REPORT NUMBER 213 OF THE COMMITTEE
ON ACADEMIC POLICY AND PROGRAMS
April 12, 2022
To the Academic Board,
University of Toronto
Your Committee reports that it held a meeting on Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 3:10 p.m. with the following present:
Present:
Aarthi Ashok (Vice-Chair) Susan McCahan (Vice-Provost, Academic Programs and Innovations in Undergraduate Education), Joshua Barker (Dean of the School of Graduate Studies and Vice-Provost, Graduate Research and Education), Catherine Amara, Christian Caron, James Davis, Raisa Deber, Stark Draper, Angela Esterhammer, Adam Fox, Robert Gibbs, Walid Houry, Nadine Janes, Gretchen Kerr, Jeannie Kim, Fabian Parsch, Maureen Simpson, Eric Stubbs, David Tieu
Regrets:
Ernest Lam (Chair), Ana Djapa, Karen Ng, Markus Stock, Zhino Maanavi
Non-Voting Assessors:
Angelique Saweczko (University Registrar)
Leah Cowen (Vice-President, Research and Innovation, and Strategic Initiatives)
Secretariat:
Timothy Harlick, Secretary
In Attendance:
Andrea Benoit, Academic Review Officer, Faculty of Arts and Science
Daniella Mallinick, Director, Academic Programs, Planning & Quality Assurance
David Lock, Coordinator, Academic Planning and Reviews
Ellie Hisama, Dean, Faculty of Music
Emma del Junco, Assistant Coordinator, Academic Planning & Reviews
Gillian Hamilton, Acting Vice-Dean, Academic Planning, Faculty of Arts & Science
Katherine Larson, Vice-Dean, Teaching, Learning and Undergraduate Programs, UTSC
Kimberly Strong, Chair, Department of Physics
Melanie Woodin, Dean, Faculty of Arts & Science
Pamela Klassen, Chair, Department for the Study of Religion
Ryan McClelland, Associate Dean, Academic and Student Affairs, Faculty of Music
Thembela Kepe, Chair, Department of Human Geography, UTSC
Victoria Wohl, Chair, Department of Classics
William Gough, Vice-Principal Academic and Dean, UTSC
- Chair’s Welcome
Professor Aarthi Ashok, the Committee’s Vice-Chair welcomed members and guests to the meeting. It was noted that the Chair, Professor Ernie Lam had an unavoidable time conflict, and as such she would chair the meeting.
- Reports of the Administrative Assessors
Professor Susan McCahan, Vice-Provost, Academic Programs and Innovations in Undergraduate Education, reminded the Committee that at its January 11, 2022, meeting, it had approved the new Faculty of Arts and Science Major in Work and Organizations. She reported that the program had been approved by the Quality Council on February 25, 2022, and that the program would launch in September.
She also noted that the University exam period had begun for the Winter 2022 term and the administration continued to monitor in-person activities and impacts relating to COVID-19. Members of the administration had also been working with academic divisions to ensure students, faculty, and staff were supported during the exam period and into to the upcoming summer session.
Professor Leah Cowen, Vice-President, Research and Innovation, and Strategic Initiatives, offered an update on research activities at the University reporting that the University had undertaken a successful search for a new Associate Vice-President, Research. Professor Barbara Fallon from the Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work had accepted the position effective May 1, 2022.
She also noted several recent awards and honors that had been received by faculty members. In particular, she highlighted the five President's Impact Award winners who represented broad diversity in scholarship across the tri-campus; two Gairdner Awards; three Guggenheim Fellowships; and three Awards in Excellence. Finally, Professor Cowen noted that according to the QS World Ranking, the University ranked first in Canada in all of the five categories it measured, and first in Canada for 34 out of 48 subjects that were ranked.
Discussion
In response to a member’s question regarding the QS World Ranking metrics, Professor Cowen advised that while there were minor fluctuations, the University generally maintained consistently high rankings from year to year. Data from the QS rankings had been compiled by the University and would form a component of an upcoming annual report.
The Chair thanked Professors McCahan and Cowen for their reports.
- New Graduate Program Proposal: Master of Arts (MA) in Kinesiology, Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education (KPE)
The Committee received and reviewed the proposal for a new graduate program: Master of Arts (MA) in Kinesiology, Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education (KPE). Professor Gretchen Kerr, Dean of the Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education, was in attendance to answer questions.
Professor McCahan provided an overview of the proposed program. She highlighted that currently, thesis-based master’s students in KPE had only the MSc in Kinesiology degree program as an option and that this proposed MA degree in Kinesiology would better align with the interests of students pursuing social sciences and humanities research at the master’s level. She also noted that the creation of this program directly responded to a recommendation of the 2019 University of Toronto Quality Assurance Process (UTQAP) review of the Faculty and its programs.
Dean Kerr further emphasized that the addition of an MA offered recognition and a stronger sense of identity in the social sciences and humanities. She also advised the Committee that there would not be any additional resources or faculty required to offer the program.
There were no questions from members.
On motion duly made, seconded, and carried
IT WAS RECOMMENDED,
THAT the proposed degree program, Master of Arts in Kinesiology as described in the proposal from the Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education dated November 26, 2021 be approved effective September 1, 2022.
- Reviews of Academic Programs and Units
- Semi-Annual Report on the Reviews of Academic Units and Programs, October 2021 – March 2022
The Chair noted that the Committee had received five reviews of units and/or programs, one of which was a Provostial review and four of which were Decanal. All were brought forward for information and discussion. The submissions included the signed administrative responses from each Dean, which highlighted action plans in response to reviewer recommendations.
The Chair reported that members had been broken into four reading groups and that each group had been assigned three reviews to consider. To guide their work, members of these groups were asked to consider three questions:- Does the summary accurately tell the story of the full review?
- Does the administrative response address all issues identified?
- Are there any questions, comments or substantive issues that the Committee should consider? Is there a need to ask that the Vice-Provost, Academic Programs bring forward a follow-up report?
- Semi-Annual Report on the Reviews of Academic Units and Programs, October 2021 – March 2022
The Chair also noted that, as part of their review, each of the reading groups had submitted comments to the appropriate Deans’ Offices for their consideration in advance of the meeting.
The Chair invited Professor McCahan to make general remarks about the reviews.
Professor McCahan noted that the Committee played a critical role in the reviews of all academic programs and units at the University. The goals of these reviews were to:
- obtain expert advice of leaders in the field concerning academic and administrative issues,
- measure performance against leading international programs, and
- obtain guidance and input from peers on key strategic directions.
She advised that her office had examined these review reports to identify both recurring and new themes: the talent and high calibre of students and the impressive body of scholarship produced by faculty, as well as the programs’ interdisciplinary strengths and the many initiatives undertaken by the academic units to enhance equity, diversity, and inclusion.
She further reported that the reviews had highlighted the need to ensure that diversity is reflected in faculty complement and curriculum. The reviews had also identified the need for units to strengthen their communication and governance structures and had suggested ways to engage in meaningful discussions regarding student recruitment and faculty workload.
Professor McCahan reported that within the broad theme of communication, challenges around tri-campus communication and coordination had been observed in this group of reviews. A Tri-Campus Review had been launched to address challenges related to this, with specific working groups to address academic planning and academic change, graduate units, student services, and other related matters. The working groups had submitted their recommendations prior to the global pandemic was declared and given that timing, implementation was ongoing.
Professor Joshua Barker, Dean of the School of Graduate Studies and Vice-Provost, Graduate Research and Education, further added that through the Tri-Campus Review it had become apparent that increased coordination and communication was fundamental to the health of tri-campus graduate units and that those units benefited from involvement of faculty and students from all three campuses. He then provided an update on the development of a framework and template for memoranda of understanding between contributing departments to strengthen collaboration across the tri-campus.
Faculty of Arts and Science - Department of Classics Review
The spokesperson for the reading group reported that the review summary accurately described the full review and that overall, they had found the review to be positive. The reading group agreed that the administrative response had included a forward-looking plan.
Professor Melanie Woodin, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Science commented on the planning process of the Department’s five-year planning which included proposed faculty complement and plan to address EDI in their hiring. Planning for EDI also had extended beyond complement planning and into professional development planning for faculty.
Professor Victoria Wohl, Chair of the Department of Classics, commented on the mission and structure of the Department’s graduate training and noted that a year long graduate review had been conducted and work was ongoing on implementing recommendations.
She also noted that a full review of the Department’s undergraduate programs was planned for the upcoming year.
No follow-up report was requested.
Faculty of Arts and Science - Department of Religion Review
The spokesperson for the reading group reported that the review summary accurately described the full review and that overall, they had found the review to be positive. The reading group reported that the Dean’s administrative response had adequately addressed issues identified by the review, however, asked the Department to further comment on the topic of harassment and mental wellness found in the report.
Dean Woodin commented on the processes in place that addressed formal and informal complaints of harassment and situations of discomfort by students in accordance with best practice and University policies.
Professor Pamela Klassen, Chair of the Department of Religion, further commented on the Department’s response to addressing harassment and the resources available to students who had experienced harassment. She complimented the new Centre for Graduate Supervision for its assistance with training and conveying expectations for faculty graduate mentorship and supervision.
No follow-up report was requested.
Faculty of Arts and Science - Department of Physics Review
The spokesperson for the reading group reported that the review summary had accurately reflected the full review. The reading group noted that several of the recommendations, including the highest-priority recommendation about space and facilities, went beyond the control of the Department and that the responses provided by the Department and the Dean had addressed the recommendations appropriately.
Professor Kimberly Strong, Chair of the Department of Physics, commented on several specialist programs offered in partnerships with other Departments and the commitment of the Department’s Undergraduate Curriculum Committee to further address the reviewers’ comments on updates to curriculum. She also commented on current and upcoming research opportunities for students through supervised research and reading courses, summer research opportunities, and several other planned initiatives. She ended her comments with an update on current faculty complement and future faculty complement planning incorporated in the Department’s academic plan.
No follow-up report was requested.
UTSC Department of Human Geography Review
The spokesperson for the reading group reported that the review summary accurately reflected the full review. The reading group noted that administrative response outlined in detail the actions that the Department had already taken and demonstrated that many of the recommendations could be addressed in the short to medium term.
Professor Katherine Larson, Vice-Dean, Teaching, Learning and Undergraduate Programs commented that the Department had been developing strategies in consultation with the UTSC Arts and Science Co-op Office to increase the range of placement options and to encourage students to apply more broadly for cooperative opportunities. She also noted that there were other experiential learning opportunities that may benefit students as well.
Professor Thembela Kepe, Chair, Department of Human Geography, noted that the Department had planned to hold a retreat within one year, with discussion topis to include managing student expectations and facilitating greater knowledge in the process for cooperative placements.
In response to a member’s question regarding the number of students who participated in a cooperative placement, Professor Kepe indicated that the cooperative program was available only to students enrolled in the City Studies program and approximately 10 students had a cooperative placement. Professor William Gough, Vice-Principal Academic and Dean, UTSC, indicated that approximately 4000 of the 14000 registered students at UTSC were enrolled in a cooperative program.
No follow-up report was requested.
Provostial Review – Faculty of Music
The spokesperson for the reading group reported that the review summary had accurately reflected the full review, with one comment that the emphasis of the reviewers’ statements regarding the synergistic impacts of individual resource limitations had been somewhat lost. The reading group reported that the administrative response had adequately addressed issues identified by the review.
Professor McCahan commented on the use of existing resources in delivering academic programming. She reported that divisional budgets were set each year through the academic budget review process, which involved in-depth planning with each of the Deans. Five-year divisional plans were revisited annually to allow for necessary updates to reflect new internal or external circumstances of each division. The academic budget process was intended to provide year over year predictability and customization for divisions.
Professor Ellie Hisama, Dean of the Faculty of Music, commented on the Faculty’s ongoing space issues and noted that while a new recital hall was under construction, office space continued to be an issue. She reported on the unique challenges of their one-on-one and small group instructional model within the University budget model. She also discussed strategies to help alleviate those challenges through increased international enrolment and offering new programming through partnerships with other divisions.
In response to a member’s question regarding attracting international students, Professor Ryan McClelland, Associate Dean, Academic and Student Affairs of the Faculty of Music, stated that of the approximately 550 undergraduate students, 50 were international students and that through international recruiting, it was hoped to further increase that number.
No follow-up report was requested.
- Report of the Previous Meeting: Report 212, February 17, 2022
The report of the previous meeting was approved.
- Business Arising from the Report of the Previous Meeting
There was no business arising from the report of the previous meeting.
- Date of Next Meeting – Thursday, May 5, 2022, at 3:10 p.m.
The Chair confirmed that the next meeting of the Committee would be held on Thursday, May 5, 2022.
- Other Business
There were no items of other business.
The meeting adjourned at 4:48 p.m.
April 13, 2022