8 Response to Recommendations

The British Columbia Ministry of Post-secondary Education and Future Skills requires that all degree programs be reviewed at least once every five to seven years and that they submit a response to external reviewer recommendations resulting from the review. These reports are commonly submitted to a standing committee of Senate responsible for academic planning. To align reporting with Ministry requirements, we recommend combining the Final Report with the Response to Recommendations.

The Report provides a brief summary of the cyclical review and response to external reviewer recommendations. The External Reviewer Report and Action Plan are appended to the Report. The Report is available on a publicly accessible location on the university’s internal website.

Implementation of the program’s Action Plan and goals are monitored internally by the program and the Dean and Chair are required to provide a Mid-Cycle Update to a standing committee of Senate in year five of the seven year reporting cycle, which is detailed further under the section titled “Progress Report“.

Instructions for Program Review Teams

Timeline: May 15 – May 30

Recommended Submission Date: May 30

  1. Read Module 8 in the Program Review Handbook
  2. Complete the program review Final Report using the template provided.
  3. Append the External Reviewer Report and Action Plan to the Final Report.
  4. Seek Dean approval of the Final Report.
  5. Submit the completed report to the office of quality assurance.
  6. Attend an academic planning and priorities committee meeting to present the Final Report and answer any questions that may arise.

Below is a step-by-step breakdown of the development, approval, and presentation of the Final Report:

Table 7.1
Responsibility Task
Dean Approval Dean receives the report and conducts a review, often conferring with the program review team. The Dean is responsible for supporting and resourcing any changes to the program that come from the Action Plan. The Dean may ask for changes and clarifications to the Action Plan and Final Report. Once approved, the Dean returns the report to the program review team who submit the report to the Associate Director.
Office of quality assurance A quality assurance practitioner reviews the report to ensure all of the components are met. Once the review is completed, it is forwarded to the Provost (or designate).
Provost (or designate) Approval The Provost receives the report and considers how the findings of the program review fit within the university’s academic and strategic priorities. The Provost may ask for changes and clarifications. If there are concerns or questions about the Report, the Provost communicates these concerns with the Dean and program representatives to seek clarification and changes in the Report. Once satisfied, the Provost returns the Report to the Associate Director.
Academic Planning Committee Review A quality assurance practitioner submits the Final Report to the Senate academic planning committee. The Dean and relevant members of the program review team attend a committee meeting to present the report and answer any questions that may arise. In addition, the Associate Director attends to answer any questions about program review processes and procedures.
Senate Review Once reviewed by the academic planning committee, the Final Report goes forward to Senate. The Provost presents the report to Senate for information purposes only.
Public Posting A quality assurance practitioner uploads the Final Report to an internal university website.



Icon for the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Program Review Handbook Copyright © by Alana Hoare; Catharine Dishke Hondzel; and Shannon Wagner is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book