Policy 110: Institutional Quality Assurance Process

Policy Information	Details
Policy Number:	110
Previous Approval Dates:	May 3, 2011; November 4, 2014; March 6, 2018; June 11, 2019
Policy Approval Date:	May 3, 2022
Next Policy Review Date:	May 2023 (or sooner at the request of the Provost and Vice-President Academic or Senate)
Responsible Committee or Office:	Provost and Vice-President Academic

Toronto Metropolitan University (the University), in its ongoing commitment to offer undergraduate and graduate programs of high academic quality, has developed this Institutional Quality Assurance Process (IQAP), which adheres to the principles and protocols outlined in the Quality Assurance Framework¹ established by the Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance (Quality Council). Academic programs at the University are aligned with the statement of undergraduate and graduate degree-level expectations adopted by the Council of Ontario Universities (COU)² . The University IQAP describes the University’s quality assurance process requirements for new program development and approval, the periodic review of existing programs, and the modification of existing curricula and programs. Together, the policies that constitute the IQAP serve to promote a culture of continuous improvement, striving to achieve the highest possible standards of academic quality.

The University’s IQAP includes the following policies:

Policy 110: Institutional Quality Assurance Process
Policy 112: Development of New Graduate and Undergraduate Programs
Policy 126: Periodic Program Review of Graduate and Undergraduate Programs
Policy 127: Curriculum Modifications: Graduate and Undergraduate Programs

¹ The Quality Assurance Framework (external link)

² Degree level expectations for undergraduate and graduate programs are outlined in Appendices 1 and 2.

1. Purpose

This policy describes the authority and responsibility for Toronto Metropolitan University’s IQAP.

2. Scope

This policy governs all undergraduate degree, graduate degree, and graduate diploma programs, both full and part-time, offered solely by the University or in partnership with any other post-secondary institutions.

Intra-institutional steps that apply to the creation, review, and modification of micro-credentials are detailed in Senate Policy 76 – Development & Review of Certificate Programs (title under review).

3. Definitions

3.1. Cyclical Audit

All publicly assisted universities in Ontario associated with the Quality Council have committed to participating in a Cyclical Audit, which occurs at least once every eight years. The purpose of the Cyclical Audit process is to ensure transparency and accountability in the development and review of academic programs, to assure students, citizens, and the government of the international standards of quality assurance processes, and to monitor the degree to which a university has:

a) Improved/enhanced its quality assurance processes and practices;
b) Created an ethos of continuous improvement; and
c) Developed a culture that supports program-level learning outcomes and student-centered learning.

3.2. Dean of Record

A Dean named by the Provost and Vice-President Academic and given decanal authority over an interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary program.

3.3. Designated Academic Unit

Faculty groups that comprise faculty from a single School/Department, from several Schools and/or Departments within a Faculty, from Schools/Departments from different Faculties, from other internal Toronto Metropolitan University units, or from collaborative structures involving other post-secondary institutions.

3.4. Final Assessment Report (FAR)

A report on a periodic review of an undergraduate or graduate program that must be submitted to the Quality Council. The FAR includes the University’s synthesis of the external evaluation and internal responses and assessments of a periodic program review, along with an associated implementation plan and executive summary.

3.5. Focused Audit

A close examination of a specific aspect of an institution’s quality assurance processes and practices that have not met the standards/requirements set out by the Quality Council in the QAF or in the institution’s IQAP. A Focused Audit does not replace a Cyclical Audit.

3.6. Letter of Intent

The Letter of Intent (LOI) is a preliminary new program proposal and is the first stage in the development of a new program proposal.

3.7. Program

For the purpose of the IQAP, “program” refers to the credential(s)3 under review, including undergraduate degree, graduate degree, professional master’s degree, or graduate diploma.

³ Only those credentials that fall within the jurisdiction of the Quality Assurance Framework of Quality Council.

4. External Authority and Responsibility

4.1. Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance (Quality Council)

4.1.1. Has ultimate authority for the approval of Toronto Metropolitan University’s IQAP and any subsequent revisions.

4.1.2. Reviews and approves proposals for all new undergraduate and graduate programs.

4.1.3. Reviews undergraduate and graduate periodic program review FARs and major modifications.

4.1.4. On an eight-year cycle audits the internal quality assurance process for periodic program review and new programs, and determines whether the University has acted in compliance with the provisions of its IQAP. Assesses the extent to which the University has responded to the recommendations and suggestions of the audit report.

4.1.5. Where concerns on policies and practices arise through an audit, has the authority to:

4.1.5.1. Require a report on steps taken where deficiencies are minimal;

4.1.5.2. Issue directives about steps to be taken, followed by a report on completion of those steps;

4.1.5.3. Initiate rolling and/or accelerated audits of all institutional internal quality assurance processes;

4.1.5.4. Decline to approve, or suspend enrolment in, programs where processes are deficient, and/or suspend the institution’s ability to create new programs.

5. Internal Authority and Responsibility

5.1. Toronto Metropolitan University Board of Governors

5.1.1. Approves new program proposals based on financial viability.

5.2. Senate

5.2.1. Exercises final internal authority for the approval of all new undergraduate and graduate programs.

5.2.2. Exercises final authority for the approval of all undergraduate and graduate periodic program reviews.

5.2.3. Exercises final authority for the approval of all major modifications to curriculum/programs for all undergraduate and graduate programs, as well as all category 3 minor modifications for undergraduate programs.

5.2.4. Exercises final internal authority for the approval and review of all new and revised academic policies.

5.3. Standing Committees and Governance Council of Senate

5.3.1. Academic Governance and Policy Committee (AGPC): A Standing Committee of Senate that proposes, oversees, and periodically reviews Senate policies and University procedures regarding any matter within the purview of Senate.

5.3.2. Academic Standards Committee (ASC)⁴ : A Standing Committee of Senate that assesses and provides recommendations to Senate for approval of new undergraduate program proposals, undergraduate periodic program reviews, minor curriculum modifications (Category 3), and major curriculum modifications to undergraduate programs.

5.3.3. Yeates School of Graduate Studies Council (YSGS Council): A Governance Council of Senate that assesses and provides recommendations to Senate for approval of new graduate program proposals, graduate periodic program reviews, and major curriculum modifications to graduate programs.

5.3.3.1. YSGS Programs and Planning Committee (PPC): Assesses and makes recommendations to YSGS Council on new graduate program proposals, graduate periodic program reviews, and major curriculum modifications to graduate programs.

⁴ ASC assesses Chang School certificate proposals, revisions, and reviews within the parameters of TMU Senate Policy 76.

5.4. Provost and Vice-President Academic

5.4.1. Assumes overall responsibility for the IQAP policies and procedures, and policy reviews.

5.4.2. Authorizes new program Letters of Intent, development of new program proposals, and the commencement, implementation and budget of new programs.

5.4.3. Following Senate approval, reports to the Board of Governors (i) new program proposals for review of their financial viability; and (ii) outcomes of periodic program reviews.

5.4.4. Should there be a disagreement between Faculty Deans or Dean of Record or between a Faculty Dean and a Department/School or Faculty Council, where appropriate, the Provost and Vice-President Academic will decide how to proceed.

5.4.5. Submits Senate approved new program proposals, including a brief commentary on the qualifications of external reviewers, to the Quality Council for approval.

5.4.6. Serves as the primary (key) contact for communication between the University and Quality Council. Reports to the Quality Council, as required. This responsibility may be delegated to the Vice-Provost Academic.

5.4.7. Approves any budget allocations related to academic programs.

5.4.8. Is responsible for the University’s participation in the Quality Council cyclical audit process⁵.

⁵View information about the Quality Council cyclical audit process (external link)

5.5. Deputy Provost and Vice-Provost University Planning

5.5.1. Develops program costing and evaluates societal need, differentiation, sustainable applicant pool, and outcomes of new program proposals.

5.5.2. In collaboration with the relevant offices, supports new program development, implementation and monitoring.

5.5.3. Analyzes program costing for major curriculum modifications and other minor curriculum modifications, as required, to programs.

5.5.4. Provides institutional data for the development of new programs, periodic program reviews, and major modifications.

5.6. Vice-Provost Academic

5.6.1. Submits undergraduate new program Letters of Intent to the Provost and Vice-President Academic; submits full undergraduate new program proposals to the Academic Standards Committee (ASC); submits to Senate a brief of a new undergraduate program proposal along with the ASC’s recommendations; and, in collaboration with relevant offices, supports new program development, implementation and monitoring.

5.6.2. Maintains periodic program review schedules for undergraduate programs; communicates, advises, and monitors the periodic program review process; assesses the undergraduate periodic program review self-study and appendices for completeness prior to giving permission for a peer review team site visit; submits undergraduate periodic program reviews and subsequent follow-up reports to the ASC; submits to Senate an undergraduate periodic program review FAR and the ASC’s recommendations; submits periodic program review follow-up reports to Senate, for information.

5.6.3. Advises undergraduate programs on curriculum modifications and has final authority, where necessary, to determine if a modification to an undergraduate program is considered minor, major or a new program; submits Category 3 minor curriculum modification proposals and major curriculum modification proposals to the ASC for assessment; submits to Senate Category 3 minor curriculum modifications proposals and major curriculum modification proposals and the ASC’s recommendations for approval.

5.6.4. Resolves disputes between Faculty Deans or Dean of Record or between a Faculty Dean or Dean of Record and a Department/School/Faculty Council with respect to undergraduate curriculum modifications.

5.6.5. Reports, as required, to the Quality Council, in consultation with the Provost and Vice-President Academic, including an annual report on Senate- approved undergraduate and graduate major curriculum modifications and FARs of periodic program reviews.

5.6.6. Implements the Quality Council Audit process, as outlined in the Quality Assurance Framework, including the institutional self-study.

5.6.7. Oversees the undergraduate requirements of the Cyclical Audit, including the briefing with the Secretariat and an Audit Team member approximately one-year prior to a scheduled Cyclical Audit. Ensures active and willing participation in a Focused Audit, should one be required.

5.6.8. Posts the Executive Summary of new undergraduate and graduate programs and the Final Assessment Report of undergraduate and graduate periodic program reviews on the Universities Curriculum Quality Assurance website with links to the Senate website and the Provost and Vice-President Academic’s website.

5.6.9. Posts the approved Audit Report, the university’s Follow-up Response Report, and the auditors’ report on the scope and adequacy of the university’s response, as well as any Focused Audit Reports, if required, on the University Curriculum Quality Assurance website with links to the Provost and Vice-President Academic’s website.

5.7. Vice-Provost and Dean, Yeates School of Graduate Studies (YSGS)

5.7.1. Submits new graduate program Letters of Intent to the Provost and VicePresident Academic; submits new graduate program proposals to the YSGS Council for approval to recommend to Senate; submits to Senate a brief of the new graduate program proposal and YSGS Council’s recommendation for approval; and, in collaboration with relevant offices, supports new program development, implementation and monitoring.

5.7.2. Maintains periodic program review schedules for graduate programs; communicates, advises, and monitors the periodic program review process; gives permission for a peer review team site visit following the YSGS Programs and Planning Committee’s (PPC) assessment of the graduate periodic program review self-study and appendices for completeness, and submits graduate periodic program reviews and subsequent follow-up reports to the YSGS PPC, followed by the YSGS Council. Submits to Senate a graduate periodic program review, FAR and the YSGS Council’s recommendations; submits periodic program review follow-up reports to Senate, for information.

5.7.3. Advises graduate programs on curriculum modifications and has final authority, where necessary, to determine if a modification to a graduate program is considered minor, major or a new program; submits minor curriculum modification proposals to the Programs and Planning Committee for review; submits major curriculum modification proposals to the Programs and Planning Committee followed by the YSGS Council for approval to recommend to Senate, followed by submission to Senate.

5.7.4. Submits to Senate the YSGS Council’s recommendations regarding new graduate programs, periodic program reviews for graduate programs, Category 3 minor curriculum modifications (for information), and major curriculum modifications.

5.7.5. Resolves disputes between Faculty Deans or Dean of Record or between a Faculty Dean or Dean of Record and a Department/School/Faculty Council with respect to graduate curriculum modifications.

5.7.6. Appoints arms-length Peer Review Teams for graduate programs, as appropriate, in consultation with the Faculty Dean or Dean of Record.

5.7.7. Responds to the Peer Review Team Report as well as to the Program Response and the Faculty Dean’s Response to the Peer Review Team Report for new graduate degree program proposals and for periodic program reviews of graduate programs, as applicable.

5.7.8. In collaboration with the Vice-Provost Academic, implements the Quality Council Audit process, as outlined in the Quality Assurance Framework, including the institutional self-study.

5.7.9. Oversees the graduate requirements of the Quality Council cyclical audit process, as outlined in the Quality Assurance Framework, including the briefing with the Secretariat and an Audit Team member approximately one-year prior to a scheduled Cyclical Audit. Ensures active and willing participation in a Focused Audit, should one be required.

5.8. Faculty Dean or Dean of Record

5.8.1. Submits Letters of Intent for new program proposals to the Vice-Provost Academic or the Vice-Provost and Dean, YSGS, as appropriate.

5.8.2. Submits full new program proposals to the Vice-Provost Academic or the Vice-Provost and Dean of the YSGS, as appropriate, and, in collaboration with relevant offices, supports new program development and implementation.

5.8.3. Reviews an undergraduate periodic program review self-study and appendices prior to submission to Department/School/Faculty Council(s) and endorses following Council endorsement.

5.8.4. Endorses a periodic program review self-study and appendices of graduate programs in consultation with the Vice-Provost and Dean, YSGS.

5.8.5. Appoints Peer Review Teams for undergraduate programs.

5.8.6. Provides consultation to the Vice-Provost and Dean, YSGS regarding the appointment of Peer Review Teams for graduate programs, where applicable.

5.8.7. Reviews mandated Follow-up Reports to ensure progress with the recommendations from ASC or YSGS Council. If it is believed that there has not been sufficient progress, an additional update and course of action by a specified date may be required.

5.8.8. Endorses minor modifications (Category 2 and Category 3) and major modifications to undergraduate programs.

5.8.9. Endorses minor modifications (Category 2 and Category 3) and major modifications to graduate programs, in consultation with the Vice-Provost and Dean, YSGS.

5.8.10. Resolves disputes between a Department/School/Program Council and Faculty Council, if applicable, and Chair/ Director with respect to curriculum modification, as required.

5.8.11. Responds to reports of the periodic program review and/or new program Peer Review Team and subsequent program responses, as applicable.

5.9. Chair/Director of Department/School (or designated academic unit)

5.9.1. Oversees the preparation of a Letter of Intent for new program proposals and submits to the Faculty Dean or Dean of Record, as appropriate;

5.9.2. Oversees preparation of a new program proposal and submits to the Faculty Dean or Dean of Record, as appropriate;

5.9.3. For periodic program reviews of undergraduate and graduate programs, oversees the preparation of the program self-study and appendices and presents the completed documents to the Faculty Dean or Dean of Record for initial review prior to presentation to Department/School/Program and Faculty Councils, as appropriate.

5.9.4. Prepares a response to the reports of Peer Review Teams for undergraduate and graduate programs.

5.9.5. Prepares a mandated periodic program review follow-up report for submission to the Faculty Dean or Dean of Record, and Vice-Provost Academic or Vice-Provost and Dean, YSGS, as appropriate.

5.9.6. Administers the periodic program review implementation plan to ensure that it is effectively accomplished in a timely manner.

5.9.7. Prepares minor and major curriculum modifications, and submits, as required, to the Department/School/Program and Faculty Council (where applicable) and to the Faculty Dean or Dean of Record.

5.10. Department/School/Program Council and Faculty Council (where applicable)

5.10.1. Endorses Letters of Intent for new undergraduate and graduate programs and recommends these to the appropriate Faculty Dean or Dean of Record.

5.10.2. Endorses new program proposals for undergraduate and graduate programs, and recommends these to the appropriate Faculty Dean or Dean of Record.

5.10.3. Endorses undergraduate and graduate periodic program review self-studies and appendices to be forwarded to the Faculty Dean or Dean of Record.

5.10.4. For undergraduate programs, endorses Category 1 minor curriculum modifications (or designates another approval process), Category 2 and Category 3 minor curriculum modifications, and major curriculum modifications, and recommends these to the appropriate Faculty Dean of Dean of Record.

5.10.5. For graduate programs, endorses minor curriculum modifications (Category 1, Category 2 and Category 3) and major curriculum modifications, and recommends these to the appropriate Faculty Dean or Dean of Record.

6. Review of QAP Policies and Procedures

6.1. The Academic Governance and Policy Committee (AGPC) recommends to Senate the establishment of a Policy Review Committee, mandated by Senate, to undertake a periodic review or special review of an IQAP policy or policies.

6.2. Any revision of the University’s IQAP policies requires approval by Senate, and any substantive revisions require ratification by the Quality Council.

6.3. Procedures associated with the IQAP policies are reviewed by the Provost and Vice-President Academic, as needed, to ensure their currency and effectiveness.

Appendix 1: Degree Level Expectations for Undergraduate Programs

Undergraduate Degree	Baccalaureate/Bachelor’s Degree: honours This degree is awarded to students who have demonstrated the following:
Expectations
1. Depth and Breadth of Knowledge	a. Developed knowledge and critical understanding of the key concepts, methodologies, current advances, theoretical approaches and assumptions in a discipline overall, as well as in a specialized area of a discipline; b. Developed understanding of many of the major fields in a discipline, including, where appropriate, from an interdisciplinary perspective, and how the fields may intersect with fields in related disciplines; c. Developed ability to: i. gather, review, evaluate and interpret information; and ii. compare the merits of alternate hypotheses or creative options, relevant to one or more of the major fields in a discipline; d. Developed, detailed knowledge of and experience in research in an area of the discipline; e.Developed critical thinking and analytical skills inside and outside the discipline; f. Ability to apply learning from one or more areas outside the discipline.
2. Knowledge of Methodologies	An understanding of methods of enquiry or creative activity, or both, in their primary area of study that enables the student to: a. evaluate the appropriateness of different approaches to solving problems using well established ideas and techniques; b. devise and sustain arguments or solve problems using these methods; andc. describe and comment upon particular aspects of current research or equivalent advanced scholarship.
3. Application of Knowledge	The ability to review, present and critically evaluate qualitative and quantitative information to: a. develop lines of argument; b. make sound judgments in accordance with the major theories, concepts and methods of the subject(s) of study; c. apply underlying concepts, principles, and techniques of analysis, both within and outside the discipline; d. where appropriate use this knowledge in the creative process; and The ability to use a range of established techniques to: a. initiate and undertake critical evaluation of arguments, assumptions, abstract concepts and information; b. propose solutions; c. frame appropriate questions for the purpose of solving a problem; d. solve a problem or create a new work; and e. to make critical use of scholarly reviews and primary sources.
4. Communication Skills	The ability to communicate information, arguments, and analyses accurately and reliably, orally and in writing to a range of audiences.
5. Awareness of Limits of Knowledge	An understanding of the limits to their own knowledge and ability, and an appreciation of the uncertainty, ambiguity and limits to knowledge and how this might influence analyses and interpretations.
6. Autonomy and Professional Capacity	Qualities and transferable skills necessary for further study, employment, community involvement and other activities requiring: a. the exercise of initiative, personal responsibility and accountability in both personal and group contexts; b. working effectively with others; c. decision-making in complex contexts; d. the ability to manage their own learning in changing circumstances, both within and outside the discipline and to select an appropriate program of further study; and e. behaviour consistent with academic integrity and social responsibility.

Appendix 2: Degree Level Expectations for Graduate Programs

Master’s Degree	This degree is awarded to students who have demonstrated the following:
Expectations
1. Depth and Breadth of Knowledge	A systematic understanding of knowledge, including, where appropriate, relevant knowledge outside the field and/or discipline, and a critical awareness of current problems and/or new insights, much of which is at, or informed by, the forefront of their academic discipline, field of study, or area of professional practice;
2. Research and Scholarship	A conceptual understanding and methodological competence that: a. Enables a working comprehension of how established techniques of research and inquiry are used to create and interpret knowledge in the discipline; b. Enables a critical evaluation of current research and advanced research and scholarship in the discipline or area of professional competence; and c. Enables a treatment of complex issues and judgments based on established principles and techniques; and, On the basis of that competence, has shown at least one of the following: a. The development and support of a sustained argument in written form; or b. Originality in the application of knowledge.
3. Level of Application of Knowledge	Competence in the research process by applying an existing body of knowledge in the critical analysis of a new question or of a specific problem or issue in a new setting.
4. Professional Capacity/ Autonomy	a. The qualities and transferable skills necessary for employment requiring: i. The exercise of initiative and of personal responsibility and accountability; and ii. Decision-making in complex situations; b. The intellectual independence required for continuing professional development; c. The ethical behaviour consistent with academic integrity and the use of appropriate guidelines and procedures for responsible conduct of research; and d. The ability to appreciate the broader implications of applying knowledge to particular contexts.
5. Level of Communications Skills	The ability to communicate ideas, issues and conclusions clearly.
6. Awareness of Limits of Knowledge	Cognizance of the complexity of knowledge and of the potential contributions of other interpretations, methods, and disciplines.

Doctoral Degree	This degree extends the skills associated with the Master’s degree and is awarded to students who have demonstrated the following:
Expectations
1. Depth and Breadth of Knowledge	A thorough understanding of a substantial body of knowledge that is at the forefront of their academic discipline or area of professional practice including, where appropriate, relevant knowledge outside the field and/or discipline.
2. Research and Scholarship	a. The ability to conceptualize, design, and implement research for the generation of new knowledge, applications, or understanding at the forefront of the discipline, and to adjust the research design or methodology in the light of unforeseen problems; b. The ability to make informed judgments on complex issues in specialist fields, sometimes requiring new methods; and c. The ability to produce original research, or other advanced scholarship, of a quality to satisfy peer review, and to merit publication.
3. Level of Application of Knowledge	The capacity to a. Undertake pure and/or applied research at an advanced level; and b. Contribute to the development of academic or professional skills, techniques, tools, practices, ideas, theories, approaches, and/or materials.
4. Professional Capacity/ Autonomy	a. The qualities and transferable skills necessary for employment requiring the exercise of personal responsibility and largely autonomous initiative in complex situations; b. The intellectual independence to be academically and professionally engaged and current; c. The ethical behaviour consistent with academic integrity and the use of appropriate guidelines and procedures for responsible conduct of research; and d. The ability to evaluate the broader implications of applying knowledge to particular contexts.
5. Level of Communication Skills	The ability to communicate complex and/or ambiguous ideas, issues and conclusions clearly and effectively.
6. Awareness of Limits of Knowledge	An appreciation of the limitations of one’s own work and discipline, of the complexity of knowledge, and of the potential contributions of other interpretations, methods, and disciplines.

Appendix 3: Glossary

Definitions contained in this glossary have been adopted from the list of definitions provided by the Quality Council in its Quality Assurance Framework. Any changes to these definitions require approval by Toronto Metropolitan University Senate as well as the Quality Council.

Term	Definition
Adjusted Oversight	A guiding Principle of the Quality Assurance Framework, adjusted oversight refers to the practice of decreasing or increasing the degree of oversight by the Quality Council depending upon the university’s compliance across the spectrum of its quality assurance practices. Oversight may also be increased in one area and decreased in another. Examples include: a reduction or increase in the number of programs selected for a Cyclical Audit, a Focused Audit, adjusted requirements for documentation, and adjusted reporting requirements
Collaborative Specialization	An intra-university graduate field of study that provides an additional multidisciplinary experience for students enrolled in and completing the degree requirements for one of a number of approved master’s and/or PhD programs within the collaborative specialization. Students meet the admission requirements of and register in the participating (or “home”) program but complete, in addition to the degree requirements of that program, the additional requirements specified by the Collaborative Specialization. The degree conferred is that of the home program, and the completion of the Collaborative Specialization is indicated by a transcript notation indicating the additional specialization that has been attained (e.g., MA in Political Science with specialization in American Studies). A Collaborative Specialization must have: At least one core one-semester course that is foundational to the specialization and does not form part of the course offerings of any of the partner programs. This course must be completed by all students from partner programs registered in the specialization and provides an opportunity for students to appreciate the different disciplinary perspectives that can be brought to bear on the area of specialization. This course may serve as an elective in the student’s home program. Clear and explicit requirements for each Collaborative Specialization. In programs requiring a major research paper, essay, or thesis, the topic must be in the area of the collaborative specialization. In course-only master’s programs, at least 30% of the courses must be in the area of specialization including the core course described above. Courses in the area of specialization may be considered electives in the home program. Only core faculty that are those faculty members in the participating home programs who have an interest and expertise in the area of the collaborative specialization (this may include faculty primarily appointed to an interdisciplinary academic unit – for example, an Institute of American Studies – that provides the anchor for the specialization). Appropriate administrative and academic oversight/governance to ensure requirements associated with the specialization are being met.
Combined Programs	A program of study that combines two existing degree programs of different types. The combination may, for example, consist of two existing graduate programs, or a graduate and an undergraduate program. In most cases, the combination will involve at least one professionally oriented program. As students normally pursue one degree program at a time, and if two qualifications are sought, the degree programs would best be pursued consecutively. However, there are cases where the combination of two programs may be advantageous from a student’s point of view. If a combined program is proposed, there must be a demonstration that it provides such advantages to students through time efficiency, benefits to scholarship, professional development, or other considerations. Students must be made fully aware of the requirements and the schedule for completion of both programs, before embarking upon the combined degree
Degree	An academic credential awarded on successful completion of a prescribed set and sequence of requirements at a specified standard of performance consistent with the OCAV’s Degree Level Expectations and the university’s own expression of those Expectations (see Appendix 1 and Appendix 2) and achievement of the degree’s associated learning outcomes.
Degree Level Expectations (DLEs)	Academic standards that identify the knowledge and skill outcome competencies that reflect progressive levels of intellectual and creative development (See Appendix 1 and Appendix 2). Degree Level Expectations may be expressed in subject-specific or in generic terms. Graduates at specified degree levels (e.g. BA, MSc, PhD) are expected to demonstrate these competencies. DLEs have been established by the Ontario Council of Academic Vice-Presidents and serve as Ontario universities’ academic standards.
Degree Program	The complete set and sequence of courses, combination of courses and/or other units of study, research and practice prescribed by the University for the fulfillment of the requirements for each particular degree.
Desk Audit	The process associated with the Audit Team’s auditing of documents that have been submitted for a university’s audit, as required as a preliminary step of the Cyclical Audit. A desk audit is one part of the process to determine an institution’s compliance with its own IQAP and/or the Quality Assurance Framework.
Desk Review	A review of a New Program Proposal or Self-study conducted by external reviewers that is conducted independently of the university (i.e., does not typically include interviews or in-person or virtual site visits). Such a review may, with the agreement of both the external reviewers and the Provost, replace the external reviewers’ in-person or virtual site visit in the New Program Approval process and Periodic Program Review process for certain undergraduate and master’s program reviews
(Graduate) Diploma Program	The Quality Council recognizes only three types or categories of Graduate Diploma, with specific appraisal conditions applying to each. An Expedited Approval process may be requested when proposing a new graduate diploma. Once approved, these programs will be subject to the normal cycle of program reviews, typically in conjunction with the related degree program. Type 1: Awarded when a candidate admitted to a master’s program leaves the program after completing a certain prescribed proportion of the requirements. Students are not admitted directly to these programs. When new, these programs require approval through the university’s Protocol for Major Modification (Program Renewal and Significant Change) prior to their adoption. Once approved, they will be incorporated into the periodic program review schedule as part of the parent program. Type 2: Offered in conjunction with a master’s or doctoral degree, the admission to which requires that the candidate be already admitted to the master’s or doctoral program. This represents an additional, usually interdisciplinary, qualification. When new, these programs require submission to the Quality Council for an Expedited Approval prior to their adoption. Once approved, they will be incorporated into the periodic program review schedule as part of the parent program. Type 3: A stand-alone, direct-entry program, generally developed by a unit already offering a related master’s or doctoral degree, and designed to meet the needs of a particular clientele or market. The Expedited Approval process is used for new programs of this nature. Type 3 Graduate Diplomas are included in the periodic program review schedule and are then subject to external review.
Expedited Approval	Generally, approvals granted in a shorter time span with less required documentation. The Expedited Protocol requires the submission to the Quality Council of a Proposal Brief of the proposed program change/new program and the rationale for it. Only the applicable criteria, as outlined in Toronto Metropolitan University Senate Policy 112, will be applied to the proposal. The process is further expedited by not requiring the use of external reviewers. Furthermore, the Council’s appraisal and approval processes are reduced. The outcomes of these submissions will be conveyed to the proposing university directly by the Quality Assurance Secretariat and reported to the Quality Council.
Field	In graduate programs, an area of specialization or concentration (in multi/interdisciplinary programs a clustered area of specialization) that is related to the demonstrable and collective strengths of the program’s faculty and to a new or existing program. Universities are not required to declare fields at either the master’s or doctoral level. Universities may wish, through an Expedited Protocol, to seek the endorsement of the Quality Council.
Graduate Level Course	A course offered by a graduate program and taught by institutionally-approved graduate faculty, where the learning outcomes are aligned with the Graduate Degree Level Expectations and the majority of students are registered as graduate students.
Inter-Institutional Program Categories	Conjoint Degree Program: A program of study, offered by a postsecondary institution that is affiliated, federated or collaborating with a university, which is approved by the university’s Senate or equivalent body, and for which a single degree document signed by both institutions is awarded. Cotutelle: A customized program of doctoral study developed jointly by two institutions for an individual student in which the requirements of each university’s doctoral program are upheld, but the student working with supervisors at each institution prepares a single thesis which is then examined by a committee whose members are drawn from both institutions. The student is awarded two degree documents, though there is a notation on the transcripts indicating that the student completed his or her thesis under Cotutelle arrangements. In the case of the Cotutelle, since this arrangement relates to an existing, approved program, no separate appraisal or review processes will apply. Dual Credential/Degree Program: A program of study offered by two or more universities or by a university 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. Joint Degree Program: A program of study offered by two or more universities or by a university and a college or institute, including an Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning, in which successful completion of the requirements is confirmed by a single degree document.
Major Modifications	A significant change in the program requirements, intended learning outcomes, and/or human and other resources associated with a degree program or program of specialization, as defined by Toronto Metropolitan University Senate Policy 127.
Micro-credentials	A designation of achievement of a coherent set of skills and knowledge, specified by a statement of purpose, learning outcomes, and strong evidence of need by industry, employers, and/or the community. They have fewer requirements and are of shorter duration than a qualification and focus on learning outcomes that are distinct from diploma/degree programs. While requiring recognition in the IQAP, proposals for the introduction or modification of a microcredential do not require reference to the Quality Council unless they are part of a New Program.
Mode of Delivery	The means or medium used in delivering a program (e.g., lecture format, distance, online, synchronous/asynchronous, problem-based, compressed part-time, multi-campus, inter- institutional collaboration or other non-standard forms of delivery).
New Program	Any degree credential (e.g., BMus, Bachelor of Integrated Studies) or degree program (within an existing degree credential), or graduate diploma program, currently approved by Senate, which has not been previously approved for Toronto Metropolitan University 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). A new program has substantially different program objectives, program requirements and substantially different program-level learning outcomes from those of any existing approved programs offered by the institution.
Professional Master’s Program	Typically, a professional master’s degree is a terminal degree that does not lead to entry into a doctoral program. Such programs are designed to help students to prepare for a career in specific fields, such as occupational therapy, physical therapy, finance or business, among others. A professional master’s degree often puts a great deal of focus on real-world application, with many requiring students to complete internships or projects in their field of study before graduation. In contrast, a research master’s degree provides experience in research and scholarship, and may be either the final degree or a step toward entry into a doctoral program.
Program-Level Student Learning Outcomes	Clear and concise statements that describe what successful students should have achieved and the knowledge, skills, and abilities that they should have acquired by the end of the program, however an institution defines ‘program’ in its IQAP. Program-level student learning outcomes emphasize the application and integration of knowledge – both in the context of the program and more broadly – rather than coverage of material; make explicit the expectations for student success; are measurable and thus form the criteria for assessment/evaluation; and are written in greater detail than the program objectives. Clear and concise program-level learning outcomes also help to create shared expectations between students and instructors.
Program Objectives	Clear and concise statements that describe the goals of the program, however an institution defines ‘program’ in its IQAP. Program objectives explain the potential applications of the knowledge and skills acquired in the program; seek to help students connect learning across various contexts; situate the particular program in the context of the discipline as a whole; and are often broader in scope than the program-level learning outcomes that they help to generate.
Undergraduate Certificate	A short form credential that forms a coherent program of study organized around a clear set of learning outcomes. Undergraduate certificates are comprised of undergraduate level academic content normally equivalent to a minimum of half a year of full-time study. While requiring recognition in the IQAP, proposals for the introduction or modification to an undergraduate certificate do not require reference to the Quality Council unless they are part of a New Program. For more information, see Toronto Metropolitan University Policy 76.
Virtual Site Visit	The practice of conducting all required elements of the external reviewers’ site visit using videoconferencing software and/or other suitable platforms. A virtual site visit will still include elements such as virtual meetings with students, faculty, and other stakeholders. It may also include remote attendance at performances or events, and virtual facilities tours. A virtual site visit may replace an in-person site visit for certain undergraduate and master’s program, with agreement from both the external reviewers and the Provost.