Curriculum
Upcoming Events
All | Faculty | Grad Students
Contact
Centre for Teaching and Learning
Weldon Library (WL), Room 200
(519) 661-2111 x80346
ctl@uwo.ca
IQAP - Institutional Quality Assurance Process
On this page:
About IQAP
Undergraduate and graduate programs at Western undergo curriculum review every 7 years under the Institutional Quality Assurance Process.
To find out when your program is due to undergo review, review timelines, curriculum review forms, and other resources, please visit:
IQAP Review Schedule
Start preparing for curriculum review 2 years before the visit by external reviewers.
- IQAP Preparation
- Year 1: Create plan; develop outcomes
- Year 2: Self-study prep & data collection
- IQAP Submission
- Year 3: Self-study submission; site visit
- Continuous Improvement
- Year 4: Improve and align
- Year 5: Consider High impact practices
- Year 6: Ongoing Improvement Progress Report
- Year 7: Revisit Learning Outcomes
- Year 8
What are Degree Outcomes?
As part of the curriculum review or new program proposal process, departments are asked to articulate how their students achieve the Western Degree Outcomes and the Ontario Graduate Degree Level Expectations (WDOs and GDLEs).
WDOs and GDLEs capture the fundamental areas of knowledge and skills that students acquire by the end of their degrees.
Typically, the self-study report includes a table in which the program describes how their program learning outcomes map onto or fulfill the degree level expectations.
Resources
- Western Degree Outcomes and UUDLE - WDO Alignment Charts (printable version)
- Report of the Working Group on Western Degree Outcomes
- COU guide to Learning Outcomes, Degree Expectations and the Quality Assurance Process in Ontario
- Ontario Council of Academic Vice-Presidents' Undergraduate and Graduate Degree Level Expectations
Guidelines for Module Curriculum Assessment
Responding to IQAP
As part of the curriculum review process, departments will receive a list of recommendations for improving program quality from the external reviewers. For example, recommendations may include: the need for adding a key course on research methods to a master’s program, requiring graduate students to meet with their advisory committees a certain number of times per year, revision of comprehensive exam practices, or recommending additional faculty positions to support the number of students in a growing program.
Departments have a chance to respond to the reviewers' recommendations before their program review document enters the final assessment of review through SUPR-U and SUPR-G. In the response, departments articulate what they may have already done to address recommendations, and what, if any, changes are in process or planned for the future.
Questions?
If you would like to discuss this topic further, please contact a member of the CTL curriculum team.