senate standing committee on program review

Senate Standing Committee on Program Review

May 20, 2009 3:00 – 5:00 pm

Room G 1140

1. Approval of Agenda

2. Approval of Minutes of April 15, 2009

3. Report of the Chair - Carolyn Robertson

3.1. DQAB Update

3.2. Policy Changes

3.3. Business Review

4. ELST External Team Selection Recommendations

5. Updates from Facilitators

6. Fashion Design Action Plan

7. Philosophy Action Plan

8. Environmental Protection

9. Schedule of Reviews – Science

10. Next Meeting: June 17, 2009

11. Adjournment

______________________________________________________________________________

Attached:

1. Minutes of April 15, 2009 2.

Senate Standing Committee on Program Review

Apr. 15, 2009 3:00 – 5:00 pm

Room G 1140

MINUTES

Present: Regrets:

Baxter, Danielle (Facilitator team) Bigsby, Kathleen Bourgeois, Warren Bray, Cathy, (Facilitator) Fleming, Rob Hazel, Judy Heinrick, Christina Klinkhamer, Sooz McGoff Dean, Colleen (Facilitator) Metzger, Karen, Recorder Mitchell, Zena Nicolson-Church, Jean Richmond, Alexandra Robbins, Peter Robertson, Carolyn, Chair Sato, Takashi

Coombes, Mike Lee, Gordon Rogers, Linda Seru, Renu

1. Call to order

Carolyn Robertson called the meeting to order at 3:04 pm.

2. Approval of Agenda

The agenda was approved by consensus as revised: After item 2, add ‘DQAB Site visit report;’ and move item 7. ‘Policy B.12 – Draft revision’ to before the Chair’s report.

3. Approval of Minutes of March 18, 2009

Moved by Zena Mitchell, seconded by Sooz Klinkhamer, to approve the minutes of the March 18, 2009 meeting as amended: item 3 – should be 2008; add last names throughout for consistency.

MOTION CARRIED.

4. DQAB site visit – Rob Fleming

Rob Fleming noted that a report has been received from the DQAB site review team re Kwantlen’s application for exempt status up to and including baccalaureate degrees. There is a good possibility that Kwantlen’s application will be reviewed by DQAB at its April 22, 2009 meeting.

5. Policy B.12 – Draft Revision

Carolyn Robertson presented a draft revision of policy B.12 Program Review to reflect current reality. The committee reviewed the document and recommended some minor revisions.

Moved by Sooz Klinkhamer, seconded by Christina Heinrick, to approve the revisions to policy B.12 Program Review as amended

MOTION CARRIED.

Senate Standing Committee on Program Review Minutes of Meeting, April 15, 2009 Page 2

ACTION: Carolyn Robertson will make the recommended revisions and will send the revised document with ‘track changes’ to Robert Fleming, who will present it to the deans for feedback before it goes to the Senate Standing Committee on Policy Articulation for review.

6. Report of the Chair - Carolyn Robertson

6.1. Meeting time

The committee discussed and agreed by consensus that the committee will continue to meet at 3:00 pm.

6.2. School of Business Equivalency

Carolyn Robertson will meet the program review team for the School of Business to explore how best to get the application for equivalency completed as quickly as possible. According to the schedule of reviews, the process should have been completed (when?)

6.3. Schedule of Reviews

Carolyn Robertson noted that it was encouraging to look at the schedule of reviews and see what has been accomplished, though some reviews are delayed. She confirmed that a number of degree programs have just graduated students from 2007, and that those programs should not be reviewed until more data is available. The scheduled review dates for those degree programs are appropriate.

7. Updates from Facilitators

Cathy Bray reported the following:

Psychology review – Kevin Hamilton has indicated that the review is moving forward. The data has been discussed, and the review team will begin to write their self-study report soon, using the Fashion Design & Technology self-study report as a model.

Fashion Design & Technology – the draft action plan will be brought to SSCPR in May.

Philosophy - the draft action plan will be brought to SSCPR in May.

Environmental Protection Technology (EPT) – it is planned to submit the equivalency application to SSCPR in May. There was discussion about how to handle reviews for very small programs such as the EPT, which has only one full-time instructor. There are concerns about students in small programs feeling constrained in giving feedback about for review purposes.

Colleen McGoff Dean reported the following:

School of Business – see item 6.2

Access Program for People with Disabilities – the review process is moving along; a challenge is the data available as students are in individualized programs

English Language Studies – the external review team is being contacted and a site visit is being planned

Modern Languages – they are aware their review is next, and they are getting prepared

A PD session on program review scheduled for early May was cancelled and may be rescheduled for the fall. As an alternative, the facilitators may make themselves available to people as needed to inform them about the program review process.

The facilitators are continuing to gather information for the next update of the manual.

Senate Standing Committee on Program Review Minutes of Meeting, April 15, 2009 Page 3

8. Information handling - protection/use of program specific data – motions attached

Carolyn distributed proposed recommendations re access to program review information. The committee discussed the proposed recommendations. There are varying degrees of confidentially for program review documentation at other institutions, with Vancouver Island University, for example, not restricting access at all. There are concerns that external review team reports might contain inaccurate information, which would be a reason to restrict access.

Moved by Alexandra Richmond, seconded by Warren Bourgeois, to accept Carolyn Robertson’s recommendations re information handling and document assess as follows:

1. Self-Study Reports: Available to the self-study team and faculty of program, the program review team, members of the SSCPR, and senior administration. Access for other parties such as new programs undergoing review, with permission of the program.

2. External Team Report: Available to the self-study team, program faculty, and members of the SSCPR.

3. Response & Action Plan to Senate: Open access as per DQAB documents.

MOTION CARRIED.

ACTION: The program review team will incorporate the recommendations into the manual at the next opportunity.

9. Election of Chair

Carolyn Robertson vacated the chair in favour of Sooz Klinkhamer to conduct the election of the committee chair.

Sooz Klinkhamer nominated Carolyn Robertson, seconded by Judy Hazel. There were no other nominations. Carolyn Robertson was acclaimed as chair for the term from September 1, 2009 through to August 31, 2011.

Carolyn Robertson resumed chairing the meeting.

10. Next Meeting: May 20, 2009

11. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 4:53 pm.

To: Senate Standing Committee on Program Review

From: Colleen McGoff Dean

RE: Facilitator’s Report for May 20, 2009

Date: May 7, 2009

Hola, Amigas e Amigos!

I am unable to make today’s meeting as I am with Geoff and his family for two weeks in

Puerto Vallarta. (I’ll have a cerveza for you while I’m there :-))

Update on Current Program Reviews

Business: we had a very productive meeting with the PR Team and the Business

administrators and faculty representative on April 17. A bit more progress has been

made, and there is more clarity about what the review and the equivalency process is

intended to accomplish.

ELST: The self-study report is finished, and plans are underway for the external review

scheduled for June 19 in Richmond. I contacted the six externals who were

recommended by ELST in early April, and received 3 “yes” and one “no”. Two others

haven’t responded. Of the three available, only two have confirmed that they are

available on June 19. I haven’t heard back from the third candidate.

Getting internal candidates has been more difficult so far. The first two contacted were

unavailable. I was given three more names and sent letters to them today (May 7).

Hopefully, by the time of this meeting, one or two affirmative replies will have come in.

APPD: They have completed their online student survey with assistance from some of

the SETA students (many thanks to them and to Carolyn for contacting them!) APPD’s

overall process seems to be moving along well.

Others:

Crim: I assisted Cathy with the planning workshop for Criminology. It seemed to go

quite well and generated energy, ideas and questions. A strong start!

SETA: I will be meeting with their PR team in June to start planning dates and timelines

for the beginning of their review.

I will be contacting Modern Languages and Journalism when I return to set up a meeting

with each of them to start planning their upcoming reviews.

Action Plan: a response to the philosophy program reviewer’s report

A prioritized list of goals that are important and achievable in the next couple of years

1. Achievable with current resources

Note: numbers following goals indicate priority on a scale of 1 to 3, with 1 being high.

a. We will create a special series of lectures, debates and panel discussions on hot topics for

students. This will be done together with the philosophy club. Priority 3

b. We will develop courses for the Sustainability degree. See 1 d and 2 f. Priority 2

c. We will convene with our colleagues in Political Science and Economics to reinvigorate the

PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics) stream and work on a PPE degree. Priority 1

d. We will continue to lead the planning for an interdisciplinary Sustainability degree in

humanities spearheaded by Heather Harrison in philosophy. Priority 1

e. We will design a course on Argumentative Reading and Writing across the curriculum and

propose that it be required by all students. We have formed a committee and will put forward a

proposal for time release for curriculum development and discussion with all disciplines.

Priority 1

f. We will design a course for the Qualifying Studies Program to enable ill-prepared students to

move up to the Argumentative Reading and Writing course mentioned in 1 e. Priority 2

2. Requiring dean and institutional support

a. We will advertise and promote the series described in 1a to increase outreach to the student

body. Priority 3

b. We will seek support for the philosophy club. We will ask for a designated meeting place for

the Philosophy club (shared, perhaps, with other clubs) to meet. It should be a comfortable

lounge area, as opposed to an empty classroom. Our students ought to have a locking cabinet to

store items that the club may need to store. Ideally this will eventually be in a multipurpose room

provided as a centre for the philosophy department when philosophy has a physically identifiable

home. Priority 3

c. We will seek funding to support an undergraduate conference. Submissions will be invited

from students at neighbouring institutions as well as from Kwantlen. Priority 3

d. We will institute and administer a philosophy student essay prize. Mazen Guirguis is now

coordinating donations for this with Simone LeBlanc from the Foundation Office. Priority 3

e. We will restart and promote the Philosophy, Politics and Economics stream once we have the

Sustainability degree up and running. Priority 1

f. We will work with Linda Schwartz and Robert Adamoski to realize the Sustainability degree.

See 1 d. Priority 1

g. We will work with the administration to implement the Argumentative Reading and Writing

and Qualifying courses mentioned in 1 e and 1 f. Priority 2

3. Subject to collective agreements

Not applicable

A prioritized list of actions that are important and achievable but not in the next couple of

years

1. Achievable with current resources

Not applicable

2. Requiring dean and institutional support

a. We will design, implement and promote a Major in Philosophy. This will require that the

external reviewer’s first recommendation be met: “Reduce the maximum number of students in

Upper Division Philosophy courses. Tolerate low enrolments in third and fourth year courses in

their initial offerings.” A major is not achievable currently because, as the reviewers noted in

their report, there must be stable third and fourth year offerings. Before they undertake the

major, students must have reason to believe that the courses in the major will be available for

four years. It takes, moreover, several years for upper division courses to build stable

enrolments, so it is not adequate to offer courses in the major only if they achieve excellent

enrolment at the outset. Priority 1

b. We will design, implement and promote a Philosophy Politics and Economics degree.

Priority 1

c. We will seek advice on implementing the externals’ suggestion that Teaching Assistants

should be made available to instructors. We will explore with the relevant administrators the

possibility of hiring Kwantlen undergraduate students, for instance, those who have had an A or

A+ in formal logic, 1150, and an A or A+ in at least two other philosophy courses at Kwantlen.

These students could be hired to help us mark student work in 1145 (Critical Thinking) or 1150

and potentially in other courses being developed such as a course for Qualifying Studies.

Priority 2

d. Given the opportunity, we will establish a single location for philosophy on each campus and

use that to increase our profile with students. If we have a multi-purpose room for meetings,

then that would serve the philosophy club as well. We will discuss among ourselves the

specifications of office space and configuration of offices along with a departmental office and

multi-purpose room. We will then consult with the administration to see what is possible and lay

out a plan. This will be given to facilities for use when space becomes available. Priority 1

e. We will consult with each other and with departments such as Psych, English and History

concerning the duties that an administrative assistant would have. We will prepare a detailed

justification of our request together with a job description for the administrative assistant.

Priority 2

3. Subject to collective agreements

Not applicable

END of action plan

Kwantlen Philosophy Program Review

April 2009

Recommendations contained within the self-study report

1. that research funding be made available to those of our faculty who want to keep up a

publication list.

2. that upper division courses be allowed smaller class sizes

3. that notebook computers should be provided for our mendicant faculty members going

from campus to campus over Kwantlen’s large catchment area

4. that greater clerical support be provided, eventually a program assistant, to enhance our

ability to offer a major

5. that each regularized member of the department be provided with a private and exclusive

office either in Richmond or in Surrey, as preferred by that member, with all the

hardware and technological support necessary to carry out common teaching and research

activities.

6. that, in addition to private offices, a multi-occupant office, large enough to accommodate

at least four individuals, be made available in both Richmond and Surrey for the

department’s exclusive use. These rooms will supply workspaces for sessional

instructors, as well as regularized faculty who might be teaching a section on a campus

other than the one in which their main office is located.

7. that Philosophy be granted the exclusive use of a classroom-size multi-purpose room on

the Surrey campus, in which departmental functions may be carried out—e.g., holding

Philosophy Student Club meetings, hosting colloquia, conducting workshops, scheduling

faculty meetings, and having informal gatherings. We also request a similar room on the

Richmond campus—perhaps one that we may share with another Humanities department

(suggestion: Modern languages), or non- Humanities department (suggestion: Economics

or Political Science, with both of whom we are associated through the PPE initiative).

8. that a separate and distinctive departmental office be provided on the Surrey campus, one

that can house an administrative assistant, the department Chair, and serve as a

photocopy centre and/or a store for documents and supplies.

9. that all philosophy-related spaces mentioned above be grouped in close proximity, on

each of the two campuses, with characteristic markers and identifiers, so that students

(and the university community at large) may be able to recognize our department and see

that it is located in a specific place. This is a particularly important element, as it ties all

the others together.

10. that a large Philosophy billboard, on which we may display departmental news, course

and program information, and whatever else that may be of interest to students, be

provided for our exclusive use on each of the campuses, at the locations of our offices, in

order to identify us and mark our space.

11. that, with the support of the administration we provide more outreach to the student body

through special lectures on hot topics concerning students, support for a philosophy club,

and a philosophy student essay prize.

Recommendations of the external review team

1. Reduce the maximum number of students in Upper Division Philosophy courses. Tolerate

low enrolments in 3 and 4 year courses in their initial offerings.

2. Reduce the overall teaching load of Philosophy instructors. Perhaps Kwantlen can make

the Ministry understand that reduced FTEs are the price paid for a change from a College

to a University.

3. Teaching Assistants should be made available to instructors.

4. Time for research should be provided. We also think it is important to distinguish

between publication and research. Professors’ websites and blogs should be encouraged,

and routinely evaluated by colleagues and department chairs.

5. Faculty should have private offices, in a single location, and individual laptops.

6. There is scope for Philosophy’s involvement if Kwantlen were to introduce a course

required by all students on Argumentative Reading and Writing across the curriculum.

Philosophy might make a similar contribution to the Qualifying Studies Program.

FVTR - Kwantlen University College - Environmental Protection Technology Page 1 of 18

PROGRAM REVIEW COMMITTEE Program Review Exemption

Application Form

Application for Recognition of Equivalency to Program Review Process

PROGRAM and REVIEW INFORMATION 1. Program Name

Environmental Protection Technology Program

2. Applicant on Behalf of Program Name:

Paul Richard Signature:

Program/Unit of Study: Environmental Protection Technology Program

Date: May 15, 2009

Email: [email protected]

Local: 2556

3. External Accrediting Body Name:

Canadian Council of Technicians and Technologists www.cctt.ca/

Please describe and attach documents to support the following: a) the authority of the accrediting bodies and what powers they exercise, including whether they can grant rights to practice in a field, and their legislative mandate, if any; b) the accreditation process; and c) the authority’s relationships with other institutions or governing bodies

SEE APPENDIX A

FVTR - Kwantlen University College -Environmental Protection Technology Page 2 of 18

4. Date of Accreditation / Review Cycle Date of most recent accreditation:

April 18, 2007 Recommendation of Accreditation Team:

That the program be accredited for two years (2R) until September 29, 2008, by which time the school must submit a report demonstrating completion of the requested improvements for CTAB review.

Date of accreditation(s) previously granted:

The program has been accredited since 1990 by the Applied Science Technicians and Technologists of British Columbia (ASTTBC).

5. SELF-STUDY COMMITTEE Name:

Paul Richard

Position: Instructor, Environmental Protection

The organization seeking accreditation evaluates its own compliance against a national series of outcome requirements. The self-study portion requires that the program demonstrate how it meets/exceeds the National Technology Benchmarks. Key areas that are examined during the process include the list of program strengths, course outlines, the organization's governance and the management of the program.

6. EXTERNAL ACCREDITATION TEAM Name:

Position:

Stewart Baxter, CET Chair

Janet Humphrey, AScT Team member

Ariel Estrada, AScT Team member

Cathy Cardy, BSc, CCT, MCIC Report reviewer

7. DATE OF SITE VISIT(S) Date:

September 29, 2006


8. SUBMISSION OF FINAL REPORT Date:

April 17, 2007 Document Title:

CANADIAN TECHNOLOGY ACCREDITATION BOARD National Accreditation Kwantlen University College Final Visiting Team Report

Author / Submitted by:

Geoff Sale, AScT - CTAB Chair Recipient:

Brian G. Carr, Ph.D. Dean of Science, Mathematics and Applied Sciences


REVIEW PROCESS 1. EVIDENCE that the Accreditation Process has used a review process similar to Kwantlen’s

Provide a 1-2 page summary (composed of brief summary statements with reference to page numbers from the self-study or accreditation report where applicable) which indicates that the accreditation process follows the Kwantlen guidelines for program review. i.e.:

Standardized and evidence-based

o Indicate what the standard accreditation procedure is Established in 1982, the Canadian Technology Accreditation Board (CTAB) is a standing committee of The Canadian Council of Technicians and Technologists (CCTT). CTAB is charged with developing, coordinating and managing the national accreditation program for applied science and engineering technology programs. The review committee evaluates “the subject program” (i.e. curriculum)

through a review of documents and a one day site visit which involved interviews with faculty, students, alumni, program chair and the dean; review of course material and visits to laboratories It is believed that the committee saw the report prior to the visit

o Indicate what evidence is required

See the full accreditation procedure at

http://www.cctt.ca/template.asp?id=ED6B7FC0473C467DA0A91E02444858EA

Accountable to Kwantlen and is consistent with Kwantlen’s missions and values

o Indicate evidence of consistency with Kwantlen’s mission statement and strategic plan (We create an exceptional learning environment committed to preparing learners for leadership, service and success.) A program is examined and assessed for the purpose of identifying whether it

meets the profession's approved standards and criteria. These standards encompass leadership, service and success.

Iterative Reflects previous reviews and recommendations, with attention to trends and patterns

o Summarize the trends as reflected through previous reviews Not applicable. This is the first CCTT accreditation. However, there were

previous accreditations performed by ASTTBC. But, aside from the accreditation being granted, there are no trends because the process followed by CTAB is very different from ASTTBC's


Participatory Has engaged students, employers, program advisory committee, staff, faculty and administration in the review

o outline the processes through which various stakeholders have participated Faculty

prepared the self-study were interviewed during site visit telephone communications before and after; post-report feedback employers are informally connected with faculty Several members of our advisory committee are also EPT grads

employers; there was important input from Co-op faculty regarding employee

feedback)

Students were interviewed during site visit had their assignments reviewed

Program advisory committee one of them was interviewed by the CTAB group)

Administration Dean was interviewed during site visit Associate vice president academic was interviewed

Strategic Facilitates long and short-term planning

o Summarize the way the accreditation report will be used in future

The accreditation report has resulted in recommendations that have been

followed. The crucial outcome was the development of a new course ENVI 2900, which meets the unmet requirements noted in the reviewers’ report.

Formative Makes recommendations for continued program quality

See part 3 below

2. EVIDENCE that the Accreditation process has evaluated content similar to Kwantlen’s reviews:

Insert an executive summary of the accreditation report here, if available.

Attach the self-study and accreditation reports

See appendix B


3. Correlation of Accreditation Report with Inquiry Framework for Program Review a. Indicate via a checkmark which of the following elements have been reviewed b. Provide a brief rationale for non-evaluation of any of these categories and components 1. Quality of Education Design

Program Purpose/Intent

Kwantlen’s Environmental Protection Technology (EPT) Program is a two-year diploma program that prepares the graduate for technical work in the environmental field. Courses and two paid Co-op work terms give the student practical knowledge and experience in environmental protection technology, impact assessment, waste minimization and management, air and water pollution monitoring and control, and contaminated site investigations. The program also provides the student with a foundation in Biology, Ecology, Toxicology and Environmental Legislation.

Curriculum Development and Review

Essential Skills

X Teaching and Learning Methodologies

An evaluation of tests and assignments, and a discussion with students and grads took place.

Program Delivery Modes (see below)

Labs were evaluated during the site visit the program is delivered as a hands-on, lab based program, but the mode of delivery is traditional classroom & lab/field.

Faculty Qualifications and Currency

2. Quality of Educational Experience

Program Completion and Success Rate

There were 36, 41 and 34 students enrolled in the program in 05/06 through 07/08. About ¾ of the cohort graduates. The program is demanding and our retention rate is not as high as we would like.

Relevance of Education for Further Studies

See grads data in appendix B

Relevance of Education for Employment

See grads data in appendix B

X Satisfaction with Skills Development


3. Quality of Services, Resources and Facilities

X Student Satisfaction with Services, Resources and Facilities

X Faculty and Staff Satisfaction with Services, Resources and Facilities

We are a small program and try to maintain informal lines of communication open with everyone involved.

4. Quality of Program Relationships and Connections

Articulation- internal and external see grads data

Advisory Committee (see below)

The Advisory Committee meets twice a year. We have incorporated some of their suggestions recently, such as including environmental audits and EMS content into the program, and continuing with information sessions. We are currently working on incorporating safety topics into the first year of the program, following recommendations from the Committee.

Public information and marketing (see below)

The EPT Co-op coordinator carries out a large outreach/email campaign twice yearly (500+ potential employers and other stakeholders) The chair attends provincial environmental articulation meetings The chair organizes information sessions 2 or 3 times yearly, participates in Kwantlen's high school advisers conference

5. Comparison with previous Program Review

N/A


ACTION PLAN RESPONSE(S) TO findings or RECOMMENDATIONS emerging from the review. Briefly explain the major elements your program’s response to the report, identifying who will lead these responses, and a timeline for their completion. This “action plan” can include specific one-time measures or ongoing continuous improvements. Do you have plans to modify any of the following: Check all that apply: Critical factors in educational design (e.g. teaching methods, curriculum) __ Program Completion and Success Rate Relevance of Education to Further Studies __ Relevance of Education to Employment __ Skills Development __ Program’s relations with other Kwantlen programs and units __ other institutions __ the community __

Briefly explain program plans in each of the areas checked above, indicating who is responsible for each action and what the target date for completion is. A comprehensive review of some of our courses has been initiated, and is carried out, by the chair to identify critical areas that are associated with student failure. From the response to the external review: The visiting team identified that research is carried out in several courses but pointed out that there is no final student research project. We concur and will correct this. We will discuss this finding with our employers through our active Advisory Committee, and seek their assistance and support in rectifying this omission. We anticipate the introduction of a new Final Project course in the last semester. This project course will require each student to individually propose, plan, and carry out a research task during the passage of their second (and final) year. The research project may complement work carried out as part of the student senior co-op work term, hence the requirement of securing industry backing. It will not be possible to implement this for the September 2007 intake due to time limitations, and to the fact that we are already accepting students into the program for next fall without this requirement stipulated. It is our expectation to have this in place for the 2010 graduating class (i.e., the September 2008 intake class). Date(s):


Appendix A

Canadian Council of Technicians and Technologists (CCTT)

About Us (from CCTT website: http://www.cctt.ca/page.asp?lang=1&id=5FE42796D4F441349273F1D3827139DE )

Canada is a world leader in the application of new technology, and technicians and technologists are key elements in Canada's success. Canada's certified technicians and technologists make a difference in nearly every facet of business, industry and government.

The more than 49000 members of CCTT's provincial associations use CCTT as their national advocate on issues such as pan-Canadian standards, national and international mobility, and national accreditation of technology programs. Very important, CCTT establishes and maintains national competency standards for certifying members with a 'quality seal of approval' in 14 applied science and engineering technology disciplines: bioscience, industrial, building, instrumentation, chemical, mechanical, civil, mining, electrical, petroleum, electronics, geomatics, forestry, and information technology.

CCTT's provincial associations are responsible for issuing these highly regarded credentials, which are recognized by provincial statute in many Canadian provinces. Once certified, technicians and technologists may use one of the following professional designations: CET (Certified Engineering Technologist); AScT (Applied Science Technologist); CTech (Certified Technician); RET (Registered Engineering Technologist); and TP (technologue professionnel).

Why certification? Becoming certified gives technicians and technologists a distinct and valuable advantage in today's competitive workplace, and is considered a major milestone in an individual's career. Many employers either are required or prefer to hire certified technicians and technologists. Professional certification also facilitates national and international mobility through transferability agreements arranged by CCTT.

CCTT was originally incorporated on September 1, 1973 as the Canadian Council of Engineering Technicians and Technologists (CCETT). The CCTT was subsequently issued supplementary letters patent in April 1986.

CCTT is a national body that represents provincial associations who grant and maintain the certification of individual technicians and technologists. Where the provinces are responsible for an individual's certification, CCTT is responsible for accrediting the programs that train technicians and technologists in Canada.

Canadian Technology Accreditation Board (CTAB) Established in 1982, the Canadian Technology Accreditation Board (CTAB) is a standing committee of The Canadian Council of Technicians and Technologists (CCTT). CTAB is charged with developing, coordinating and managing the national accreditation program for applied science and engineering technology programs.


Appendix B

CANADIAN TECHNOLOGY ACCREDITATION BOARD

National Accreditation

Final Visiting Team Report

Institution: Kwantlen University College Richmond Campus

Surrey BC Program: Environmental Protection Technology Visit Date: September 29, 2006

Accreditation Level: Technologist

Team Chair: Stewart Baxter, CET

Team Members: Janet Humphrey, AScT

Ariel Estrada, AScT

Report Reviewer: Cathy Cardy, BSc, cCT, MCIC

Recommendation of Accreditation Team: That the program be accredited for two years (2R) until September 29, 2008, by which time the school must submit a report demonstrating completion of the requested improvements for CTAB review.

February 6, 2007 . Chair’s Signature Date


Overall Ratings: The team’s assessment of each major factor is indicated by the letters in the “Rating” column, according to the criteria of: A - Acceptable; U - Unacceptable;

Admission Standards A Graduation Requirements A Objectives (stated in outcome objectives) A

Instructional Loading A Faculty Profile A Educational Facilities A Library Facilities A Advisory Committee A Course Objectives A Subject Objectives Detailed Outlines A (Outcome based) Quality of Student Work A Lab/Lecture Ratio A

Program Strengths:

Science courses provide excellent base for technology subjects Field work and practical applications obtained during field trips strongly reinforce lab

work The Sampling & Analyses skill set are very strong throughout the program Co-op work terms provide students with relevant practical experience Excellent lab facilities and equipment Facility provides an excellent learning environment Students are confident in finding employment after graduation Faculty commitment to the program is evident by the enthusiasm of the students for the

program Students are encouraged to prepare and present work-term reports to the college

community Findings: A “finding” is a statement of evidence of a non-conformance to CTAB requirements for national accreditation, such evidence being confirmed as having been acknowledged by the educational agency.

1. Applied Research #278 is not adequately covered in the program. Students prepared several reports based on several individual courses. A final student research project is a mandatory requirement for all technologist levels programs in Canada.


College response: The visiting team identified that research is carried out in several courses but pointed out that there is no final student research project. We concur and will correct this. We will discuss this finding with our employers through our active Advisory Committee, and seek their assistance and support in rectifying this omission. We anticipate the introduction of a new Final Project course in the last semester. This project course will require each student to individually propose, plan, and carry out a research task during the passage of their second (and final) year. The research project may complement work carried out as part of the student senior co-op work term, hence the requirement of securing industry backing. It will not be possible to implement this for the September 2007 intake due to time limitations, and to the fact that we are already accepting students into the program for next fall without this requirement stipulated. It is our expectation to have this in place for the 2010 graduating class (i.e., the September 2008 intake class). Opportunities for Improvement An “opportunity for improvement” is a statement outlining a potential problem or weakness that is noted but not a direct non-conformance with any CTAB requirements – by its nature or magnitude it is not national accreditation-threatening; however, the educational agency is expected to respond to each “opportunity for Improvement”, indicating what it intends to do to improve the program.

1. Health & Safety should be provided to the students prior to the first Co-Op term to ensure adequate awareness.

College response: We do recognize this as a deficiency and have been considering several approaches to remedy this. It must be noted, however, that our Advisory Committee considers this a minor problem as all current co-op employers have an excellent record of providing safety training to all their co-op students. Required biology, chemistry and physics courses also include basic WorkSafe, WHMIS and MSDS training in their lab components. Summary List of Major Competency Areas (as submitted by the EA): 1) Environmental Air #271 2) Environmental Water Quality #272 3) Waste Management #274 4) Applied Research #278 5) Site Assessment & Reclamation #435 6) Field Sampling & Analysis – not accepted as a major competency Summary List of Major Competency Areas (as reviewed/accepted by Review Team): 1) Environmental Air #271 2) Environmental Water Quality #272 3) Waste Management #274 4) Applied Research #278 5) Site Assessment & Reclamation #435 6) Water & Wastewater Treatment #314

Canadian Technology Accreditation Board - Evaluation Report

Educational Agency: Kwantlen University College - Richmond Campus Program: Environmental Protection Technology

Canadian Technology Standards Competency Area

Course Code

Competencies Present

Competencies Not-Present

Generic Competency

Credit Remarks

Number Name

22 Communications CMNS1140 COOP 1110

12 of 12 Y Well covered

26 Computers CISY1105 ENVI 2307

7of 7 Y Well covered

52 Environment, Ethics & Society ENVI1121

COOP1101 6 of 6 Y

Well covered

118 Mathematics Fundamentals MATH1117 7 of 12

4584,4594,4595, 4596,4597

Y Missing not relevant to the program. (See Area #118 in Occupation ID #7)

168 Safety ENVI 2426 6 of 6 Y

.

170 Science Fundamentals BIOL1110

CHEM1105 7 of 7 Y

Well covered

277 Basic Technology ManagementENVI 2315 7 of 7 Y

Well covered

Total Technologist Generic Competencies (TGC) Credited 7 of 7 required

Canadian Technology Standards Referenced: Bioscience Environmental Technologist Occ. ID #41 Discipline: Bioscience Created 09/29/2006


Educational Agency: Kwantlen University College- Richmond Campus Program: Environmental Protection Technology


Course Code



Major Competency

Credit

Remarks

Number Name

271

Environmental Air Quality ENVI 2451 16 of 18

54, 6750

Y Well covered.

272 Environmental Water Quality ENVI 1206, 2315, 2410 20 of 22 341, 4444 Y

274 Waste Management ENVI 1100, 2310, 2315

ENVI 2420, 2426 29 of 32 4397, 4406, 4410 Y

Well covered.

278 Applied Research ENVI 2310, 2315, 2420 6 of 7

3502 Critical element for this Competency area.

Y See college response to Finding #1

314 Water & Wastewater Treatment ENVI 2315, 2410, 2426 9 of 9 Y

Well covered with 9 additional Statements.

435 Site Assessment & Reclamation* ENVI 2420, 2426, 2315

19 of 19

Y Well covered.

Total Technologist Major Competencies (TMC) Credited 6 of 6 required Canadian Technology Standards Referenced: Civil Environmental Technologist Occ. ID #7 * Bioscience Environmental Technologist Occ. ID #41 Discipline: Bioscience & Civil

Canadian Technology Accreditation Board – Evaluation Report

Educational Agency: Kwantlen University College – Richmond Campus Program: Environmental Protection Technology


Course Code



Supportive Competency

Credit Remarks

Number Name

10 Biology Fundamentals BIOL 1110, 1210, 2322

12 of 12 Y

Well covered

20 Chemistry Fundamentals ENVI 1106, 2426, CHEM 1105 29 of 29 Y

Well covered with 12 - additional areas added

54 Environmental Engineering And Management ENVI 2315, 2405,

2410, 2420, 2426 17 of 18 7609 Y

Well covered, 4 - Additional areas added

55 Environment - General ENVI 2405, 2410, 2315,

9 of 10 6753 Y Well covered, 3 - Additional areas added

76 Chemistry Lab – Skills CHEM 1105, ENVI 2315, 2426, 14 of 16 2527, 7599 Y

Well covered throughout the program.

97 Chemistry – Laboratory Instrumental Analysis

ENVI 1106, 2315, 2415, 2426 14 of 21

1134, 2229, 4780, 4875, 4884, 4890

Y

101 Chemistry Lab - Analysis ENVI 1100, 1206, 2315,2415,

CHEM 1105, MATH 1115

25 of 34 566, 4902, 4988,

4913, 4914, 4916, 7586, 7587, 7990

Y




Course Code

CompetenciesPresent



Credit Remarks

Number Name

143 Physical Science ENVI 2307, 2415 5 of 6 3512 Y 1 – Additional area added

154 Quality Assurance ENVI 23155 9 of 21 292, 295, 5350, 5353, 5354, 5356, 5357, 5362, 5364, 5366,

5367, 5370

Y 2 – Additional areas added

183 Statistics MATH 1115 16 of 17 4633 Y Well covered.

274 Soil & Land Quality ENVI 2310, 2315, 2410, 2420

13 of 13 Y

Well covered, 1 – Additional area added

285 Project Management ENVI 2310, 2420, 2426

7 of 10 3679,3681,7752 Y

287 Health and Safety ENVI 2305, 2426 19 of 19 Y

2 – Additional added. See areas OFI.

301 Meteorology ENVI 1216, 2415 1 of 1 Y Well covered, 6 – Additional areas added

329 Cartography ENVI 1206 2 of 2 Y

Well covered, 3 – Additional areas added.

334 Applied Mathematics ENVI 2317 Math1117,BIOL2322

4 of 10 X

Not relevant to this discipline

340 Resource Management – Aquatic Environment

ENVI 2315, 2410 2 of 2 Y 3 Additional areas added

349 Chemistry – Organic BIOL 2410, 2420, 1106, 2306, 2310,

2415 15 of 18 Y

Well covered, 4 – Additional areas added.




Course Code




Credit Remarks

Number Name

350 Chemistry – Physical CHEM 1105, ENVI 2410 2415, 2420

15 of 22 4981,4987,4992, 4995,5002,5003,

5006 Y

Well covered, 9 – Additional areas added

351 Chemistry – Mole Calcs, & Stoichiometry CHEM 1105 15 of 15 Y

Well covered.

386 Biochemistry BIOL 1210, ENVI 2305

5 of 10 6631,6635,6636,

6637,6638 Y

2 – Additional areas added

427 Agriculture – Soil Management

ENVI 1206, 2305, 2410

2 of 2 Y 4 – Additional areas added

428 Biology - Botany BIOL 1110, 1210, 2322

11 of 12 6551 Y Well covered.

429 Biology - Genetics BIOL 1210, 2322 2 of 2 Y

Well covered, 5 – Additional areas added

432 Biology - Zoology BIOL1110, 1210, ENVI 2305

2 of 2 Y Well covered, 12 – Additional areas added

433 Environmental Impact Assessment

ENVI 1121, 2305, 2420, BIOL 2322

3 of 3 Y Well covered, 5 – Additional areas added

434 Ecological Systems ENVI 1121, 2305, BIOL 2322

5 of 5 Y 13 – Additional areas added

468 Environmental - Noise

ENVI 2317 3 of 3 Y




Course Code




Credit Remarks

Number Name

KUC #1 Hydrology ENV I1206, 2410, 2420

19 of 19 Y

KUC #2 Fluid Mechanics ENVI 2307, 2410 8 of 8 Y

KUC #3 Geology Fundamentals ENVI 1206 7 of 7 Y

KUC #4 Agriculture Water Management

ENVI 1121, 2410, BIOL2322

4 of 4 Y

KUC #5 Environmental Law ENVI 2410, 2415 4 of 4 Y

Total Discipline (Occupational) Supportive Competencies (DSC) Credited 31

Canadian Technology Standards Referenced:

Bioscience Environmental Technologist Occ. ID #41 Discipline: Bioscience

Revised November 29, 2006

senate standing committee on program review

Documents