AGENDA - Kwantlen Polytechnic University
Embed Size (px)
Transcript of AGENDA - Kwantlen Polytechnic University
Senate Standing Committee on Program Review
Wednesday, May 23, 2012 3:00 ‐ 5:00pm
1. Call to Order – Ken Hughes
2. Confirmation of Agenda
3. Approval of Minutes (April 25, 2012)
4. Matters Arising Ken Hughes
5. Chair’s Report Ken Hughes
6. Facilitator’s Report & Program Review Grid Colleen McGoff Dean
7. External Reviewers for Creative Writing (CRWR) Colleen McGoff Dean
8. SSCPR Vice‐Chair Position
9. Graphic Design for Marketing (GDMA) Action Plan Report Ken Hughes
10. Program Review Information Session
11. Other Business
Next Meeting June 20, 2012
Minutes of April 25, 2012
Facilitator’s Report & Program Review Grid to be distributed at meeting
GDMA Action Plan Report
SSCPR Report to Senate
1. Call to
utes 04 25 2012
McGoff Dean (
: Elizabeth M
meeting was c
from the Facu
e Deisman fro
rmation of A
MODL action p
ed by Christin
T the agenda b
tes from Mar
ision was mad
ed by Izgy Go
T the minutes
Action Plan Fu
called to orde
ulty of Comm
om the Crimin
plan was add
na Heinrick; s
rch 21, 2012
de to the dat
er at 3:15pm.
munity and He
ed to the age
econded by D
d by Kathlee
d as amended
The Chair we
tment and Fa
enda under Ot
e is May 15, 2
He also welc
2012. An exte
tee on Progra
Dean of the
ension was ag
ril 25, 2012 3:00 pm
Faculty of “A
greed to at th
SSCPR Minutes 04 25 2012 Page 2
5. Chair’s Report
A new chair of the committee will need to be considered at the next meeting.
6. Facilitator’s Report
Colleen distributed a document outlining the status of programs under review.
ABE: working on action plan which will be available at next meeting
ACCT: waiting for external review
BTech: working on self‐study
PSYC Nursing: external accreditation occurring this month
CRWR: external review scheduled for September 28
CRIM: at SSCPR today
ENTR Leadership: restructuring occurring before next visit to SSCPR
GDMA: action plan expected in May
HIST: working on data analysis
HORT: VP Academic and AVP have spoken to faculty; Colleen will email again
MODL: at SSCPR today
MUSI: starting data analysis
POLI: need new external reviewer
PSCM: starting review in May
SETA: action plan done
7. Criminology Self Study
David Lyon and Wade Deisman presented the CRIM self‐study. Dean Dastur attended the meeting
and complimented the Criminology Department on its innovative and dynamic programming and
Identify the time frame of the self‐study
Reduce the document length and add relevant information to appendices
Remove names of faculty or staff from document. If there is a need for acknowledgement,
include a separate page identifying faculty and staff.
Stress the projects and program aspects that support the polytechnic mandate
Add the dates of course revisions to course descriptions
Add employment figures and employment readiness stats in an appendix (Kathleen Bigsby
will provide this information)
Moved by Kathleen Bigsby; seconded by Christina Heinrick:
THAT that the Criminology Self‐Study report meets the requirements set forth by the program
review process and the SSCPR. MOTION CARRIED
SSCPR Minutes 04 25 2012 Page 3
8. External Review Teams
Programs that require external accreditation also must undergo Kwantlen’s Program Review unless
they can establish that the accreditation process provides equivalent information.
There are currently 2 external reviewers for CRWR.
Colleen will provide more names at the next meeting.
Colleen will send out electronically the candidate reviewers’ information for the committee
to provide feedback to Colleen by 5:00pm on Monday, April 30. Questions to consider are
whether they are qualified to review the program and whether there is a potential for
conflict of interest.
9. Other Business
The committee received the action plan from MODL and agreed to send it back for revision. It was
also suggested that MODL review Kwantlen’s Naming Policy.
Committee members will review the action plan and provide feedback to Colleen
Colleen will ask MODL to revise the plan
Jane Fee updated the committee on her discussion with the Horticulture department
regarding the long delay with their self‐study.
10. The meeting adjourned at 5:10pm.
Next Meeting: May 23, 2012
KWANTLEN POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY
GDMA Program Review
GD|MA Graphic Design for Marketing
Action PlanMay, 2012
| 1 | GDMA PROGRAM REVIEW: ACTION PLAN
Introduction In June 2011, the Graphic Design for Marketing (GDMA) program’s Self-Study to Senate was approved. Then began the longer-than-expected task of finding a team of external reviewers to visit the program and arrive at its own findings and recommendations. The site visit finally took place on a snowy January 20, 2012 - after many delays beyond our control. The visit was a success, thanks to our substitute Program Review Facilitator, Colleen McGoff Dean. The External Review Report was received at the end of February 2012.
The three External Reviewers were: Casey Hrynkow (Emily Carr University of Art and Design, and co-principal of Herrainco Brand Strategy + Design, a strategic branding firm in Vancouver), Tracey J. Kinney (Kwantlen Polytechnic University), and Nada Zeljkovic (University of Alberta).
The External Review Report extends to sixteen pages and was very positive about the GDMA program. The content endorses many of the recommendations — giving added emphasis to some recommendations in our Self Study, while ignoring others points, and adding a few new ones.
The GDMA program thanks the external reviewers for their diligence and thoroughness, and for their support for this four-year degree program.
The Action Plan submitted here contains a set of recommendations and action items
based on the combination of the twenty points in GDMA’s Self-Study, and those recommendations cited in the External Reviewers Report. In comparing the two sets of recommendations it became clear where there was overlap and where emphasis should be placed in our Action Plan.
We have adopted short, medium, and long-range timelines for the set of actions. Some will be relatively easy to accomplish. Others will take longer but need to start sooner because they are more imperative. Some action items listed have already been acted upon because of our own eagerness to keep the GDMA program current and relevant to our students and the industry that we are so vitally connected with.
The Dean of Design, George Verghese, was given a draft of this document in early April, for his comments, prior completion of this final version of the document.
Ken HughesCoordinator Graphic Design for MarketingMay 2012
| 2 | GDMA PROGRAM REVIEW: ACTION PLAN
a | Program Purpose
These opening recommendations and action items address the chief purpose of the Graphic Design for Marketing (GDMA) program: to offer a small, full-time, selective-entry career program with an integrated curriculum, providing students with a well-balanced and unique education in graphic design, marketing, business, technology and liberal education; a dynamic and relevant curriculum, sought after by the industry, that’s at the forefront of the expanding boundaries of graphic design.
The specific issue is whether GDMA should continue to offer the option of two qualifications and exit points, i.e. a three-year Diploma in Graphic Design for Marketing, and a four-year Bachelor of Design in Graphic Design for Marketing.
RECOMMENDATION 1: GDMA recommends that over the next three years, it monitor the current Diploma option to check its relevance to GDMA program goals.
This recommendation is endorsed by the External Review Report:
‘The GDMA program should re-evaluate its three-year diploma program…. Students that take the diploma route may not be as skilled or marketable as students with a degree; therefore the reputation of your (GDMA) program may be on the line. Today, there are more graphic designers graduating from schools with a degree than a few years ago, according to the Association of Registered Graphic Designers of Ontario (RDG)’.
Action – by May 2013:
As a result of strong support contained in the External Review Report, and statistical data from other sources, GDMA will speed up its assessment of the Diploma option, with the expectation that it will be eliminated from the GDMA program by September 2013.
b | Program Vision Statement
This recommendation and action plan focuses on GDMA’s continuing work with students, advisory committee and other constituencies to finalize its Vision Statement.
RECOMMENDATION 2: GDMA will complete its Mission statement by the end of 2012, to parallel Kwantlen’s Vision Statement and that of the Faculty of Design.
Action Plan – by May 2013:
Although the External Review Report makes no mention of the need for GDMA to establish a Mission statement, the program itself believes that this is essential, and will complete this task by May 2013.
Quality of the Educational Design
EXTERNAL REVIEW REPORT PAGES 7 & 15
| 3 | GDMA PROGRAM REVIEW: ACTION PLAN
c | Curriculum Development and Review
The following four recommendations and action items deal with curriculum development, and include both short- and long-term completion times.
RECOMMENDATION 3: GDMA review key areas of its current curriculum, particularly the fourth year, and by the end of 2012 it will put in place the appropriate revisions.
RECOMMENDATION 4: By the end of 2012, GDMA will have reviewed its current program in order to enhance components that relate to new technologies such as social media and mobile devices.
RECOMMENDATION 5: By the end of 2012, GDMA will have strengthened the marketing and business components in its current program.
RECOMMENDATION 6: By the end of 2012, GDMA will have re-envisioned its mentorship component and found opportunities for non-classroom learning experiences.
Action Plan – Ongoing revisions, started June 2011:
As a result of strong support contained in the External Review Report, GDMA will continue its ongoing process of curriculum development to implement revisions to its curriculum.
Issues requiring simple adjustments will be completed by May 2013, ready for implementation in September 2013. Other revisions will likely take up to three years to conclude and implement.
It should be noted that the GDMA program is a fully integrated program of forty courses. Changing the structure and content of even one course impacts the rest. Changes need to be made with care. Issues to be addressed include:
RECOMMENDATION 7: The External Reviewers recommend a move to three credits for a three-hour system, to parallel other universities.
Action Plan – by May 2013:
GDMA will initiate discussions about a three-hour system, as outlined, within the Faculty of Design. This is obviously an idea that GDMA cannot take unilateral action.
| 4 | GDMA PROGRAM REVIEW: ACTION PLAN
d | Admissions Requirements
This recommendation refers to GDMA’s ongoing contact with the Registrar’s Office and specifically Admissions, with whom a considerable amount of day-to-day business is conducted, to ensure that effective communications assist in the smooth entry, progression and graduation of students from this small cohort, selective-entry program.
RECOMMENDATION 8: GDMA should continue to collaborate with Admissions to ensure that communications to applicants and current students are as effective and smooth as possible.
Action Plan – by May 2013:
Although there was no mention of this plan in the External Review Report, GDMA commits to connecting with Admissions during 2012/13 in an attempt to streamline communications with the program’s applicants and current students.
e | Essential Skills
These two recommendations relate to the effectiveness of GDMA’s curriculum, and specifically to the development of essential skills.
RECOMMENDATION 9: Over the next 12 months, GDMA will initiate meeting with appropriate departments/faculties to seek ways to increase the effectiveness of the English, Communications and Marketing courses in the program.
Action Plan – by May 2013:
Supported by recommendations included in the External Review Report, GDMA will initiate meetings with appropriate departments so that course content in English, Communications, and Marketing courses is reviewed with the goal of ‘becom(ing) more relevant to the graphic design industry’.
RECOMMENDATION 10: By the end of 2012, GDMA will have reinforced and enhanced the rigor and extent of research, critical thinking, and writing skills that are not only part of its interview process requirements, but also an essential part of the entire GDMA program.
Action Plan – Ongoing with progress Report by May 2013:
Supported by the External Reviewers and industry surveys, GDMA will continue measures to ensure increased rigor by strengthening research and critical thinking components in its courses.
For example, as the result of a measure already implemented since our Self-study was approved, GDMA students must now achieve a minimum ‘Progression Grade,’ a cumulative GPA of B- by the end of third year of the program, to progress into fourth year. Further measures will be established in GDMA’s revised curriculum.
| 5 | GDMA PROGRAM REVIEW: ACTION PLAN
f | Program Delivery Modes
These recommendations relate to faculty’s intention to explore alternative program delivery modes, such as part-time studies and continuing education intensives, such as summer design workshops.
RECOMMENDATION 11: In the next three to five years, GDMA will have explored the possibility of increasing access to its program through part-time and continuing studies, to accommodate the growing demand for flexible patterns of learning, such as workshops and seminars for professionals looking to upgrade their current skills, and part-time courses for people who are employed but interested in working on a degree.
Action Plan – Incrementally starting Spring/Summer 2013:
Buoyed by both support from the External Review Report and a our new Dean, GDMA is will attempt to speed up these ideas and initiate pilot summer courses, workshops, or seminars, by summer 2013.
‘…expanding access to the program through continuing education or through summer courses, would both extend the reach of the program into the community and serve to reduce the program’s current delivery cost.’
Attempts to introduce a part-time version of the full-time GDMA program has been envisioned by GDMA, but will require ongoing discussions within the GDMA program and with senior administration to consider the feasibility and logistics of such a plan.
a | Faculty and Staff Expertise and Currency
This recommendation from the External Review Report focuses on faculty and staff succession. Although the current faculty and staff complement delivers a high quality education for its students in each of the key curriculum areas, there is concern about
experience a high percentage of faculty retirements, which will have a major impact on the delivery of its curriculum. This was an issue discussed with the External Reviewers during their site visit.
RECOMMENDATION 12: The External Reviewers recommend that the GDMA program should strike a hiring committee to look at instructor succession — a process that should be imbedded in a program as specialized as this one. (page 16)
Action – Ongoing, Progress Report May 2013.
The program is will continue discussions about faculty succession with the Dean of Design during 2012–13. It should be noted that recruitment of new part-time faculty has already taken place over the past two years.
EXTERNAL REVIEW REPORT PAGE 12
Quality of the Educational Experience
| 6 | GDMA PROGRAM REVIEW: ACTION PLAN
b | Satisfaction with Learning Experience
This section focuses on recommendations and actions related to the delivery and organization of the GDMA program. The External Reviewers underscored student satisfaction with the delivery of the curriculum, noted in GDMA’s Self-Study.
RECOMMENDATION 13: As part of its action plan, GDMA will seek funding from Kwantlen Polytechnic University to increase the marketing of its program, and will also enlist the support of Kwantlen’s Marketing department to ensure that the program is more effectively marketed both regionally, nationally, and internationally.
RECOMMENDATION 14: On a yearly basis, GDMA will continue its discussions with Kwantlen’s Senior Administration and the Marketing Department in order to improve the quality and extent of the marketing of the GDMA program.
Related to these recommendations is the suggestion contained in the External Reviewer Report, that:
‘Given that the program already has a reputation for excellence within the design industry, GDMA is in a strong position to develop partnerships with local companies in need of design work…. The establishment of such partnerships would also be a useful way to raise funds, as well as boosting endowments and scholarships.’
Action Plan – by May 2013 and beyond:
GDMA will initiate discussions with Kwantlen’s Marketing Department, the Office of Advancement, and GDMA’s Advisory Committee to develop a strategy for the improved marketing of the GDMA program.
RECOMMENDATION 15: The External Reviewers recommend that GDMA consider including other design disciplines in teams to work on multi-disciplinary projects, especially for outside partnerships. This should be marketed to potential partners as a research resource.
Action Plan – ongoing 2013-15
The GDMA program will continue to engage with industry and the broader community on design projects.
Recent examples include: student projects for Arts Umbrella, lululemon, Vancouver Province, Kwantlen’s Music department, and Kwantlen’s Fashion Show. The GDMA program is planning to draft a policy to guide it in dealing with the numerous requests that it receives to be engaged in such partnerships. The issue is for the program to respond to such requests ethically and not in contravention of the standards of professional conduct expected by industry. We expect to have a policy in place by May 2013.
EXTERNAL REVIEW REPORT PAGES 13 & 16
| 7 | GDMA PROGRAM REVIEW: ACTION PLAN
a | Student Satisfaction with Services, Resources and Facilities
These recommendations and action items focus on learning materials, computer hardware and other equipment specific to the GDMA program.
RECOMMENDATION 16: On an ongoing basis, GDMA will work with its Dean and Kwantlen senior administration to make much-needed improvements to both its space allocation and facilities, to better meet the needs of students, faculty and staff.
RECOMMENDATION 17: Over the next three years, GDMA will seek additional faculty office space for new faculty and storage space for student work.
Related to these recommendations by the program, are the following comments contained in the External Reviewer Report:
‘The program struggles to find adequate storage space; this is, however, an ongoing issue on the Richmond Campus.’
Action Plan – in progress since January 2012
As a result of initiatives by the Dean of Design, and the Operations Manager, discussions are already underway to improve the overall use of facilities throughout the Faculty of Design, such as space optimization and sharing. Adequate storage remains an issue to be resolved for GDMA.
RECOMMENDATION 18: The External Reviewers recommend the GDMA program should subscribe to Lynda.com to benefit students in their software training.
Action Plan – by May 2013
This learning resource will be a key feature in GDMA’s 2012/2013 capital budget request.
RECOMMENDATION 19: The External Reviewers recommend that the International Student Exchange program be examined to find a way to deal with students missing out on lecture material presented in the classroom while they are away (on Exchange).
Action Plan – by May 2013
Where possible, GDMA faculty will provide additional ‘catch-up’ materials to students participating in International Student Exchanges, and who may miss course content they would normally have had at Kwantlen. Faculty is already engaged in reintegrating exchange students when they return to campus.
RECOMMENDATION 20: The External Reviewers recommend that the GDMA program should consider a more permanent exhibit space, if funding permits, in a central location open to the public and design industry.
EXTERNAL REVIEW REPORT PAGE 11
Quality of Services, Resources and Facilities
| 8 | GDMA PROGRAM REVIEW: ACTION PLAN
This recommendation is further elaborated by the following comment in the External Review Report:
‘The year-end show itself (Degree Show) is one of the great successes of the GDMA program at Kwantlen. By hosting the show at a downtown venue, and bringing in prominent speakers, the program has been able to maintain a high profile within the community and specifically, within the design industry.’
Action – Progress Report by May 2013
GDMA plans to discuss this suggestion with the Dean of Design, who has already positioned this idea in his plans for the entire Faculty of Design. Currently, GDMA has the yearly challenge of securing and finding sufficient funds for downtown Vancouver venues for its annual degree show and speaker events.
b | Library Resources Specific to the Program
This recommendation and action item relates to GDMA’s reliance on a breadth of resources to gather research for projects and assignments. Faculty are constantly encouraging students to make more extensive use of Kwantlen’s information resources.
RECOMMENDATION 21: Over the next 36 months, GDMA will meet with representatives from the Library and Learning Centre to find ways to increase student awareness and use of research and support facilities.
Action Plan – Progress report by May 2013
Faculty will place even greater emphasis, in classes, on the wide resources available at Kwantlen, through re-introducing Library orientations to help students understand the value of this resource.
c | Budget
This recommendation and action item addresses the constant challenge of securing a sufficient annual budget to maintain the currency of its digital equipment and software, along with the expenses related to its annual degree show events.
RECOMMENDATION 22: On a yearly basis, GDMA will attempt to secure adequate financial support to cover costs of reasonable capital and operating expenses, to cover such expenditures as software upgrades and the annual degree show.
Action – Progress report by May 2013
On a yearly basis, GDMA will continue to lobby for adequate financial support to cover predictable expenditures for software upgrades, and the annual degree show.
EXTERNAL REVIEW REPORT PAGE 12
| 9 | GDMA PROGRAM REVIEW: ACTION PLAN
a | Articulation (Internal and External)
These two recommendations and action items address internal and external articulation, which has become more complex because of the unique nature of the GDMA program.
RECOMMENDATION 23: Over the next five years, GDMA will look into possibilities for establishing appropriate metrics to initiate articulation and transfer agreements with other institutions.
RECOMMENDATION 24: In the next three to five years, GDMA will develop a list of reference guidelines for other institutions to assist their students transferring to our program.
Action Plan – Ongoing Progress - Update by May 2013
The Faculty of Design, under its new Dean and Operations Manager, will continue to review transfer and articulation matters, to streamline and improve them.
b | Advisory Committee
This recommendation and action item deals with improving GDMA’s Advisory Committee, made up of representatives from a wide range of backgrounds, including, more recently students and alumni.
RECOMMENDATION 25: In the next twelve months, GDMA will discuss with the Advisory Committee its membership, role, and issues, in order to seek suggestions for improvement.
Action Plan – by May 2013
GDMA will meet with its Advisory Committee, this Fall (2012), to discuss the above recommendation.
Quality of Program Relationships and Connections
GRAPHIC DESIGN FOR MARKETING
KWANTLEN POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY
MEETING DATE: May 28, 2012
PREPARED BY: Ken Hughes
Issue: Report from the Senate Standing Committee on Program Review
The Standing Committee for Program Review (SSCPR) was able to continue meeting during April (April 25, 2012), and with a quorum for most of the meeting. Items included in the agenda were as follows:
• Program Review Tracking Grid The Committee reviewed the monthly Program Review Tracking Grid (progress report) presented by Facilitator, Colleen McGoff Dean and Kathleen Bigsby. • Presentation of Self‐Study by Criminology SSCPR received a formal and thorough presentation by Criminology (CRIM) of its Self‐Study, given by Farhad Dastur (Dean), Wade Deisman, and Dave Lyon (Faculty). The Self‐Study was well received by SSCPR and was approved as having met the requirements for this stage of Criminology’s Program Review. • External Reviewers SSCPR discussed and is assessing the credentials of suggested members of External Reviewers for the Creative Writing (CRWR) program. • Report on Horticulture Associate Vice‐President, Academic, Jane Fee updated SSCPR about the status of Horticulture’s Self‐Study, which began in October 2009. Their completed report was originally due March 2011. Numerous attempts to restart the process have been unsuccessful. SSCPR still awaits news of a commitment date from Horticulture about when their Self‐Study will be presented. • Action Plan Report SSCPR received an Action Plan Report from Modern Languages. In the absence of a quorum at this stage of the SSCPR meeting, the report was only discussed. Suggestions were being sent back to the Program so that a final draft could be ready for the May SSCPR meeting. • New Chair for SSCPR Imminent Due to completion of his three‐year term on Senate, the Chair of SSCPR will
be changing in August. • New Vice‐Chair of SSCPR Imminent Due to the amalgamation of two Faculties into the Faculty of Arts, the Vice‐Chair of SSCPR will be elected at the May SSCPR meeting. • Program Review Orientation Workshop On May 23, the Facilitator for Program Review and the Chair of SSCPR will host the annual orientation workshop for those programs due for program review over the next few months. In previous years this has been extremely successful. Representatives from other programs who have recently completed their program review have attended share their experiences of the process.
Next SSCPR meeting June 20, 3‐5pm, room G2110 – the last SSCPR meeting for this academic year.