to TMGT and TREN majors with approval to year 4 (honours) or permission of the Chair. Not open to GEOG

majors.

Note: consult the Chair prior to registration. Students may not register concurrently with TOUR TMGT 4F90.


# TOUR TMGT 4F90

Honours Thesis


Individual research project carried out under the direction of a faculty adviser.

Restriction: open to TMGT and TREN and GEOG (single or combined) majors with a minimum 80 percent major average and

approval to year 4 (honours) or permission of the Department.

Prerequisite(s): TMGT (TREN) 3P23 or permission of the instructor.

Note: an oral defence of the final report may be required. Consult the Chair prior to registration. students contemplating a

thesis must consult with the Department by March 15 of the preceding academic year. Regulations governing the thesis may be

obtained from the Administrative Co-ordinator. A detailed proposal must be submitted in writing before May 1 prior to entering

year 4.


* TOUR 4F99

Honours Internship


Internship on a specific geographic problem or task under either the direction of a faculty member, or in a government or

private agency working under the supervision of that agency.

Internship, 8 hours per week for 15 weeks; seminar, 3 hours per week for 9 weeks.

Restriction: open to TREN and GEOG (single or combined) majors with approval to year 4 (honours) and permission of the

Department.

*TMGT 4P11

Cross-Cultural Perspectives of Tourism and Environment


Cultural differences in philosophy and approaches to the natural and social environments, tourism resources, natural resources,

environmental policies and management.




TMGT 4P12

Tourism, Sex and Health

Relations between tourist's behaviours and health issues. Sex tourism paradigms, infectious disease, migration of disease

associated with tourism. Human trafficking issues associated with sex tourism.

32





TMGT 4P13

Sustainable Destination Management and Issues

Tourism destination management concepts through the use of case studies. Theories, principles and implications of clustering,

partnerships, strategic alliances and innovation between various destination stakeholders.


Restriction: students must have a minimum of 12.0 overall credits or permission of the instructor


TMGT 4P14

Issues in Environmental Studies

Exploration of contemporary topics in environmental studies.


Restriction: students must have a minimum of 12 .0 overall credits or permission of the instructor.


TMGT 4P15

Tourism Ethics

Exploration of values and moral development relating to tourism.




TMGT 4P17

Sustainable Rural Tourism

Agritourism, sustainability and critical evaluation of rural tourism as an alternative community development tool.




#TMGT 4P19

Heritage Interpretation in the Digital Age

(also offered as IASC 4P19)

Use of digital platforms to identify, inventory, interpret, and conserve Niagara's natural and cultural heritage. Role of

environmental heritage in tourism and education.

Lectures, tutorial, project workshop, 3 hours per week.


Note: tutorials and class meetings held throughout the term. Independent field work for production of an online interpretive

report on environmental heritage features in Niagara.


TOUR 4P30

Themes in Tourism Development

Historical, contemporary and future themes in tourism and development theory. Implications of selecting tourism as a

development strategy under various tourism development paradigms.



Completion of this course will replace previous assigned grade and credit obtained in TREN 4P10 and TMGT (TREN) 4P90.

TOUR 4P31

Destination Marketing and Management

Tourism destination management, theories, principles and implications of maintaining a sustainable competitive advantage,

and best practice examples.




33


* TOUR 4P32

Sustainable Rural Tourism


Socio-economic challenges of rural communities in developed and developing nations. Critical evaluation of rural tourism as an

alternative community development tool.



Completion of this course will replace previous assigned grade and credit obtained in TMGT (TREN) 4P17 and GEOG 4P63.

TOUR 4P33

Tourism Crisis Management

Planning and implementation of management processes of the adverse effects of crises and disasters on tourism. Focus on crisis

management before, during and after the event for tourism destinations and individual tourism businesses and organizations.



TOUR 4P34

The Business of Ecotourism

Building knowledge at the intersection of theory and practice, focusing on the construction of a comprehensive ecotourism

program plan through exposure to existing ecotourism businesses.

Lectures, fieldtrip, 3 hours per week.


Note: experiential learning-based. Active participation on the field trip (Haliburton Sustainable Forest) is mandatory. Students

are expected to pay their own expenses.

TOUR 4P35

Managerial Decision Making for Sustainable Tourism

Theories, concepts and tools of decision making in pursuit of organizational objectives. Analysis of decision making processes,

determinants of successful decisions and roles of uncertainty, risk, power and conflict illustrated with cases from the tourism

industry. Focus on challenges of implementing principles of sustainability.



Completion of this course will replace previous assigned grade and credit obtained in TREN 3P95 and TMGT (TREN) 4P95.

# TOUR TMGT 4P50

Themes in Intercultural Studies


Seminar discussion and development of individual research papers on an intercultural studies theme as reflected in each

student's major area.



Prerequisite(s): INTC 1F90 or permission of the Director of Intercultural Studies.


TMGT 4P90

Themes in Tourism Development

Historical, contemporary and future themes in tourism and development theory. Implications of selecting tourism as a

development strategy under various tourism development paradigms.



Completion of this course will replace previous assigned grade and credit obtained in TREN 4P10 and 4P90.

TMGT 4P91

Strategic Alliances in Tourism

Key structures and processes required for the successful management and development of co-operative relationships among

tourism businesses and other organizations involved in tourism using theoretical concepts and practical case studies.




34


TMGT 4P95

Managerial Decision Making for Sustainable Tourism

Theories, concepts and tools of decision making in pursuit of organizational objectives. Analysis of decision making processes,

determinants of successful decisions and roles of uncertainty, risk, power and conflict illustrated with cases from the tourism

industry. Focus on challenges of implementing principles of sustainability.



Completion of this course will replace previous assigned grade and credit obtained in TREN 3P95 and 4P95.

35


To: Chabriol Colebach, University Secretary

From: Lynn Rempel, Chair, Undergraduate Student Affairs Committee Date: May 17, 2016

Undergraduate Student Affairs Committee


The Committee Held its meeting on May 13, 2016 1. For the Information of Senate: Academic Integrity Advisory Committee Report

USAC discussed the 2016 report from the Academic Integrity Advisory Committee. https://brocku.ca/webfm_send/40746

Page 1

Brock University Senate YEAR-END COMMITTEE REPORT FORM

Committee Senate Governance Committee

Academic Year 2015-16

Committee Chair Linda Rose-Krasnor

Committee Vice-Chair Christine Daigle

Committee Members Poling Bork (Faculty Mathematics and Science)

Dan Malleck (Faculty of Applied Health Sciences)

Julia Polyck-O'Neill (Graduate Student Senator)

Lynn Rempel (Faculty of Applied Health Sciences)

Heather Whipple (Library)

David Whitehead (Goodman School of Business)

Vera Woloshyn (Faculty of Education)

Ex Officio:

Jack Lightstone (President and Vice-Chancellor)

Neil McCartney (Provost and Vice-President, Academic)

Greg Finn (Vice-Provost and Associate Vice-President, Academic)

Larry Savage (Vice-Chair of Senate)

Ejaz Ahmed (Dean, Faculty of Mathematics and Science)

Carol Merriam (Dean, Faculty of Humanities)

Spencer Dawson (VPFA, BUSU)

John Dingle (Library, Liaison Services)

Administrative Support Chabriol Colebatch (University Secretary) Margaret Thompson (Associate Secretary) Angela Magro (Assistant Secretary)

Number of meetings 8 meetings of Senate Governance from August 2015 to April 2016

3 meetings of Senate Governance with Senate Chairs, Vice-Chairs and Secretaries

List of Sub-committees Please provide a list of sub-committees (if any) including their chairs and members

Page 2

Governance Subcommittee on Restructuring (Vera Woloshyn, Spencer Dawson, Linda Rose-Krasnor, Poling Bork)

Task Force on Revising the Senate-Board Integrated Planning Oversight Committee Mandate and Composition (Scott Henderson, Linda Rose-Krasnor)

Senate Election Subcommittee (Maureen Connolly, Christine Daigle, Erin Sharpe)

Summary of Committee Work

Major issues discussed

Overlap and gaps among Senate Committee mandates, particularlyTLPC, UPC, SCGS, and USAC, as well as between Governance andPPBAC

Mandate and composition of the Joint Senate-Board IntegratedPlanning Oversight Committee

Process for restructuring academic units

Guidelines for honorary degree recipients

Composition of Advisory Committees on administrativeappointments and difficulties in obtaining nominations

Year-end report templates for Senate Committees

Program review for Brock degree programs offered by theConcordia Lutheran Seminary

Governance Committee budget priorities

Issues Referred to other Committees

- Mandates and responsibilities of TLPC, UPC, SGSC and USAC, as well as between Governance and PPBAC

- Report templates for year-end Senate Committee reports

- Recommendation that more research support and administrative support for Senate and its Committees be referred to PPBAC as priority Governance budget items.

- Recommended that the Chair of Senate request regular updates from the Provost and VP Academic on the implementation of the recommendations from the Ad Hoc Senate Committee on Academic Program Review and Prioritization

Page 3

Changes to the Faculty Handbook referred to Senate


(continued)

FHB I: 7.7 Appointment of an Interim Vice President Research, 8.4.7 Appointment of an Interim Dean, and 13.7 Appointment of an Interim University Librarian. To endorse the proposed procedures for the appointment of interim administrators. (August 26, 2015)

FHB I: 8.2 Review of Faculties. To not endorse the proposed requirement for an external review of each Faculty in the 4th year of a Dean’s term. (August 26, 2015)

FHB II: 9.2 – Composition of the Graduate Studies Committee.

That the composition of the SGSC include the Director of Graduate Studies as an ex-officio member (October 28, 2015),

FHB II: 9.1.6- Meetings. That unforeseen changes in Committee meeting locations will require an email to Committee members and posting of the new location outside the scheduled meeting room. (October 28, 2015)

FHB I: 1.3.2 Election of Members. That if the Chair of Senate is ineligible to serve as an elected faculty representative on the Board of Trustees, the Vice-Chair of Senate shall serve on the Board in the place of the Chair. If the Vice-Chair is ineligible, the Chair of the Senate Governance Committee shall serve. (November 25, 2015)

FHB II: 9.8.1. Terms of Reference of the Teaching and Learning Policy Committee. The deletion of the restriction of policy support to only “full time” teaching staff, professional librarians and students by this Committee. (November 25, 2015)

FHB II: 4.1. Appointed Members of Senate, without term The replacement of ex-officio appointment of the Associate Vice-President, IT and Chief Information Officer with the appointment of the Vice-President, Administration. (November 25, 2015)

FHB I.8.4.2 Advisory Committees – Deans. That the requirement for an elected full-time faculty member of Senate from another Faculty in the University as a Committee member also may be filled by a Professional Librarian from the Library. (January 27, 2016)

Page 4

FHB I: 11.2.2 Advisory Committee – Vice-President, Administration and FHB I: 12.2.2 Advisory Committee – Vice-President, Advancement The addition of a Professional Librarian to the Advisory Committee membership for both the Vice-President Administration and the Vice-President Advancement. (January 27, 2016)

FHB II: 9.1.5 Committee Reports A standard Year-End Report template be implemented for use by Senate Committees. (January 27, 2016)

FHB III: C.12. Restructuring Academic Units (new section). A new process for restructuring academic units. (February 24, 2016).

Summary of Committee Work continued

Other motions and recommendations referred to Senate

FHB II: 9.5.1 Joint Senate-Board Integrated Planning Oversight Committee. That a task force be struck to draft a new composition and revised mandate for a joint committee of the Board and Senate on integrated planning, which would be composed of the Chair of Senate, one member of the Senate Governance Committee of Senate, the Chair of the Board and one member of the Board. (October, 28 and November 25, 2015).

Merger of the Department of Geography and the Department of Tourism Management. That subject to approval by Senate of the merger of the above Departments that the name of the new Department be the Department of Geography and Tourism Studies. (October 28, 2015)

IN CAMERA Motions recommending appointments to various Senate Committees, the Ad Hoc Committee on Scholarly Publishing, and recommendations for honorary degrees (October 28, 2015)

Senate Elections.

Recommendations to Senate for membership on the Election Subcommittee and the appointment of scrutineers for the 2016 Senate elections. (January 27, 2016)

Guidelines for Honorary Degree Nominations.

Page 5

Recommendation to Senate on revisions to the Procedures and Guidelines for Nominations of Honorary Degrees. (February 24, 2016)

Academic Program Review of Degree Programs offered by the Concordia Lutheran Seminary. Recommendation that ARC conduct a regular program review of these degree programs at the very next cycle of review pursuant to clause 3 of the agreement between Brock University and the Seminary. (March 30, 2016).

Programs and/or Academic Regulations discussed

Other IN CAMERA. Motions on recommendations for the potential membership of the Advisory Committee on the Vice-Provost, Enrollment Management and International (November 25, 2016), and nominees for the Advisory Committee - Dean of Mathematics and Science (February 24, 2016).

Information Items 2015-16

August 26, 2015 Governance Committee Terms of Reference Discussion of Implementation of Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic

Program Review and Prioritization Report Review of Nominations Received for Potential Membership on the

Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Scholarly Publishing Review of Nominations Received to Fill Vacancies on the Academic

Review Committee Proposed Amendments to FHB Section I: 7, 8, 13 October 28, 2015 Review of Joint Board-Senate Orientation and Potential

Recommendations Development of a Process for Consultation with Senate Consideration of Format for Committee Year-End Reports – Oral Report November 25, 2015 Faculty Members on the Board of Trustees (re resignation) Process to Merge/Restructure Centres, Departments, Faculties (Oral

Update)

Page 6

Honorary Degree Nominations/Promotion – Oral Update January 6, 2016 Consideration of Format for Senate Committee Year-End Reports Update from Sub-committee to Draft a Process to Merge/Restructure

Centres, Departments, Faculties Teaching and Learning Policy Committee – Lack of FHB Assigned Sections

(FHB II: 8.2.4) January 27, 2016 Revised Submission from the Sub-committee to Draft a Process to

Merge/Restructure Centres, Departments, Faculties Review Honorary Degree Guidelines February 24, 2016 Teaching and Learning Policy Committee – Lack of FHB Assigned Sections

(Oral Update) Proposed Amendments to FHB II: 9.5.1 regarding composition of

Advisory Committee March 30, 2016 Revisions to FHB resulting from Quality Council

MULTI-YEAR PLANNING Please enumerate plans and identify the top two planning priorities within this category

SHORT-TERM PLANS Use the space below to describe short-term plans (1 year). What are recommendations for next year’s Committee?

- Arrange for two or three Senate-led presentations by outside speakers on critical issues- Assess the usefulness of meetings of Chairs, Vice-Chairs and Secretaries and look for ways

to improve them - Discussion on the meaning of “full-time teaching and research” (as cited in the Brock Act) in

the context of eligibility for Senate service and participation in elections. - Overlap of mandates of IT&I and other committees outside of Senate; where are IT&I

decisions being made? - FHB overlap in mandates of UPC, TLPC, SGSC and USAC- Development of procedures for restructuring of academic units not covered by the new

FHB III: 12 language. - Approval of calendar entries by Senate or at the Committee level- Potential changes to the FHB Section I that may be proposed by the Board- Ombudsman Act and potential mandate to universities

Page 7


MEDIUM-TERM PLANS Use the space below to describe medium-term plans (2-5 years).

Review of FHB text, in order to identify inconsistencies and redundancies, in addition to providing linked references.

Develop processes for effective Board-Senate communication and collaboration.

Review of Senate’s committee structure and mandates


LONG-TERM PLANS Use the space below to describe long-term plans (more than 5 years).

Page 9

OTHER COMMENTS

Name

Signature Date

Brock University SenateYEAR-END COMMITTEE REPORT FORM

Committee

Academic Year

Committee Chair

Committee Vice-Chair

Committee Members

Administrative Support

Number of meetings


Page 1


Major issues

discussed

Issues Referred to

other Committees

Changes to the

Faculty Handbook

referred to Senate

Page 2

Summary of Committee Work cont’ed

Other motions and

recommendations

referred to Senate

Programs and/or

Academic

Regulations

discussed

Other

Page 3



Page 4





Page 5

OTHER COMMENTS

Name

Signature Date

(Return to: University Secretary, Brock University, ST 1107, St. Catharines, Ontario L2S 3A1)

Page 6


Committee Information Technology & Infrastructure Committee


Committee Chair Nota Klentrou

Committee Vice-Chair David Hutchison

Committee Members AmahaBanava

Jarold CosbyMario De DivitiisTom Dunk (ex-offlcio)Kristine FreudenthalerGreg Finn (ex-offlcio)Bryan GiordanoScott HendersonHemantha HerathJennifer LackeyJack Lightstone (ex-officio)Neil McCartney (ex-offlcio)Joe NorrisPeter LandeySid SegalowitzBarry Wright (ex-officio)

Administrative Support Caroline LidstoneNumber of meetings 9

List of Sub-committeesPlease provide a list of sub-committees (if any) including their chairs and members

N/A

Page 1


IT&l reviewed the completion of the 2014/15 Fiscal Year Projects. It was noted that fifty of the seventy fourprojects non-IT capital projects listed for fiscal year 14/15 were completed. It was suggested that if financing isin place consideration should be given to contingent external options to assist with capital projects.

IT&l received regular updates from Facilities Management on Major Capital Projects and DeferredMaintenance.

IT&I received regular updates on the New Accounting and HR Systems, the SharePoint, and the redesign ofBrock’s Webaite.

Major issuesdiscussed

In the January meeting of IT&l Mr. Warren Price provided an update and a presentation on the final version ofthe Campus Plan.

IT&l received a draft document of Guiding Principles (fundamentals, characteristics, transformation) of spacefrom Facilities Management.

IT&I received the Report on the Federal Government’s time limited Strategic Investment Fund (SIF) initiative,and the Program Guide released on April 6. The report included timelines and Brock University’s CapitalProjecla for consideration. These projects must be completed and ready for intended use by April 30, 2016.

The Committee engaged in discussions about previous project plans and moves related to Goodman School ofBusiness, Cairns, and use of BIOLINC by other faculties. It was requested that more information be provided toIT&I on the addition of another floor to GSB building, and refurbishing of science laboratory classrooms in theMackenzie Chown Complex.

Issues Referred toother Committees

None

Changes to theFaculty Handbookreferred to Senate

Page 2


The Campus Plan submitted to Senate for information on February3,2016.

The collaborative/interactive tool of Office 365 - SharePoint waspresented to Senate for the Information on February 3, 2016.

Other motions andrecommendationsreferred to Senate

Programs andlorAcademicRegulationsdiscussed

GSB Construction updates.

Updates on the Sean O’Sullivan renovations and the Active LearningClassroom.

IT&I received information on greenhouse gas emissions and some ofthe key initiatives underway to reduce emissions by 20% below the

Other 2013 baseline levels by the year 2023. It was noted that the Brockcommunity need to be more engaged in energy saving measures.

IT&l received confirmation that the Graduate Student Association wasallocated new social (TH 300 level) and study (CRN 400 level) space.

Page 3

MULTI-YEAR PLANNINGPlease enumerate plans and identify the top two planning priorities within this category

SHORT-TERM PLANS Use the space below to describe short-term plans (1 year). What arerecommendations for next year s Committee?

Review and monitor the Goodman School of Business and Strategic Initiative Fund projects.

Conduct an inventory on the use of space across the campus.

Review and prioritize existing and new Capital Projects for consultation with the Administration.

Clarify the interaction of mandates with the Advisory Committee on Space and the Classroom ModernizationCommittee. Communicate with the Advisory Committee on Space to develop principles around spaceallocation with clear objectives, goals and procedures to improve transparency and facilitate a dialogue on theuse of space.

Continuing issues from last year’s report:

a) Since last year, the issue of anticipating (and therefore being able to plan for) new program needs wasraised without much resolution, except to indicate a closer link to the Academic Review Committee. We furthersuggest that if ARC suspects that new physical infrastructure may be needed for a proposed program within afew years, that those proposing the new program be required to meet with Facilities Management to considerthe issues, and their conclusions be brought to IT&l for discussion.

b) There is some continuing concern about IT issues with respect to faculty research. A specialsubcommittee, perhaps joint with the Senate committee on Research and Scholarship couldaddress concrete concerns in this area.

c) Deciding on the future of the Hamilton Campus.

Page 4

MUL TI-YEAR PLANNINGPlease enumerate plans and identify the top two planning priorities within this category

MEDIUM-TERM PLANS Use the space below to describe medium-term plaiis (2-5 years).

Complete the development and implementation of the new HR system.

Support the exploration and/or establishment of new Learning Platforms such as Sharepoint as an interactivetool for teaching.



Investigate the use of wind turbines as a source of energy.

Development and implementation of a new Student Information System

Page 5

OTHER COMMENTS

Name

Signature Date


Page 6


Committee Planning, Priorities & Budget Advisory Committee


Committee Chair Nota Klentrou

Committee Vice-Chair Barbara Sainty

Committee Members Ejaz Ahrned (ex-officio)Lee BeldingSpencer DawsonGreg Finn (ex-officlo)Heather GordonScott HendersonMartin Kusy (BUFA Observer)Jack Lightstone (ex-officio)Neil McCartney (ex-officio)Lynn RempelLinda Rose-KrasnorSusan SydorPeter Tiidus (ex-officio)Heather Whipple

Administrative Support Caroline LidstoneNumber of meetings I I + I special meeting


PP&BAC approved the mandate of an ad-hoc sub-committee on the Process toDevelop the next SMA. The mandate of this Ad-hoc sub-committee is “in consultationwith Senior Administration”, design a plan for ongoing and meaningful Senateinvolvement in the development of Brock’s next SMA.

Page 1


PP&BAC solicited feedback from the other Senate Committees regarding budgetpriorities for the 2016-2017 budget year. PP&BAC compiled the feedback from theother committees and submitted a list of recommendations and priorities for the2016-17 Budget Development to the administration.

The Committee received updates on the Revenue and Expense Allocation Model,

Major issues a tool used to make decisions. This model would increase transparency to

discussed understand where revenues and expenses are generated.

The Committee engaged in discussions related to strategies for the next SMA.

PP&BAC arrived to the conclusion that the proposed 2016-17 budget supports theacademic mission after soliciting feedback from: a) the Deans and the InterimUniversity Librarian on the impact of the proposed budget on fulfilling theiracademic commitments, and b) the Administration on how the development of the2016-17 Budget addressed the academic priorities as determined by the variousSenate Committees and presented by PP&BAC to Senate.

PP&BAC was tasked by Governance to develop a template for theYear-End Senate Committee Reports that will include a Multi-YearPlanning section. A draft template was distributed to members ofPP&BAC on January 11. After receiving feedback from the chairs ofthe other Senate Committees, PP&BAC finalized the template and

Issues Referred to presented it to Governance, other Senate Committees and Senate.other Committees

None


Page 2


MOTION (April 17, 2016) that the 2016-17 Budget supports theacademic mission of the University.


Discussion on academic priorities and related metrics continues.

Programs andlorAcademicRegulationsdiscussed

Regular Funding formula review updates.

Regular updates on the Fiscal Framework received for information.

Other

Page 3


SHORT-TERM PLANS Use the space below to describe short-term plans (1 year). What arerecommendations for next year’s Corn in ittee?

Continue to seek timely feedback from other Senate Committees to inform the subsequent year’s budgetdevelopment.

Discuss the implications of the shortage in the University’s human resources including faculty and Librarianattrition issues, especially in resource thin departments and programs.

Page 4



Continue the discussion on academic priorities and develop related metrics.



Page 5

OTHER COMMENTS

Name

Signature Date


Page 6

Page 1


Committee Research and Scholarship Policy Committee


Committee Chair Barry Wright (to Dec 2015); Dan Malleck (Jan-May 2016)

Committee Vice-Chair Dan Malleck (to Dec 2015); Heather Whipple (Mar-May 2016)

Committee Members Kate Bezanson, Faculty of Social Sciences Irene Blayer, Faculty of Humanities Kirsten Bott, Graduate Student Society Matt Campbell, Senator, Brock University Student Union Christene Carpenter-Cleland, Faculty of Math and Sciences Danny Cho, Goodman School of Business Greg Finn, Vice Provost and Associate VP, Academic Gary Libben, Vice President Research Ryan McCarthy, Director, Office of Research ServicesDan McCarthy, Faculty of Math and Sciences Larry Savage, Faculty of Social Sciences & Vice-Chair of Senate Mike Plyley, Dean, Faculty of Graduate Studies David Siegel, Dean, Faculty of Education Heather Whipple, Library Vera Woloshyn, Faculty of Education Jonathan Younker, Interim University Librarian

Administrative Support

Judith Maiden, Office of the Vice President, Research

Number of meetings Nine.


N/A

Page 2


Major issues discussed

Review: Centre for Sport Capacity Review: Posthumanism Research Instituteo This discussion identified an issue within the Faculty

Handbook regarding how consultation with deans isundertaken for trans-faculty institutes.

Review: Brock Institute for Scientific Computing Review: Centre for Multiliteracies Creation of the Centre for Business Analytics Update on Tecumseh Centre for Aboriginal Research and

Education Research Internationalization Task Force Report Responsible Conduct of Research Policy Indirect costs of Research Policy Research Commercial Activities Policy Vision 2020: The Brock Research Plan and Integration Plan FHB Changes re: Research Ethics Boards’ policies related to

appointments, conflicts of interest, and reconsideration andappeals

Awareness of research data management issues and expectedchanges to Tri-Agency policies regarding data sharing

Lack of support for quantitative and statistical methods


Changes and additions to Faculty Hand Book relating to REB appointments, conflicts of interest, and reconsideration and appeals Changes in FHB Section III: 8.2.2; 8.2.3; 8.2.4; with 8.2.5 modified and renumbered 8.2.6. Addition of FHB Section III: 8.2.7; 8.2.7; and a new 8.2.5

Page 3


Other motions and recommendations referred to Senate

Responsible Conduct of Research Policy was brought forward toSenate for feedback, and will return after broader consultation. Brock Institute for Scientific Computing name was changed toBrock Institute for Research Computing following discussion in this committee Recommendation that FHB III C: 9.3.3 be modified to addressambiguity relating to creation of new institutes. Current handbook requires approval of “appropriate dean” but this does not allow for the case of institutes that consist of membership from across faculties. Although initiated in Senate, this ambiguity emerged from an issue relating to RSPC business.

Programs and/or Academic Regulations discussed

Tecumseh Centre for Aboriginal Research and Education Research Internationalization Task Force Report Responsible Conduct of Research Policy Indirect Costs of Research Policy Research Commercial Activities Policy Research Ethics Board appointment, conflict of interest, and

reconsideration and appeals

Other

This committee spent much of its time mulling over reports of the outcome of research grant applications. In the 8 April 2016 meeting it considered the unexpected evidence that there is an inverse relationship between the amount of money a researcher receives and the number of publications (chapters and papers) a researcher writes. It led to a considerable discussion about how research output is measured and how we as an institution value grant money versus research output. More discussion needs to be made about the meaning, usefulness, and relevance of these statistics. The committee also identified key areas of concern to researchers that should be addressed. This includes the way that Brock researchers’ work is disseminated to non-academic audiences (mass media, internet, etc. exposure) and the infrastructure related to informal aspects of research, such as socialization spaces and the provision of food services during summer and break periods (December and Exam breaks, etc) Such elements, although not seemingly related directly to research, do contribute, positively, to a dynamic research environment and the committee discussed whether it is time for the university to re-evaluate those aspects of the way research is supported on campus.

Page 4



1) A number of issues discussed by the committee were referred to the Vice PresidentResearch for further action. This committee should monitor those issues and confirmthat the VPR and ORS are continuing to pursue them. Specifically, with respect toThe Research Internationalization Task Force Report, in the meeting of 18 Sept2015 a number of recommendations and suggestions for future iterations of thereport were made.

2) Members of this committee identified several areas of concern that this committeeshould discuss and on which it should take some action. Several of these were notaddressed this year.

a. More research shown on the Brock University websiteb. A strategy to support Brock researchers in interacting with media about their

researchc. Campus resources such as food services for researchers, especially

graduate students, who are on campus during periods of “slowdown”d. Whether research grant support is appropriate

3) This committee will be more directly involved in the appointments to the ResearchEthics Boards and it will need to develop procedures appropriate to thatresponsibility.



Several issues that may require long term planning include the committee’s interest in developing strategies to encourage

a. More support and finances for graduate studentsb. The creation of informal meeting places for researchers to interact (for

example people discussed the need for an informal “grad club” type ofenvironment that could facilitate interaction but in an unstructured way.



None discussed

Page 5

OTHER COMMENTS

Name Dan Malleck

Signature Date May 17, 2016


Page 1


CommitteeSenate Student Appeals Board


Committee Chair Erin Sharpe

Committee Vice-Chair Paul Hamilton

Committee MembersE. Sharpe (Chair), P. Hamilton (Vice-Chair), B. Davis, G. Finn, D. Good, L. Savage, J. Li, M. Kissel (Student Rep), M. Reedyk, S. Sydor, M. Campbell (Student Rep), I. Blayer, K. Thomson (BUFA)

Administrative Support Diane Uppal

Number of meetings 9


Page 2


Major issuesdiscussed

Meetings: The Board met 9 times between July 2015 and May 2016. In total, the Board reviewed 64 cases, of which 31 appeals were granted and 33 were denied.

Type of cases:

Academic Suspension Granted (16) Denied (18) Academic Misconduct Granted (1) Denied (5) Grade Appeals Granted (1) Denied (2) Backdated Withdrawals Granted (0) Denied (2) Academic Debarment Granted (5) Denied (5) Scholarship Appeals Granted (7) Denied (1) Probation Granted (1) Denied (2)

The number of cases heard by the Board in 2015-16 was slightly higher than past years. The number of academic misconduct cases heard by the Board in 2015-2016 was lower than last year.

YEAR TOTAL number of cases

Academic suspension / debarment/probation

Grades / withdrawal / scholarship

Academic misconduct

2015-16 64 45 13 6

2014-15 42 26 9 7

2013-14 50 47 1 2

2012-13 50 41 5 4

2011-12 52 40 7 5

2010-11 32 29 3 0


The Board is working on revisions to the Faculty Handbook regarding appeals procedures. These will be submitted to Senate by the Undergraduate Program Committee.

Page 3


Page 4



Programs and/orAcademicRegulationsdiscussed

Other

Page 5



Page 6





Page 7

OTHER COMMENTS

Name Erin Sharpe

Signature

Date May 15, 2016

Page 1


Committee Teaching and Learning Policy Committee


Committee Chair Susan Sydor

Committee Vice-Chair Joe Norris

Committee Members Matthew Babela Gregory Betts (BUFA Observer) Fayez Elayan Greg Finn (ex-officio) Nancy Francis Nigeria Goli-Emiko Murphy Jill Grose Brian Hutchings (ex-officio) Debbie Kalvee Anna Lathrop (ex-officio) Jack Lightsone (ex-officio) Tanya Martini Neil McCartney (ex-officio) Laurie Morrison Michael Plyley (ex-officio) Shauna Pomerantz Bill Ralph Larry Savage David Siegel (ex-officio) Christopher Ventura

Administrative Support Caroline Lidstone

Number of meetings Nine


Page 3


Major issues

discussed

- Draft Digital Learning Resources Guidelines

The Committee discussed the draft document and provided feedback.

- Audio Recording Policy: The Committee decided not to pursue the policy and advised that the existing Accommodation Policy and Code of Conduct at Brock be followed.

- Two Priorities for PP&BAC: To protect and enhance small group learning; to advocate for an expanded course bank to include a wider variety of courses and modes of delivery. Due to limited time frame to submit information to PP&BAC, the Committee suggested that PP&BAC in the future request information from Senate Committees at least after the third meeting of Senate Committees.

- Sections of the Faculty Handbook assigned to Senate

Committees: Discussion took place that T&LPC was not assigned sections of the Faculty Handbook. Members were asked to set aside time to have discussions about global issues such as Brock’s Policy on Teaching and Learning. The 2016-2017 Committee should continue discussion of this matter.

- Strategic Mandate Agreement (SMA): The Committee discussed using the Institutional Teaching and Learning Plan as a framework for strategies for the SMA.

- Exam Supervision (FHB III 9.1.9): The Committee discussed whether there should be better guidelines for test/examination situations other than those scheduled by the Registrar’s office (e.g., lab tests). The perspective of an Exam Invigilator at the Goodman School of Business is being sought by the Faculty Associate for Service Learning.

- Indigenous Education Advisory Committee Report: The Committee received the Report in response to a

directive from the 2014-2015 T&LPC that the Office of the Vice-Provost, Teaching and Learning produce a report on teaching and learning at Brock University, and how programs can address “The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People.”, using the Two Row Wampum Belt as a guide. The Report was received and reviewed by T&LPC along with members of the Indigenous Education Advisory Committee working group. The full report was then forwarded to the Aboriginal Education Council. The full Report with T&LPC’s recommendation and endorsement was also forwarded to the Committee of Academic Deans.

Page 4

Issues Referred to

other Committees

- Terms of Reference: That “full time” in reference to Teaching Staff be removed from the Terms of Reference of the Teaching and Learning Policy Committee. A formal request was sent to the Chair of Governance Committee for consideration.

- Availability of facilities at Brock to record lectures, and the concerns affiliated with privacy and surveillance. A motion was referred to the Classroom Modernization Committee to report on the number of classrooms that provide recording status; investigate Niagara College’s model; and provide feedback around viability of recording (visual and audio) in teaching and learning spaces.

Changes to the

Faculty Handbook

referred to Senate

Page 5

Summary of Committee Work cont’d

Other motions and

recommendations

referred to Senate

Programs and/or

Academic

Regulations

discussed

Other

Page 6

MULTI-YEAR PLANNING Please enumerate plans and identify the top two planning priorities within each category


1. Sections of the Faculty Handbook assigned to Senate Committee on Teaching

and Learning- While specific responsibilities are assigned to Senate committees, there are no

specific responsibilities assigned to the committee on Teaching and Learning Policy. In some respects this may imply that all matters applying to teaching and learning apply to the committee. This makes it difficult to devise a work plan for the committee. The committee needs to discuss this in the year to come. What should the Faculty Handbook say about the mandate of the Senate Committee on Teaching and Learning Policy?

2. Strategic Mandate Agreement (SMA)

The Committee needs to consider how it will make a contribution to the 2017 SMA.

3. Indigenous EducationWhile the committee has forwarded its report to Senate for action, it will benecessary to discuss next step actions and in particular the role of the committee inIndigenizing Brock University.

4. The Institutional Teaching and Learning Five Year Plan

The Committee needs to consider its relationship to the development of the next“Five Year Plan.” Items 1, 2 and 4 are related and rooted in item #1. Without aclear understanding of the role of the Senate committee in the determination ofpolicy, the committee has an ambiguous relationship with the activities of otheracademic units. https://brocku.ca/webfm_send/39244


Page 8





Page 9

OTHER COMMENTS

Name

Signature Date



Committee Undergraduate Program Committee


Committee Chair Heather Gordon (M&S)

Committee Vice-Chair Maureen Connolly (AHS)

Committee Members Jeff Boggs (SS, Member at Large)Athena Colman (HUM, Member at Large)Sakoleta’ Widrick (EDU)Fayez Elayan (GSB)Scott Henderson (Ex-Officio; Senate Chair; SS)Greg Finn (Ex-Officio; Vice-Provost and Associate Vice-President)Peter Tiidus (Ex-Offlcio; Dean AHS)David Siegel (Ex-Officio; Dean EDU)Barb Davis (Ex-Officio; Registrar)Amalia Banava (Student Senator)Matt Campbel (Student Senator)Angela Book (BUFA observer; non-voting)Evelyn DiFruscio (Registrar’s office; non-voting)Gloria Gallagher (Registrar’s office; non-voting)Sue Guenther (Registrar’s office; non-voting)

Administrative Support Amanda Whitwell

Number of meetings 1 7


Subcommittee to review and revise FHB lilA section 12, Student Appeals to bringregulations in line with current process: B. Davis, J. Mandigo and E. Sharpeestablished May 2, 2016

Page 1


Changes/additions to the 2015-16 Undergraduate Calendar

Submissions for Undergraduate Calendar 2016-17

Submitted reports to ARC on External Reviewer’s reports on Undergraduate Programsoffered by the Techumseh Centre for Aboriginal Research and Education, the Centrefor Studies in Arts and Culture, the Departments of Dramatic Arts Economics Music

Major issues Psychology, Recreation and Leisure Studies, Sociology, Visual Arts and Physicsdiscussed

Discussion of the need for consultation between Faculty Deans/Associate Deans andappropriate Teaching Unit when changes made to course restrictions (re ADEDcourses - see Senate #638)

Need for better communication between ARC and UPC on status of addition/deletionof and major modifications to majors

Need for better communication between Faculty Deans/Associate Deans, Registrar’sOffice and UPC on status of Articulation agreements up for renewal

none


FHB 111A9.1.2B (carried)FHB 111A4.1.2D (carried)FHB lilA 12.3 (carried)FHB lilA 7.2.3F (carried)FHB lilA I (carried)

Changes to the FHB lilA 8.9 (carried)Faculty Handbook FHB lilA 9.2.4 (TBD May 25)referred to Senate

Page 2


Undergraduate Calendar changes for 2015-16:see Senate #633, #634, #636, #640

Undergraduate Calendar submissions for 2016-17:see Senate #635, #637, #638, #639, #640, #641


Arr,cularion Agreements terminatedEarly Childhood Education - Niagara College (#633)Applied Optics and Laser Technology Niagara College (drscussed but not deleted at this time, pendrng further information)Political Science (Co-op option) Paralegal-Seneca College program (#639)Psychology (Harrours and BA with Major Co-op) Articulation agreement with the Behavioural Science and Technology - SI Lawrence College (#638)Psychology (Honours) Articulation agreement wrlh the Behavioural Science and Technology - St Lawrence College (#638)Psychology (Honours Honours Co-op and BA with Major Co-op) Social Semice Worker - Durham College (#638)Psychology (BA wrth Major Co-op) Social Service Worker - Sheridun College (#638)

Programs andlo r Art,culatron Agreerrnnnla renewed:Community Health) Pharmacy Techniwan - Lambton College (#635)

Acadern C ArIrculal,on Agreements added.

Regulations Business Administration - Nragara College Business Admivislrationhldarkating Co-op (#640)

Cettilicates added

discussed Certrtcare in PrIm Production (#638)

Addition of Mioors inOutdoor Recreation (#645)Aduft Edocation (#637)

Context Credit Courses;HLSC 3P32 and HLSC 3P99 be added as satisfying the Sciences contact credit requirement (#635)ERSC 1 P94 be added as satisfying the Sciences confect credit requirement (#637)INDG 1 P90 (#637) and 2F01 (#640) be added as satisfying the HumaniSes context credit requirement (#640)HIST 1F92 and 1P97 be added as satisfying the Humanities context credit requirement (#637)POLl 1 P97 be added as satisfying the Social Sciences conteat credit requirement (to be presented #641)

Reinstate mentsMajor rn Technological Education (#637)Certilcate is Technological Education (#637)

Discussion of revisions to FHB lilA 12 Student Appeals (underway)

New undergraduate programs or deletions of undergraduateprograms from calendar not listed here as we presume they will bepresented in report to Senate by ARC.

Other

Page 3


SHORT-TERM PLANS Use the space below to describe short-term plans (1 year). What arerecommendations for next year’s Committee?

Address the inconsistencies and absences of attention to appropriate engagement with Indigenous issuesthroughout the Undergraduate Calendar

Devote some time to discuss impact of any proposed core and context changes in undergraduate programs

Review undergraduate programs to assess consistency (or not) with guidelines for required number of creditsin the major discipline(s) as outlined in FHB lilA 7.8, 7.9; is the perception that number of required courses isincreasing or beyond that suggested in FHB lilA 7.8, 7.9 correct or not?

Need for a online system whereby UPC members can check the status of consultations with the library,computing and cross-listed departments without having to go through staff (and conversely, where these thingscan be centrally entered)

UPC received the report from Financial Services to PPBAC on April 5, 2016, that “coordinated responses fromthe President and Vice Presidents and other Senior Members of the University” to priority items submitted bythe Senate Subcommittees. UPC wishes to resubmit the following priority items as the responses were felt tobe insufficient or vague:

1) Recommend that material and personnel be provided to support the Secretariat’s office to undertake anoverhaul of the Faculty Handbook.Response: The Secretariat is committed to supporting a comprehensive update of the Faculty Handbook. TheSecretariat has the resources and the capacity to provide research, secretarial and administrative support asneeded. Depending on the scope of the project, external resources may be required at which point a specificbudgetary request would be considered and accommodated.

UPC suggests that without administrative support provided up-front, the overhaul of the FHB will be delayed.

2) There is a communication gap between UPC, staff in the Office of the Registrar and participating programsregarding the status of articulation agreements. That is, articulation agreements must be renewed on a regularschedule. The renewal (or nonrenewal) status of articulation agreements should be readily locatable by thosewho need to know (e.g. for correction to Undergraduate Calendar entries). Recommend that resources beallocated so that at least one individual is responsible for oversight/compilation of articulation agreementstatus at Brock.

ResponseTraditionally each Faculty has been responsible for the status of articulation agreements. The Vice Provostand AVP Academic has been assigned the task of coordinating articulation agreements on a go forward basis.

UPC notes that this response articulates the status quo and does nothing to address directly the existingcommunication gap between UPC, the Registrar, and the participating programs and the AVP Academic’soffice. UPC would appreciate timely communication to ensure that the correct information about the status ofarticulation agreements is included in the Undergraduate Calendar.

3) Major changes are being asked for the web calendar and to make the changes happen is a task thatrequires resources. For example, doing a global search within the entire calendar for courses categorized as“experiential learning” is not possible at present. Recommend that resources be provided to upgrade softwarefeatures of Brock’s Web Calendars.

Page 4



By the nature of its role, UPCs mandate tends towards short-term goals.

MUL TI- YEAR PLANNINGPlease enumerate plans and identify the top two planning priorities within this category


By the nature of its role, UPC’s mandate tends towards short-term goals.

Page 5

OTHER COMMENTS

Name Heather L. Gordon

Signature Date May 17, 2016


Page 6


Committee Undergraduate Student Affairs


Committee Chair Lynn Rempel

Committee Vice-Chair Christene Carpenter-Cleland

Committee Members Jonah Butovsky, Herb MacKenzie, Linda Lowry, Larry Savage,Greg Finn, Barry Wright, Thomas Dunk, Barb Davis, RichardWelland, Debra Harwood, Carrie Murray, David Hughes, SamPiccolo, Jeremy Steinhausen, James Mandigo, Anna Lathrop

Administrative Support Diane Uppal

Number of meetings 9


NA

Page 1


Procedures for use of electronic device in final examsReceived reports from the Academic Integrity Advisory CommitteeBudget priorities: 1)Preservation and enhancement of studentengagement and small group learning opportunities; 2) Preservationand enhancement of library resources.

Major issues The meaning of small group learning and possible metrics to assessdiscussed small group learning.

Models for enhancing student engagement.Enhancing student awareness of the transferable skills they developinside and outside of the classroom.Continuation of Fall Break; received report from K. Pilato.Received and discussed report from the Senate Committee onScholarly PublishingChanges to procedures associated with awards and bursaries

Continuation of Fall Break referred to Senate Graduate StudiesCommittee for consultation


Undergraduate Scholarships, Bursaries and Awards: FHB III: A. 14


Page 2


Recommended the continuation of Fall Break during the weekfollowing Thanksgiving.


NA

Programs and/orAcademicRegulationsdiscussed

Other

Page 3


SHORT-TERM PLANS Use the space below to describe short-term plans (I yeai-). What arerecommendations for next years Committee?

Recommendations regarding changes to the mandate of the Undergraduate Student Affairs CommitteeRecommendations for enhancing student engagementMonitoring revisions to Academic Integrity Policy

Page 4





Page 5

OTHER COMMENTS

Name Lynn Rempel

Signature Date jMayl7,2016


Page 6

Documents

brocku.ca Page 1 of 1 641st Meeting of Senate WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 2016 . 3:30 P.M. SANKEY CHAMBER, MACKENZIE CHOWN COMPLEX . A G E N D A . 1) Call to Order 2) Approval of Agenda 3)