ONTARIO - Postsecondary Education Quality Assessment Board

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ONTARIO:a global leader in quality assuranceA MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR AND FROM THE DIRECTORContinuedlocal advisory committees, with special thanks to: David Leyton-Brown,Executive Director, Ontario Council on Graduate Studies, Council of OntarioUniversities; Cindy Hazell, Co-chair, Coordinating Committee of Vice Presidents,Academic, Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario;Earl Davy, Provost, Tyndale University College; and to Minster Chris Bentleyand Deputy Minister Philip Steenkamp, both of whom addressed the delegateson behalf of the Ministry and the Province. Of course, none of this could haveoccurred without the encouragement and support of Janet Mason, AssistantDeputy Minister, and all of our colleagues in the Ministry of Training, Collegesand Universities and the Secretariat’s full involvement.Continuous ImprovementThe work of the Board and Secretariat is considered very positively as thesection of this report on the annual survey of applicants and assessors’ opinionfeedback indicates.Based on the feedback on page 5, the Board has improved the PEQABwebsite, updated its Frequently Asked Questions, and is currently developinga single handbook that can be used by public and private institutions andOntario Colleges to replace the current three handbooks.Internal Review of the Post-secondary Education Choice and ExcellenceAct, 2000In December, the Minster notified the Board that he was undertaking an internalreview of the Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act, 2000.Citing the release of Reaching Higher: The McGuinty Plan for Post-SecondaryMcGuinty Plan for Post-Secondary Education and the passing into legislationof the new Private Career Colleges Act, the Minster decided that: “It is nowboth timely and appropriate to ensure that the PSECE Act fits properly andcompletely with the new, enhanced postsecondary framework for Ontario.”As of this writing, the results of this internal review have not been released.Credential Recognition within and outside of CanadaDuring the past year members of the Board and the Secretariat were oftenasked to speak on both the theoretical and the operational aspects of qualityassessment. To Ontario groups, the major emphasis was on the rigor of theBoard’s standards and of its assessment processes, usually in response4to the issue of the potential lack of recognition for the purpose of furthereducation that might be given to the degrees offered by this new set of publicand private providers. To national groups, the focus was on the importanceof the Pan-Canadian standards and quality assurance procedures that wouldmove us further toward recognition of the academic legitimacy of allCanadian degree providers.When speaking to international groups, the emphasis by inviter’s requestwas always on describing the QA requirements in Ontario/Canada - in particular,the extent to which quality assessment is either done directly or overseen byan independent third-party using standards and processes that are in generalagreement with those that have become standard in the international community.This latter concern cannot be underestimated. In the long run, basedon numerous conversations with government officials and government andnon-government QA agencies, it will almost assuredly be the case thatdegrees awarded by public or private institutions that are not subject tointernationally accepted QA standards and processes will be worthless interms of employment or advanced education in the vast majority of countries.In fact, this is already the case in some jurisdictions. In this regard, we arealways happy to point out that the work done by the Board concerningdegrees offered by ministerial consent and by the Council of OntarioUniversities concerning provincially assisted universities that have degreegranting authority under their own legislation has put the degree grantinginstitutions of this province in a very strong position.In closing, we must note that this is the first time that the Board’s annualreport does not contain a section authored by Dr. Donald Baker. Don left hisposition as the Director of the secretariat in 2006 to take on the duties ofDean of the College of Humanities and Social Sciences at the United ArabEmirates University Al Ain. This is not new territory for Don, who was theVice-President Academic of Wilfrid Laurier University and the President ofMount Royal College in Alberta, and who, as an educational consultant, alsooversaw a number of educational and quality assurance projects in severalcountries in the Middle East. Don’s contributions to the work of the Boardand to quality assessment in general have been truly outstanding, and hispresence will be sorely missed both professionally and personally. Our sincerethanks are also extended to Sascha Marschang, who resigned his positionas Administrative Coordinator in January, and is now working for the Belgo-Luxembourgish-German Chamber of Commerce in Brussels.{ }Dale Patterson, ChairTerry Miosi, Acting DirectorTo national groups, the focus was on the importance of the Pan-Canadian standards and qualityassurance procedures that would move us further toward recognition of the academic legitimacy of allCanadian degree providers.
PEQAB is committed to transparency and continuous improvement. Each yearit surveys applicants and assessors to know what is working and what can beimproved. Respondents receive a consistent core of questions about communicationswith the PEQAB Secretariat and the review process, complemented bysome topics of the year.This report presents major findings of the May 2007 surveys.Review ProceduresAll applicants reported satisfaction with the transparency of the review process.All applicants and 95% of assessors were satisfied with the clarity of instructions.Nine out of ten assessors and three out of four applicants reported their satisfactionwith the integrity of the assessment procedures. All assessors and threequarters of applicants were satisfied with timeliness of the application review.Assessment Standards and BenchmarksAll applicants agree that the Board’s standards and benchmarks reflect themost essential information of a proposed program, and almost three quartersagree that they are easy to use.Almost all assessors agreed that the standards and benchmarks are appropriateand find them effective; 80% agreed that they are easy to use.Composition of the Quality Assessment PanelAll assessors and nine out of ten applicants agreed that the QualityAssessment Panel was competent, responsive to applicant’s comments, andworked without delays. Almost all assessors agreed that the panel was fairand appropriately constituted. All applicants consider the panel appropriatelyconstituted and two thirds find it fair. Respondents’ comments were mostlypositive.Site VisitAlmost all respondents agreed that the visit was scheduled without unreasonabledelays and that both parties always remained focused on the agenda.All applicants and 86% of assessors agreed that additional information for theQAP was provided on time, interactions between the QAP and the institution’srepresentatives were conductive to promoting improvements to the proposedprogram. All applicants agreed that the institution had appropriate opportunityto discuss fully its proposal with the QAP. Once again, comments were mostlypositive.2007 CLIENT SURVEYPanel’s Suggestions regarding the Program ImprovementAll applicants (among them 75% indicating “yes, definitely”) agreed that theirinstitution had found suggestions of the QAP helpful or worth considering.Interactions with the SecretariatAlmost all respondents indicated that the staff is competent, provides up-todateinformation, responds to queries within a reasonable timeframe, and isrespectful and helpful. A vast majority of respondents are satisfied (includingover 50% “completely satisfied”) with the feedback from the Secretariatregarding completeness of the application and the introduction of the QAPmembers. The comments were mostly positive.The Overall Review Process ImprovementAlthough overall comments re the process were positive, some applicantswould like to receive updates on the requirements changes. Assessors suggestconsidering an introduction of some new benchmarks.Assessors’ Professional DevelopmentAssessors indicated that in their PEQAB assessor capacity they made newprofessional contacts with other panel members and/or staff of the applicantinstitution. Four out of five of them reported that they are likely to maintainthese contacts, including 24% who answered “yes, definitely”.In response to the question whether their functioning as an assessor hasbeen a learning experience, two out of three assessors described what theylearned from the experience.The largest group referred to learning more about educational systemand other institutions. Other responses included learning more about programdesign and application and the quality assurance and program assessmentprocess.{ }PEQAB is committed to transparency andcontinuous improvement.5
Page 1: THE POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION QUALITY
Page 4 and 5: ONTARIO:a global leader in quality
Page 26: ONTARIO:a global leader in quality

ONTARIO - Postsecondary Education Quality Assessment Board

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?