AGENDA OPEN SESSION...AGENDA – OPEN SESSION 8:30 a.m. – 8:40 a.m. Call to Order and welcome 8:41...

of 2

ROYAL ROADS UNIVERSITY

BOARD OF GOVERNORS

Meeting: Monday, 30 September, 2013

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Location: Room 315, Hatley Castle

AGENDA – OPEN SESSION

8:30 a.m. – 8:40 a.m.

Call to Order and welcome

8:41 a.m. 1. Approval of Agenda

8:42 a.m. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Open Session of 21 June, 2013

(Attachment 1)

8:42 a.m. – 9:05 a.m.

3. Report from the Program and Research Council

3.1. Annual program reviews – for information (attachment 2)

Bachelor of Commerce (BCOM) online

Bachelor of Commerce (BCOM) on campus

Master of Business Administration (MBA)

3.2. Five‐year program review – for information (Attachment 3)

Master of Arts in Conflict Analysis and Management

9:05 a.m. – 9:15 a.m.

4. Report from the Finance and Audit Committee – for information (verbal report)

9:15 a.m. – 9:24 a.m.

5. Report from President – for information (verbal report)

9:25 a.m. 6. Consent agenda – items for information

6.1. Approved Committee Terms of Reference: Board Structure document,

Program and Research Council, Finance and Audit Committee, Governance

and Nominating Committee, Standing Committee on Appeals (attachment 4)

6.2. Board Strategic Plan (attachment 5)

6.3. DRAFT minutes of the 17 September, 2013 Program and Research Council

meeting (Attachment 6)

6.4. DRAFT notes from the 17 September, 2013 Program and Research Council

meeting with School Advisory Council chairs (attachment 7)

of 2

(Note: Governors may request that any item placed on the Consent Agenda be moved elsewhere.) Pro Forma MOTION: That the above item(s) be received for information by the Royal Roads University Board of Governors by consent.

9:25 a.m. 7. Adjournment

Attachment 1 Open Session

21 June, 2013 RRU Board of Governors Open Session Page 1

ROYAL ROADS UNIVERSITY

BOARD OF GOVERNORS

DRAFT Minutes of the Open Session

Friday, 21 June, 2013

Aboriginal Learning and Cultural Centre

PRESENT: Board of Governors: Administration: J. Peter Meekison, OC (Chair & Chancellor) Steve Grundy Allan Cahoon (President & Vice‐Chancellor) Cyndi McLeod Phil Cady Dan Tulip Mary Collins Karen Hakkarainen (recording) Nigel Greenwood Rubina Jamal Charles Krusekopf Deborah Linehan Melissa McLean Joel Rosenberg Tony Ruffolo Wayne Strandlund

8:48 a.m. – Call to order The Royal Roads Learning and Teaching Model brochure was distributed to Board members for their information. Phil Cady advised that a dinner had been held the previous evening in Vancouver for Leadership alumni. It was well‐attended and a positive experience. 1. Approval of the agenda

MOTION (Ruffolo/Strandlund) That the agenda be approved as distributed.

CARRIED 2. Approval of the Minutes

MOTION (McLean/Ruffolo) That the minutes of the 12 April, 2013 Open Session be approved as distributed.

CARRIED

3. Report from the Program and Research Council 3.1. New program: Graduate Certificate – Online Learning Facilitation

This new program capitalizes on the university’s deep knowledge of online learning.


MOTION (Rosenberg/Cahoon) That the Board of Governors approves the Graduate Certificate in Online Learning as a new program.

CARRIED

3.2. New program: Graduate Diploma in Educational Leadership and Management This diploma not only aligns with the government’s goal of developing leadership skills in the education sector but also responds to market demand. MOTION (Cahoon/Rosenberg) That the Board of Governors approves the Graduate Diploma in Educational Leadership and Management as a new program.

CARRIED

3.3. Major revision: Graduate Certificate in Professional Communication Management This major revision will better align the program to current industry needs. MOTION (Strandlund/McLean) That the Board of Governors approves the program revisions to the Graduate Certificate in Professional Communications Management.

CARRIED

3.4. Program cancellation: MBA in Human Resources Management Enrolments for this program have been insufficient to provide a positive pedagogical learning environment. MBA students interested in a concentration in human resources management will be able to choose elective human resources management courses as well as focus their Organizational Consulting Project on a human resource management issue. Additionally, the university continues to offer a graduate certificate in strategic human resources management. The administration confirmed that the MBA in Human Resources Management can be reintroduced at a later date should there be market demand. MOTION (Linehan/Ruffolo) That the Board of Governors approves the cancellation of the Master of Business Administration in Human Resources Management.

CARRIED

4. Report from the Governance and Nominating Committee 4.1. Board Strategic Plan

The Board reviewed the Committee’s recommended draft strategic plan and identified additional revisions. It was noted that the plan’s value to the Board will be realized only if it is kept alive through regular review and updating.


MOTION (Strandlund/McLean) That the Board of Governors approves its Strategic Plan, incorporating revisions identified by the Board.

CARRIED 4.2. Committee Terms of Reference

Committee Chair Wayne Strandlund led a discussion of the committee terms of reference. No changes are recommended to the Board for the Finance and Audit Committee or Standing Committee on Appeals Terms of Reference. Revisions are recommended for the Board Committee Structure document and the Governance and Nominating Committee and Program and Research Council Terms of Reference. MOTION (Strandlund/Cahoon) That the Board of Governors approves the Finance and Audit Committee and Standing Committee on Appeals Terms of Reference as presented.

CARRIED MOTION (Strandlund/Cahoon) That the Board of Governors approves the revised Board Committee Structure document as presented.

CARRIED MOTION (Strandlund/Greenwood) That the Board of Governors approves the revised Governance and Nominating Committee Terms of Reference as presented.

CARRIED MOTION (Strandlund/McLean) That the Board of Governors approves the revised Program and Research Council Terms of Reference as presented. The Committee Chair reported that the Program and Research Council had reviewed its terms of reference and recommended revisions to them to the Governance and Nominating Committee. The revisions included adding a new clause under the section Responsibilities, sub‐section 1. Academic Programming. The new clause delegated authority from the Board to PRC for approval of new or significantly revised for‐credit certificates and diplomas. Board approval would still be required for new or significantly revised degree programs. After reviewing the PRC’s recommendations at it June 7th meeting, the Governance and Nominating Committee disagreed with the recommendation to delegate authority to PRC to approve for‐credit certificates and diplomas. The PRC terms of reference presented to the Board for approval by the Governance and Nominating Committee maintain the requirement for Board approval of all new or significantly revised credit programs: certificates, diplomas and degrees. In discussion, members questioned whether the Board can and should delegate authority to committees, and whether the process to review and approve committee terms of reference is appropriate.


Further, members noted that the format of the document presented for consideration was confusing and requested that a new document that more clearly presented the Governance and Nominating Committee’s recommendation with respect to the PRC terms of reference be brought forward at the Board’s September meeting for final decision. MOTION (McLean/Strandlund) That the Board of Governors lay on the table the motion to approve the revisions to the Program and Research Council Terms of Reference until the September 2013 Board of Governors meeting and that the Board be provided with a new document that more clearly lays out the Governance and Nominating Committee’s proposed changes to the Program and Research Council Terms of Reference.

CARRIED (Secretarial note: In the Closed Session, the Board elected to continue its discussion of the PRC Terms of Reference and approved a motion in support of the Governance and Nominating Committee’s recommendation to the Board. Therefore, Board approval is required for all new or significantly revised for‐credit certificates, diplomas and degrees.)

5. Report from the President The President reported that in most regards the University is performing well. It has met government deadlines for all reporting requirements and enjoys a positive relationship with government. Labour agreements have been finalized while other institutions are still negotiating. Enrolments, however, are behind plan. The Strategic Enrolment Management Group continues to provide oversight on the issue, developing strategies to respond to areas of softening admissions while a task force is working on improvements to the website to optimize the conversion of prospects into applicants and, ultimately, students. Investments in new initiatives are being synchronized with enrolments. With respect to the 2012 Cooperative Gains Mandate, the Ministry of Advanced Education has asked post‐secondary institutions for performance reporting on their approved savings plans. On June 17, the Honourable Amrik Virk, Minister of Advanced Education, and the Honourable Andrew Wilkinson, Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services, attended a meeting of the Presidents of the Research Universities’ Council of BC. It was a very positive meeting. Minister Virk has served on the Board of Kwantlen Polytechnic University and is very familiar with post‐secondary education in BC, while Minister Wilkinson also spoke about key issues facing the sector. The government will be reviewing initiatives under the purview of the Administrative Services Delivery Transformation project (shared services) before proceeding with implementation. Cyndi McLeod reported on a successful June trade mission to China that included a leadership forum held in conjunction with Shanghai Institute of Technology. Trade mission participants included Mayor Dean Fortin of Victoria and members of the Westshore business community. A number of student applications are expected as a result of the trip, as well as business investment in Victoria and the Westshore.


6. New Business 6.1. Reports from governors on conference attendance

Board members Mary Collins, Melissa McLean and Wayne Strandlund attended the Association of Governing Boards conference held in April in San Francisco. The conference was also attended by the President and the Manager, Board Governance and Planning. Mary Collins distributed a brief report on her attendance, which is available for viewing in the Board’s permanent archive. Members reported on the sessions they attended, noting that Royal Roads is ahead of many institutions in its response to key emerging issues such as the growing demand for educational opportunities for non‐traditional learners (i.e. mid‐career professionals), incorporating technology and blended learning into its teaching model, and conducting Board performance assessments. The Board Chair and the Manager, Board Governance and Planning, attended the Canadian University Board Association conference held in Calgary in May. The Board Chair participated in a panel response to a presentation entitled “The future of universities: Do our universities need to be rethought?” The presentation focused on the question of the role of government in reforming Canadian post‐secondary education. Futurist Richard Worzel presented a session on Risk Management and Scenario Planning. A working handbook from the session was circulated and will be distributed to members by email.

7. Consent agenda 7.1. DRAFT minutes of the 29 May, 2013 Program and Research Council meeting

MOTION (Cahoon/Ruffolo) That the above item(s) be received for information by the Royal Roads University Board of Governors by consent.

CARRIED 10:53 a.m. – Adjournment J. Peter Meekison, OC Karen Hakkarainen Chair of the Board of Governors Manager, Board Governance and Planning

of 1

PROGRAM AND RESEARCH COUNCIL

BRIEFING NOTE

MEETING: 17 September 2013

AGENDA ITEM: Annual program reviews

SPONSOR: Steve Grundy, Chair of Academic Council

PURPOSE: For information

Consistent with its terms of reference and in alignment with RRU and Academic Council Quality Assurance Policies, Academic Council recently reviewed annual program reviews for the following programs:

Bachelors of Commerce (BCom) online

Bachelors of Commerce (BCom) on campus

Master’s in Business Administration (MBA)

Motion: That the Program and Research Council receive the annual program reviews for information.

khakkarainen

Typewritten Text

Attachment 2

khakkarainen

Typewritten Text

khakkarainen

Typewritten Text

khakkarainen

Typewritten Text

Open Session 3.1

khakkarainen

Typewritten Text

mbracewell

Typewritten Text

mbracewell

Typewritten Text

mbracewell

Typewritten Text

This page is intentionally left blank

mbracewell

Typewritten Text

mbracewell

Typewritten Text

mbracewell

Typewritten Text

mbracewell

Typewritten Text

of 9

Annual Program Review

Program Name: Bachelor of Commerce in Entrepreneurial Management, Online

Date of submission: October 15, 2012 (Received May 2013)

Period of review: September 19, 2011 – September 18, 2012

Submitted by: Megan Cornish

1. Program Registration Statistics To be provided by the Registrar’s Office:

Number of students currently registered in program (by cohort) = 131 [164]

o 2011-1 = 40 [48] Day 1 = 39 learners in the cohort, others have since transferred in

o 2011-2 = 33 [47] Day 1 = 44, learners in the cohort, others have since transferred in



The [number in brackets] is the total number of students in the program (or cohort) from September 19, 2011 – September 18, 2012

Number of students on medical leave: 0 [164]

Number of students on personal leave: 2 [164]

o 2011-1 (Y1011W-CA1W) 0 [48]

o 2011-2 (Y1112F-CA1W): 1 [47] – currently registered in RRU MA Leadership

o 2012-1 (Y1112P-CA1W): 1 [27]

o 2012-2 (Y1213F-CA1W): 0 [39]

o and one learner is on a leave of absence and is currently registered in the RRU Masters in Leadership Program.

Number of students who have VW’d from program: 17 [164] I’ve only included students who started in 2011 or 2012

o 2011-1: 8 [48] learners withdrew for the following reasons: Health (1 - left the program to care for her sick mother), Financial (2 – Family-related financial issues) Stress (1 - Personal/family stress) Work (1 - did not return from LOA due to career advancement opportunities) Career (1 – did not return from LOA as program did not fit his career plans) Major life changes (1 - new job, moved to a new city, and ended a long-term

relationship – has since requested reinstatement to BCom program and is due to return in Fall 2013)

Graduate Degree (1 – withdrew to pursue a graduate degree – not at RRU)

o 2011-2: 6 [47] learners withdrew for the following reasons: Transfer to RRU MBA program (1 – saw one learner transfer to MBA program and

decided to follow suit, although in the end he did not apply for RRU MBA)

of 9

Financial (1- primarily financial, but a combination of grief and loss as well) – he has since requested reinstatement and will be returning to the program

Work (1 – primarily work-related as he travels extensively for work, but also financial and family pressures)

Disability/Program Model (1- learner had a documented disability and struggled with the distance model and decided that a face-to-face program in his home province would be a better option for him)

Financial (1- primarily financial, but also domestic issues – has indicated that he would like to return in the future if work situation allows)

Unknown (1- but probably financial and possibly academic as she had a financial hold on her account when she withdrew and had just chosen not to re-write a final exam in order to pass a course. She was unresponsive, but when faced with a requirement to withdraw, chose to withdraw voluntarily rather than have an RW on her transcripts)

o 2012-1: 1 [27] learners withdrew for the following reason: Work: 1 – did not return from LOA due to a heavy work load which left no time for

school

o 2012-2: 2 [39] learners withdrew for the following reasons: Financial: (1 - learner was unable to return from LOA due to family commitments

and financial difficulties) Personal (1 - learner withdrew before arriving on campus due to an emergency

personal issue)

Note: the above withdrawals do not include transfers to other intakes or programs. For example, one learner transferred directly to the RRU MBA program and she is not included in the list of Voluntary Withdrawals (VWs) above. In addition, twelve learners in total transferred from the 2011-1 [3], 2011-2 [5], 2012-1 [2], 2012-2 [2] offerings (to the following offering to complete the program).

Number of students who were RW’d from program: 1 [164] included students who started in 2011 or 2012

2011-2: 1 [47] Reason: the learner stopped participating in online course-work and did not contribute to teamwork. She did not respond to any of our repeated attempts to contact her and we had no option but to withdraw her from the program.

Number of students who graduated from program in previous year (Total = 78)

o 2010-1 = 31 (June 2012 Convocation)

o 2010-2 = 47 (Pending Convocation October 2012)

To be provided by Admissions/Enrolment Services Office:

Number of students currently registered for next intake

o March 4, 2013 = 7

o September 2, 2013 = 3

2. Student Evaluations To be provided by program staff:

Text of question measuring overall course evaluation o Q5. Overall, how would you rate your learning experience in this course?

of 9

Text of question measuring overall instructor effectiveness o Q12. Overall, how would you rate the quality of instruction provided by the instructor

as it contributed to your learning?

Scale with labels o 5 - Excellent o 4 -Very Good o 3 - Satisfactory o 2 - Poor o 1 - Unsatisfactory

Percentage of respondents measuring instructor on each value of the scale for these two questions. Example: 80 percent rated the overall instructor effectiveness as excellent o Please see Appendix 1 – Evaluation Summary.

3. Summary of Major Changes to Curriculum One paragraph to be provided by Program Head/Faculty Lead

The BCom Program underwent its Five-year Review in 2009-10, after which the Reviewer’s recommendations resulted in a thorough re-design in 2010-11. The Fall 2011 intakes (2011-2 On-campus and 2011-2 Online) were therefore the first intakes/cohorts to benefit from the re-design, specific elements of which included:

Modifying course credits from 5/10 credits to the industry-standard 3- and 6- credits;

Adding courses/content that were deemed missing from an undergraduate business degree, including: economics, leadership, operations management, and social sciences; and

Focusing some course content directly on the Five BCom Program Learning Outcomes (ENMN 300 and ENMN 422 A/B/C).

Having now delivered all of the revised content to the on-campus cohorts (we are almost half-way through the 2-year online delivery of the revised content) – and based on feedback from learners and instructors – we have identified and implemented changes for the current (2012-13 on-campus) intake, including:

Moving one 3-credit course out of Quarter 1 to alleviate student overload;

Better balancing the credit-load across all four Quarters; and

Augmenting the non-credit components to both the two-week Bridge to BCom and two-week Cornerstone, to focus on the RRU Learning Community (to do a better job at setting expectations).

Based on the above changes to the on-campus program, the timing/placement of seven courses in the online program were moved to align with the timing/placement in the on-campus program. This ensures that learners can move between the two delivery models.

For the online BCom program, ENMN 300A, 300B, 300C were combined into one 3-credit course to align with the on-campus model

For the online BCom program, ENMN 422A, 422B, and 422C will have their credits adjusted to align with the credits in the on-campus model

The second residency has been changed from two weeks (10 business days) to 8 days, compressed (5 business days)

4. Changes to Instructional Staff (Core/Associate Faculty) One paragraph to be provided by Program Head/Faculty Lead

Since August 2011 we have added two new Core Faculty members:

Dr. Rick Hinton, as core faculty in the area of Finance; and

of 9

Dr. Charles Krusekopf, core faculty in International Business

In addition, we introduced several new Associate Faculty members to our BCom Online teaching team (*several of whom have taught elsewhere in the Faculty of Management (or FSAS), but are new to BCom):

Don Hinz

Elliot Dahan

Kyla McLeod

*Elsie Chan

Samantha Wood, Staff

*FSAS Instructors: Gil Wilkes, David Black, Charles Krusekopf, Bernard Schissel

Based on learner feedback, instructor feedback, and our own experiences, we have not identified any instructors that we are no longer working with.

5. Summary of the Year in Review One paragraph to be provided by Program Head/Faculty Lead

The first offering of the Revised BCom is almost halfway through the curriculum.

The Online BCom Program at RRU continues to be a strong program, which leads to word-of-mouth referral of the program. While there were certainly ‘bumps’ in rolling out a brand-new/revised program, there were surprisingly fewer than anticipated. The introduction of a Foundational Business Skills course was well received.

The last five courses of the ‘classic’ BCom are still to be offered, before being retired. Numerous high quality final projects were presented and the presentations continued to offer the School an excellent opportunity to connect with the external community by engaging business leaders as panel members. One paragraph to be provided by Advisory Council Chair, submitted by Kelly Larkin The RRU BCom continues to draw considerable interest through very positive word of mouth advertising by alumni - a great indicator that this essential degree program is on track, with a strong reputation for quality and academic rigour. As the result of feedback from learners, faculty, and experts in the business community in 2009-10, the program underwent revision to ensure it remained fully up to date for delivery of fundamental business knowledge and skills. Additional elements such as business case competitions provide important value-added, which helps to differentiate Royal Roads and the BCom program from other universities and colleges. Supported by a very creative outreach and marketing program, the Royal Roads BCom program has earned a solid reputation for innovation and cutting edge business thinking.

6. Future Directions One paragraph to be provided by Program Head/Faculty Lead

The future of the BCom Program will be based on the combined experience and feedback of our learners, faculty and staff, as well as input from the market and industry sectors. Considering that the program is running for the first time in its revised form there are no plans for major revisions. There has been concern that course work load may not accurately reflect the credit value for each course and efforts are underway to review curriculums and adjust as appropriate.

of 9

Appendix 1 – Evaluation Summary

Intake | Cohort Course Q? Total

Enrolled Total

Responses %

Excellent Very Good Satisfactory Poor Unsatisfactory

# % # % # % # % # %

2010-1 ENMN 408 Q5 30 23 77% 7 30% 11 48% 5 22% 0 0% 0 0%

ENMN 408 Q12 30 23 77% 9 39% 12 52% 2 9% 0 0% 0 0%

ENMN 414 Q5 30 25 83% 5 20% 9 36% 10 40% 1 4% 0 0%

ENMN 414 Q12 30 25 83% 9 36% 11 44% 4 16% 1 4% 0 0%

ENMN 420 Q5 29 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0

ENMN 420 Q12 29 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0

ENMN 420 Q5 29 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0

ENMN 420 Q12 29 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0


Enrolled Total

Responses %


# % # % # % # % # %

2010-2

ENMN 313 Q5 47 35 74% 14 40% 1 3% 6 17% 0 0% 0 0%

ENMN 313 Q12 47 35 74% 13 37% 17 49% 5 14% 0 0% 0 0%

ENMN 313 Q12 47 31 66% 10 32% 17 55% 4 13% 0 0% 0 0%

ENMN 417 Q5 49 39 80% 3 8% 11 28% 15 38% 6 15% 4 10%

ENMN 417 Q12 49 39 80% 8 21% 11 28% 12 31% 7 18% 1 3%

ENMN 419 Q5 46 34 74% 7 21% 16 47% 11 32% 00 0% 0 0%

ENMN 419 Q12 46 34 74% 12 35% 12 35% 8 24% 1 3% 1 3%

ENMN 421 Q5 47 16 34% 0 0% 2 13% 6 38% 6 38% 2 13%

ENMN 421 Q12 47 16 34% 0 0% 2 13% 4 25% 4 25% 6 38%

ENMN 408 Q5 49 40 82% 12 30% 19 48% 7 18% 1 3% 1 3%

ENMN 408 Q12 49 40 82% 16 40% 14 35% 8 20% 1 3% 1 3%

ENMN 420 Q5 49 13 27% 4 31% 7 54% 1 8% 1 8% 0 0%

ENMN 420 Q12 49 14 29% 2 14% 9 64% 2 14% 1 7% 0 0%

ENMN 420 Q5 49 13 27% 4 31% 7 54% 1 8% 1 8% 0 0%

ENMN 420 Q12 49 14 29% 2 14% 9 64% 2 14% 1 7% 0 0%

ENMN 414 Q5 48 37 77% 11 30% 18 49% 8 22% 0 0% 0 0%

ENMN 414 Q12 48 36 75% 16 44% 15 42% 5 14% 0 0% 0 0%

of 9


Enrolled Total

Responses %


# % # % # % # % # %

2011-1 ENMN 315 Q5 35 23 66% 5 22% 15 65% 2 9% 1 4% 0 0%

ENMN 315 Q12 35 22 63% 8 36% 12 55% 1 5% 1 5% 0 0%

ENMN 323 Q5 35 23 66% 5 22% 10 43% 6 26% 0 0% 2 9%

ENMN 323 Q12 35 23 66% 4 17% 8 35% 8 35% 2 9% 1 4%

ENMN 321 Q5 38 4 11% 0 0% 1 25% 2 50% 1 25% 0 0%

ENMN 321 Q12 38 3 8% 0 0% 1 33% 1 33% 1 33% 0 0%

ENMN 313 Q5 39 5 13% 2 40% 3 60% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

ENMN 313 Q12 39 5 13% 2 40% 3 60% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

ENMN 313 Q12 39 5 13% 2 40% 1 20% 1 20% 1 20% 0 0%

ENMN 417 Q5 38 31 82% 7 23% 5 16% 18 58% 0 0% 1 3%

ENMN 417 Q12 38 31 82% 12 39% 13 42% 4 13% 2 6% 0 0%

ENMN 419 Q5 39 23 59% 6 26% 10 43% 6 26% 0 0% 1 4%

ENMN 419 Q12 39 24 62% 6 25% 10 42% 5 21% 2 8% 1 4%

ENMN 421 Q5 39 26 67% 2 8% 9 35% 9 35% 4 15% 2 8%

ENMN 421 Q12 39 28 72% 5 18% 8 29% 9 32% 4 14% 3 11%

of 9


Enrolled Total

Responses %


# % # % # % # % # %

2011-2 ENMN 300A Q5 42 41 98% 13 32% 19 46% 6 15% 3 7% 0 0%

ENMN 300A Q12 42 41 98% 9 22% 19 46% 10 24% 2 5% 1 2%

ENMN 300A Q12 42 41 98% 18 44% 16 39% 7 17% 0 0% 0 0%

ENMN 324 Q5 39 27 69% 4 15% 9 33% 13 48% 1 4% 0 0%

ENMN 324 Q12 39 27 69% 9 33% 11 41% 6 22% 1 4% 0 0%

ENMN 325 Q5 39 28 72% 2 7% 8 29% 8 29% 8 29% 2 7%

ENMN 325 Q12 39 26 67% 3 12% 1 4% 9 35% 2 8% 1 4%

ENMN 325 Q12 39 26 67% 4 15% 12 46% 9 35% 0 0% 1 4%

ENMN 325 Q12 39 26 67% 4 15% 13 50% 6 23% 1 4% 2 8%

ENMN 325 Q12 39 25 64% 7 28% 10 40% 6 24% 1 4% 1 4%

ENMN 325 Q12 39 23 59% 1 4% 13 57% 8 35% 0 0% 1 4%

ENMN 325 Q12 39 23 59% 3 13% 13 57% 6 26% 0 0% 1 4%

ENMN 325 Q12 39 22 56% 3 14% 13 59% 5 23% 0 0% 1 5%

ENMN 327 Q5 36 30 83% 3 10% 17 57% 9 30% 1 3% 0 0%

ENMN 327 Q12 36 31 86% 4 13% 22 71% 5 16% 0 0% 0 0%

ENMN 328 Q5 36 28 78% 4 14% 10 36% 12 43% 1 4% 1 4%

ENMN 328 Q12 36 28 78% 3 11% 12 43% 8 29% 4 14% 1 4%

ENMN 300B Q5 36 7 19% 3 43% 3 43% 1 14% 0 0% 0 0%

ENMN 300B Q12 36 7 19% 2 29% 4 57% 1 14% 0 0% 0 0%

ENMN 329 Q5 33 29 88% 2 7% 7 24% 15 52% 3 10% 2 7%

ENMN 329 Q12 33 29 88% 2 7% 4 14% 11 38% 10 34% 2 7%

ENMN 330 Q5 36 28 78% 5 18% 19 68% 4 14% 0 0% 0 0%

ENMN 330 Q12 36 29 81% 10 34% 16 55% 3 10% 0 0% 0 0%

ENMN 332 Q5 33 25 76% 1 4% 7 28% 8 32% 6 24% 3 12%

ENMN 332 Q12 33 25 76% 1 4% 6 24% 12 48% 3 12% 3 12%

ENMN 333 Q5 33 26 79% 8 31% 17 65% 1 4% 0 0% 0 0%

ENMN 333 Q12 33 26 79% 8 31% 15 58% 3 12% 0 0% 0 0%

of 9


Enrolled Total

Responses %


# % # % # % # % # %

2012-1 ENMN 300 Q5 24 19 79% 17 89% 1 5% 1 5% 0 0% 0 0%

ENMN 300 Q12 24 19 79% 15 79% 3 16% 1 5% 0 0% 0 0%

ENMN 300 Q5 24 20 83% 14 70% 6 30% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

ENMN 300 Q12 24 20 83% 17 85% 3 15% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

ENMN 324 Q5 25 22 88% 3 14% 11 50% 6 27% 2 9% 0 0%

ENMN 324 Q12 25 22 88% 4 18% 13 59% 2 9% 2 9% 1 5%

ENMN 325 Q5 24 21 88% 2 10% 7 33% 7 33% 3 14% 0 0%

ENMN 325 Q12 24 21 88% 6 29% 9 43% 5 24% 1 5% 0 0%

ENMN 325 Q12 24 21 88% 6 29% 9 43% 4 19% 0 0% 0 0%

ENMN 325 Q12 24 21 88% 3 14% 9 43% 3 14% 4 19% 1 5%

ENMN 325 Q12 24 21 88% 6 29% 9 43% 4 19% 1 5% 0 0%

ENMN 325 Q12 24 21 88% 5 24% 9 43% 3 14% 1 5% 0 0%

ENMN 325 Q12 24 21 88% 4 19% 9 43% 5 24% 0 0% 0 0%

ENMN 327 Q5 24 22 92% 7 32% 10 45% 5 23% 0 0% 0 0%

ENMN 327 Q12 24 22 92% 8 36% 10 45% 2 9% 2 9% 0 0%

ENMN 328 Q5 23 18 78% 1 6% 7 39% 8 44% 2 11% 0 0%

ENMN 328 Q12 23 18 78% 5 28% 10 56% 3 17% 0 0% 0 0%

Q5. Overall, how would you rate your learning experience in this course?

Q12. Overall, how would you rate the quality of instruction provided by the instructor as it contributed to your learning?

List of Courses included in Evaluation Summary

BCom Online 2010-1 (Y0910W-CA1W)

ENMN 408, Organizational Change, 2010-1 OL, 3-Oct-11 – 16-Dec-11 ENMN 420, Entrepreneurial Project, 2010-1 OL, 3-Oct-11 – 5-Apr-12 ENMN 414, Strategy, 2010-1 OL, January 9, 2012 - March 23, 2012

BCom Online 2010-2 (Y1011F-CA1W)

ENMN 313, Entrepreneurial Expertise, 2010-2 OL, 11-Jul-11, 23-Sep-11 ENMN 321, Information & Technology Management, 2010-2 OL, 11-Jul-11, 23-Sep-11 ENMN 417, Corporate Finance, 2010-2 OL, 19-Sep-11, 9-Dec-11 ENMN 419, Business Law, 2010-2 OL, 9-Jan-12, 23-Mar-12 ENMN 421, Emerging Global Business Issues, 2010-2 OL, 9-Jan-12, 23-Mar-12, ENMN 408, Organizational Change, 2010-2 OL, 9-Apr-12, 22-Jun-12 ENMN 420, Entrepreneurial Project, 2010-2 OL, 23-Apr-12, 21-Sep-12 ENMN 414, Strategy, 2010-2 OL, 25-Jun-12, 14-Sep-12

of 9

BCom Online 2011-1 (Y1011P-CA1W)

ENMN 315, Strategic Marketing, 2011-1 OL, 3-Oct-11, 16-Dec-11 ENMN 323, Business of Sustainability, 2011-1 OL, 3-Oct-11, 16-Dec-11 ENMN 321, Information & Technology Management, 2011-1 OL, 3-Jan-12, 16-Mar-12 ENMN 313, Entrepreneurial Expertise, 2011-1 OL, 3-Jan-12, 16-Mar-12 ENMN 417, Corporate Finance, 2011-1 OL, 12-Mar-12, 1-Jun-12 ENMN 419, Business Law, 2011-1 OL, 25-Jun-12, 7-Sep-12 ENMN 421, Emerging Global Business Issues, 2011-1 OL, 25-Jun-12, 7-Sep-12

BCom Online 2011-2 (1112F-CA1W)

ENMN 300A, Foundational Business Skills I, 2011-2 OL, 19-Sep-11, 14-Oct-11 ENMN 324, Financial Accounting, 2011-2 OL, 3-Oct-11, 16-Dec-11 ENMN 325, Social Sciences for Business, 2011-2 OL, 17-Oct-11, 16-Dec-11 ENMN 327, Strategy, 2011-2 OL, 9-Jan-12, 9-Mar-12 ENMN 328, Applied Business Economics, 2011-2 OL, 9-Jan-12, 9-Mar-12, ENMN 300B, Foundational Business Skills II, 2011-2 OL, 19-Mar-12, 23-Mar-12 ENMN 329, Leadership, 2011-2 OL, 26-Mar-12, 25-May-12 ENMN 330, Marketing, 2011-2 OL, 26-Mar-12, 25-May-12 ENMN 332, Managerial Accounting, 2011-2 OL, 4-Jun-12, 3-Aug-12 ENMN 333, Law in the Business Environment, 2011-2 OL, 4-Jun-12, 3-Aug-12

BCom Online 2012-1 (Y1112P-CA1W)

ENMN 324, Financial Accounting, 2012-1 OL, 19-Mar-12, 8-Jun-12 ENMN 325, Social Sciences for Business, 2012-1 OL, 9-Apr-12, 8-Jun-12 ENMN 300, Foundational Business Skills I, 2012-1 OL, 5-Mar-12, 30-Mar-12 ENMN 327, Strategy, 2012-1 OL, 18-Jun-12, 17-Aug-12 ENMN 328, Applied Business Economics, 2012-1 OL, 18-Jun-12, 17-Aug-12

mbracewell

Typewritten Text

mbracewell

Typewritten Text

mbracewell

Typewritten Text


mbracewell

Typewritten Text

mbracewell

Typewritten Text

mbracewell

Typewritten Text

mbracewell

Typewritten Text

of 6


Program Name: Bachelor of Commerce in Entrepreneurial Management On-Campus

Date of submission: October 15, 2012 (Received May 2013)

Period of review: September 19, 2011 – September 18, 2012

Submitted by: Samantha Wood

1. Program Registration Statistics To be provided by the Registrar’s Office:

Number of students currently registered in program (by cohort) o Y1213F (2012-13 On-campus): 57

Number of students on medical leave [program total] o None

Number of students on personal leave [program total] o None

Number of students who have VW’d from program [program total] Four (4) One failed to arrive for the program start, one did not meet program

expectations, one decided the program was not the right fit and one Medical Leave of Absence.

Number of students who were RW’d from program [program total] o None

Number of students who graduated from program in previous year o Y1112F (2011-12 On-campus): 54 o Please note: aside from the 54 who have graduated and the four (4) who

VW’d, we started last year with 64 total students. The other six (6) students started the program but did not complete it (or on time), as follows:

Two (2) transferred within the first two weeks of the BCom, to the MGM program;

Two (2) were exchange students and therefore only with us for the first quarter; and

Two (2) transferred into the Online BCom Program (one to complete on-campus courses they had failed, and the other due to a job opportunity extended as a result of the on-campus program/faculty).

To be provided by Admissions/Enrolment Services Office:

Number of students currently registered for next intake o Y1314F (2013-14 On-Campus, start date: September 16, 2013): Five (5) as

of October 12th, 2012

2. Student Evaluations Text of question measuring overall course evaluation

o Q5. Overall, how would you rate your learning experience in this course?

of 6

Text of question measuring overall instructor effectiveness o Q12. Overall, how would you rate the quality of instruction provided by the

instructor as it contributed to your learning?

Scale with labels o 5 - Excellent o 4 -Very Good o 3 - Satisfactory o 2 - Poor o 1 - Unsatisfactory

Percentage of respondents measuring instructor on each value of the scale for these two questions. Example: 80 percent rated the overall instructor effectiveness as excellent

o Please see Appendix 1 – Evaluation Summary.

3. Summary of Major Changes to Curriculum The BCom Program underwent its Five-Year Review in 2009-10, after which the Reviewer’s recommendations resulted in a thorough re-design in 2010-11. The Fall 2011 intakes (2011-12 On-campus and 2011-2 Online) were therefore the first intakes/cohorts to benefit from the re-design, specific elements of which included:

Modifying course credits from 5/10 credits to the industry-standard 3- and 6- credits;

Adding courses/content that were deemed missing from an undergraduate business degree, including: economics, leadership, operations management, and social sciences; and

Focusing some course content directly on the Five BCom Program Learning Outcomes (ENMN 300 Foundational Business Skills and ENMN 422 A/B/C Applied Business Challenges):

o During FBS students are immersed in one integrated course that has been carefully designed to help students develop the foundational skills and perspectives used throughout the Program and beyond. This course weaves together concepts from a number of disciplines, providing the building blocks for a framework of thinking that is conducive to effectively tackling both academic and business challenges. Students will continue to demonstrate the skills they learn in this course throughout the BCom Program and in particular during their integrating opportunities in ENMN 422A, ENMN 422B and ENMN 422C Applied Business Challenges (ABC).

Having now delivered all of the revised content to the on-campus cohorts (we are almost half-way through the 2-year online delivery of the revised content) – and based on feedback from learners and instructors – we have identified and implemented changes for the current (2012-13) intake, including:

Moving one 3-credit course out of Quarter 1 to alleviate student overload;

Better balancing the credit-load across all four Quarters; and

Augmenting the non-credit components to both the two-week Bridge to BCom and two-week Cornerstone, to focus on the RRU Learning Community (to do a better job at setting expectations).

4. Changes to Instructional Staff (Core/Associate Faculty) Since August 2011 we have added two new Core Faculty members:

Dr. Rick Hinton: core faculty in Finance; and

Dr. Charles Krusekopf: core faculty in International Business.

of 6

In addition, we introduced several new Associate Faculty to our BCom On-campus teaching team (*several of whom have taught elsewhere in the Faculty of Management, but are new to BCom):

Michael Pardy and Brenda Proctor

Neil McGuigan

Susan Thackeray*

Kim Moller*

Stephen Scott

Bode Fagbamiye

Chris Jaeger*

Michael Clouser

Samantha Wood, Staff

*FSAS Instructors: Gil Wilkes, David Black, Charles Krusekopf, Bernard Schissel

5. Summary of the Year in Review The On-campus BCom Program at RRU continues to be a strong program, which leads to word-of-mouth referral of the program. While there were certainly ‘bumps’ in rolling out a brand-new/revised program, there were surprisingly fewer than anticipated. A focus group held in August 2012 was highly positive, and the learners were very appreciative of the changes we had already decided-upon for the following intake. The introduction of a Foundational Business Skills course, an internal/mini case competition and, a live case challenge was well received. The Royal Roads case competition team competed in two competitions: at the John Molson Undergraduate Case Competition (JMUCC, did not make the finals) and our own Royal Roads University International Undergraduate Case Competition (RRUIUCC, where they placed third). Our own case competition (RRUIUCC) continued to grow with 19 international teams competing over a three day period. In addition to providing a fantastic learning opportunity for all participants, the competition also helped to foster and build ties with the business community by involving 50-60 business leaders as competition judges. Summary from Advisory Chair, Kelly Larkin The RRU BCom continues to draw considerable interest through very positive word of mouth advertising by alumni - a great indicator that this essential degree program is on track, with a strong reputation for quality and academic rigour. As the result of feedback from learners, faculty, and experts in the business community in 2009-10, the program underwent revision to ensure it remained fully up to date for delivery of fundamental business knowledge and skills. Additional elements such as business case competitions provide important value-added, which helps to differentiate Royal Roads and the BCom program from other universities and colleges. Supported by a very creative outreach and marketing program, the Royal Roads BCom program has earned a solid reputation for innovation and cutting edge business thinking.

6. Future Directions Having recently implemented the revised BCom Program, we do not foresee major changes, however we will of course continue to tweak courses as required. In addition – in response to an increasingly competitive market place – we plan to work even more closely with the RRU Marketing Department to ensure that we are targeting the right market using the right tools. This may include increasing targeted college visits and enhancing industry relationships.

of 6

Appendix 1: Evaluation Summary

Intake / Cohort

Course Q? Total

Enrolled Total

Responses %


# % # % # % # % # %

2011-12 A ENMN 300 Q5 32 27 84% 7 26% 9 33% 9 33% 1 4% 1 4%

A ENMN 300 Q12 32 25 78% 6 24% 13 52% 5 20% 1 4% 0 0%

A ENMN 300 Q5 32 27 84% 8 30% 14 52% 5 19% 0 0% 0 0%

A ENMN 300 Q12 32 27 84% 11 41% 16 59% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

A ENMN 300 Q12 32 27 84% 5 19% 19 70% 3 11% 0 0% 0 0%

A ENMN 300 Q5 32 27 84% 9 33% 16 59% 2 7% 0 0% 0 0%

A ENMN 300 Q12 32 27 84% 10 37% 12 44% 5 19% 0 0% 0 0%

A ENMN 300 Q12 32 26 81% 8 31% 14 54% 4 15% 0 0% 0 0%

B ENMN 300 Q5 32 31 97% 8 26% 18 58% 5 16% 0 0% 0 0%

B ENMN 300 Q12 32 31 97% 12 39% 17 55% 2 6% 0 0% 0 0%

B ENMN 300 Q5 32 31 97% 7 23% 18 58% 4 13% 2 6% 0 0%

B ENMN 300 Q12 32 31 97% 14 45% 16 52% 1 3% 0 0% 0 0%

B ENMN 300 Q12 32 31 97% 9 29% 16 52% 6 19% 0 0% 0 0%

B ENMN 300 Q5 32 31 97% 9 29% 13 42% 7 23% 1 3% 1 3%

B ENMN 300 Q12 32 31 97% 10 32% 15 48% 5 16% 1 3% 0 0%

B ENMN 300 Q12 32 31 97% 9 29% 16 52% 6 19% 0 0% 0 0%

A ENMN 324 Q5 28 27 96% 11 41% 11 41% 5 19% 0 0% 0 0%

A ENMN 324 Q12 28 27 96% 19 70% 7 26% 1 4% 0 0% 0 0%

B ENMN 324 Q5 30 26 87% 12 46% 11 42% 2 8% 0 0% 1 4%

B ENMN 324 Q12 30 26 87% 16 62% 9 35% 1 4% 0 0% 0 0%

A ENMN 325 Q5 28 25 89% 0 0% 3 12% 9 36% 10 40% 3 12%

A ENMN 325 Q12 28 26 93% 1 4% 9 35% 12 46% 4 15% 0 0%

A ENMN 325 Q12 28 27 96% 0 0% 2 7% 9 33% 12 44% 4 15%

A ENMN 325 Q12 28 27 96% 4 15% 3 11% 7 26% 10 37% 3 11%

A ENMN 325 Q12 28 27 96% 11 41% 10 37% 6 22% 0 0% 0 0%

A ENMN 325 Q12 28 26 93% 7 27% 8 31% 11 42% 0 0% 0 0%

A ENMN 325 Q12 28 25 89% 2 8% 7 28% 13 52% 3 12% 0 0%

B ENMN 325 Q5 30 25 83% 0 0% 3 12% 14 56% 6 24% 2 8%

B ENMN 325 Q12 30 26 87% 1 4% 12 46% 12 46% 1 4% 0 0%

B ENMN 325 Q12 30 26 87% 1 4% 2 8% 18 69% 5 19% 0 0%

B ENMN 325 Q12 30 26 87% 2 8% 2 8% 9 35% 12 46% 1 4%

B ENMN 325 Q12 30 26 87% 16 62% 7 27% 3 12% 0 0% 0 0%

B ENMN 325 Q12 30 26 87% 4 15% 14 54% 8 31% 0 0% 0 0%

B ENMN 325 Q12 30 26 87% 2 8% 10 38% 12 46% 2 8% 0 0%

Q1

of 6

Intake / Cohort

Course Q? Total

Enrolled Total

Responses %


# % # % # % # % # %

A ENMN 327 Q5 28 27 96% 15 56% 9 33% 2 7% 1 4% 0 0%

A ENMN 327 Q12 28 27 96% 15 56% 10 37% 2 7% 0 0% 0 0%

B ENMN 327 Q5 30 21 70% 14 67% 7 33% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

B ENMN 327 Q12 30 21 70% 16 76% 5 24% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

A ENMN 328 Q5 28 26 93% 1 4% 6 23% 11 42% 6 23% 2 8%

A ENMN 328 Q12 28 26 93% 1 4% 7 27% 9 35% 7 27% 2 8%

B ENMN 328 Q5 30 27 90% 0 0% 2 7% 12 44% 9 33% 4 15%

B ENMN 328 Q12 30 27 90% 0 0% 6 22% 13 48% 4 15% 4 15%

A ENMN 329 Q5 28 24 86% 10 42% 12 50% 2 8% 0 0% 0 0%

A ENMN 329 Q12 28 25 89% 15 60% 9 36% 1 4% 0 0% 0 0%

B ENMN 329 Q5 30 27 90% 23 85% 4 15% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

B ENMN 329 Q12 30 27 90% 24 89% 3 11% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

AB ENMN 422A Q3* 56 52 93% 8 15% 22 42% 19 37% 2 4% 1 2%

A ENMN 330 Q5 28 24 86% 3 13% 17 71% 3 13% 1 4% 0 0%

A ENMN 330 Q12 28 24 86% 9 38% 12 50% 3 13% 0 0% 0 0%

B ENMN 330 Q5 28 17 61% 3 18% 3 18% 5 29% 6 35% 0 0%

B ENMN 330 Q12 28 17 61% 5 29% 4 24% 7 41% 1 6% 0 0%

A ENMN 331 Q5 28 17 61% 9 53% 7 41% 1 6% 0 0% 0 0%

A ENMN 331 Q12 28 17 61% 12 71% 5 29% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

B ENMN 331 Q5 28 22 79% 1 5% 5 23% 10 45% 5 23% 1 5%

B ENMN 331 Q12 28 22 79% 7 32% 7 32% 7 32% 1 5% 0 0%

A ENMN 332 Q5 28 20 71% 0 0% 7 35% 11 55% 2 10% 0 0%

A ENMN 332 Q12 28 20 71% 2 10% 6 30% 8 40% 4 20% 0 0%

B ENMN 332 Q5 28 25 89% 4 16% 14 56% 7 28% 0 0% 0 0%

B ENMN 332 Q12 28 25 89% 14 56% 11 44% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

A ENMN 333 Q5 28 19 68% 5 26% 10 53% 3 16% 1 5% 0 0%

A ENMN 333 Q12 28 19 68% 7 37% 10 53% 2 11% 0 0% 0 0%

B ENMN 333 Q5 28 21 75% 4 19% 8 38% 8 38% 0 0% 1 5%

B ENMN 333 Q12 28 21 75% 10 48% 6 29% 4 19% 0 0% 1 5%

A ENMN 398 Q5 28 23 82% 6 26% 9 39% 7 30% 1 4% 0 0%

A ENMN 398 Q12 28 23 82% 7 30% 13 57% 3 13% 0 0% 0 0%

B ENMN 398 Q5 28 20 71% 1 5% 7 35% 7 35% 3 15% 2 10%

B ENMN 398 Q12 28 20 71% 5 25% 7 35% 8 40% 0 0% 0 0%

Q2

of 6

Intake / Cohort

Course Q? Total

Enrolled Total

Responses %


# % # % # % # % # %

AB ENMN 422B Q3* 55 27 49% 0 0% 1 4% 9 33% 7 26% 10 37%

A ENMN 426 Q5 26 24 92% 12 50% 8 33% 3 13% 1 4% 0 0%

A ENMN 426 Q12 26 24 92% 18 75% 3 13% 2 8% 1 4% 0 0%

B ENMN 426 Q5 28 16 57% 5 31% 7 44% 4 25% 0 0% 0 0%

B ENMN 426 Q12 28 17 61% 8 47% 7 41% 2 12% 0 0% 0 0%

A ENMN 427 Q5 27 16 59% 2 13% 9 56% 5 31% 0 0% 0 0%

A ENMN 427 Q12 27 16 59% 4 25% 10 63% 2 13% 0 0% 0 0%

B ENMN 427 Q5 28 13 46% 6 46% 5 38% 2 15% 0 0% 0 0%

B ENMN 427 Q12 28 13 46% 5 38% 4 31% 3 23% 1 8% 0 0%

A ENMN 428 Q5 27 19 70% 5 26% 10 53% 3 16% 0 0% 1 5%

A ENMN 428 Q12 27 19 70% 10 53% 7 37% 1 5% 0 0% 1 5%

B ENMN 428 Q5 28 21 75% 4 19% 6 29% 8 38% 1 5% 2 10%

B ENMN 428 Q12 28 21 75% 9 43% 3 14% 6 29% 3 14% 0 0%

A ENMN 429 Q5 27 21 78% 1 5% 9 43% 10 48% 1 5% 0 0%

A ENMN 429 Q12 27 21 78% 3 14% 13 62% 3 14% 2 10% 0 0%

B ENMN 429 Q5 28 18 64% 3 17% 7 39% 5 28% 3 17% 0 0%

B ENMN 429 Q12 28 18 64% 7 39% 8 44% 3 17% 0 0% 0 0%

A ENMN 498 Q5 27 22 81% 3 14% 10 45% 4 18% 4 18% 1 5%

A ENMN 498 Q12 27 22 81% 6 27% 9 41% 5 23% 2 9% 0 0%

B ENMN 498 Q5 28 20 71% 2 10% 7 35% 7 35% 4 20% 0 0%

B ENMN 498 Q12 28 19 68% 3 16% 8 42% 6 32% 2 11% 0 0%

AB ENMN 422C *Q3 55 31 56% 2 6% 11 35% 10 32% 2 6% 6 19%

A ENMN 431 Q5 27 15 56% 1 7% 8 53% 5 33% 0 0% 1 7%

A ENMN 431 Q12 27 15 56% 3 20% 7 47% 3 20% 1 7% 1 7%

B ENMN 431 Q5 28 15 54% 0 0% 3 20% 10 67% 2 13% 0 0%

B ENMN 431 Q12 28 14 50% 1 7% 5 36% 4 29% 4 29% 0 0%

A ENMN 499 Q5 27 13 48% 2 15% 5 38% 5 38% 0 0% 1 8%

A ENMN 499 Q12 27 13 48% 1 8% 8 62% 3 23% 0 0% 1 8%

A ENMN 499 Q12 27 12 44% 2 17% 7 58% 1 8% 1 8% 1 8%

B ENMN 499 Q5 27 12 44% 2 17% 2 17% 6 50% 2 17% 0 0%

B ENMN 499 Q12 27 9 33% 1 11% 3 33% 4 44% 1 11% 0 0%

B ENMN 499 Q12 27 11 41% 2 18% 1 9% 7 64% 1 9% 0 0%

Q5. Overall, how would you rate your learning experience in this couse?

Q12. Overall, how would you rate the quality of instruction provided by the instructor as it contributed to your learning?

* Q3. Overall, how would you rate your learning experience in this couse? (ENMN 422 does not have a question re: the instructor)

Q3

Q4

of 5


Program Name: Master of Business Administration (MBA); degree/specializations include:

MBA in Human Resource Management

MBA in Executive Management (no specialization)

MBA in Executive Management with specialization in Management Consulting

Date of submission: August 31, 2012 (received May 2013)

Period of review: August 31, 2011 – August 31, 2012

Submitted by: Donna March, MBA Program Manager

1. Program Registration Statistics Number of students currently registered in program (by cohort) as of August 25, 2012

o On project extension - 31 o Y1011W - 19 o Y1011S - 73 o Y1112W - 72 o Y1112S - 101

Number of students on medical leave - 5

Number of students on personal leave - 14

Number of students who have VW’d from program [program total] - 23

Number of students who were RW’d from program [program total] - 10

Number of students who graduated from program in previous year - 125

Number of students currently registered for next intake (January 2013; Y1213W) o As of August 25, 2012, there are 31 registered learners (of 79 applications)

2. Student Evaluations Text of question measuring overall course evaluation:

o “Overall, how would you rate your learning experience in this course?”

Text of question measuring overall instructor effectiveness: o “Overall, how would you rate the quality of instruction provided by the instructor

as it contributed to your learning?”

Scale with labels: o Excellent o Very Good o Satisfactory o Poor o Unsatisfactory

Percentage of respondents measuring instructor on each value of the scale for these two questions. Example: 80 percent rated the overall instructor effectiveness as excellent A mean should not be computed.

o See Appendix 1 for all results

of 5

3. Summary of Major Changes to Curriculum After reviewing the feedback from learners and instructors, combined with our observations, the MBA program made a change to the overall program structure by adding in a new course: BUSA 502 Constructing and Communicating Effective Arguments (3 credits). As some of the attrition that was occurring in the MBA program was due to poor academic writing and foundations of argument skills, this course was introduced as a mechanism to attempt to minimize the level of attrition. This course was developed in consultation with the intellectual leads of two of the first courses of the program so as to better support effective academic writing and communication. The course is grades on a CR scheme, so that learners are given formative feedback on which they can learn and improve their writing/communication skills. In order to accommodate the addition of this course and based on feedback from learners, the decision was also made to remove BUSA 509A-E Virtual Experience Labs (3 credits over all 5 deliveries). These five, one-day synchronous sessions were intended to create real-time opportunities for learners to reconnect and engage with each other over meaningful content. However, feedback indicated that learners did not feel these sessions were of significant value, and that the content and purpose could be accomplished in asynchronous ways.

4. Changes to Instructional Staff (Core/Associate Faculty) Since August 2, 2011, we have added two new core faculty members:

Dr. Rick Hinton, as core faculty in the area of Finance; and Dr. Charles Krusekopf, core faculty in International Business

We also used the services of new Associate Faculty: Dr. Linda Ambrosie and Ms. Laurie Maslak.

5. Summary of the Year in Review The MBA program at RRU continues to be a strong presence in the post-secondary arena. Word of mouth support of our program combined with our marketing and recruiting efforts have continued to attract great interest in our program, with recent intakes meeting or exceeding our enrolment targets. We have witnessed a larger number of learners who were not successful in one or more of their first residency courses, which affects not only the balance of the learning community, but the financial ‘bottom line’ of the MBA program. To help mitigate this loss, we have made the program changes as noted in item #3 previously.

RRU MBA Program Update - Advisory Council Chair Comments The School of Business Advisory Council plays an important role providing strategic advice for developing program content and positioning the MBA for success now and in the future. Recommendations center on quality and focus of the MBA program while pursuing growth opportunities at home and internationally. Royal Roads has done great work building bridges with learner communities through very effective outreach, an innovative marketing program, and senior-level face-to-face liaison. This has helped to ensure the best possible fit between the program and the learners who will continue to build the program's reputation at home and abroad. Here in Canada, growing areas of the economy may also present opportunities to shape the MBA for emerging learner needs, and will continue to be an area of focus and discussion for the Council. The MBA program has also gone through some important changes this past year, and initial feedback about revised program content and duration is positive. A shortened program is now

of 5

more inline with other Universities' programs, while maintaining focus on learners and their organizations with faculty who are highly response to learner and market needs. Members of the Council also believe that application of Royal Roads' Learning and Teaching Model provides a strong foundation for success of the MBA program; it differentiates RRU from other universities and is an important strategic advantage. Submitted by, Kelly Larkin

6. Future Directions The future of the MBA program will be based on the combined experience and feedback of our learners, faculty and staff, as well as input from the market and industry sectors. There are no immediate plans for change, but ideas that are being considered include:

- Looking for partnerships with other post-secondary institutions and professional industry organizations across Canada and the world to deliver our MBA program to select groups of learners that are currently under represented. These opportunities would be cohort-based deliveries exclusive to the partner groups and delivered separate from the current intakes offered from RRU; and

- Working with the Centre for Advanced Leadership and Management (CALM) at RRU to explore new graduate certificates in new subject areas that could ladder into the MBA program.

- Consideration of new specialization options

of 5

Appendix 1

# % # % # % # % # %

2010-2 C BUSA 560 Q5* 31 24/27 88.89% 3/27 11.11%

D BUSA 560 Q5 32 18/31 58.06% 12/31 38.71% 1/31 3.23%

2011-1 A BUSA 608 Q5* 38 10/28 35.71% 7/28 25.00% 10/28 35.71% 1/28 3.57%

A BUSA 608 Q12* 38 12/28 42.86% 5/28 17.86% 7/28 25.00% 4/28 14.29%

B BUSA 608 Q5 37 6/27 22.22% 10/27 37.04% 5/27 18.52% 3/27 11.11% 3/27 11.11%

B BUSA 608 Q12 37 6/27 22.22% 7/27 25.93% 7/27 25.93% 3/27 11.11% 4/27 14.81%

A BUSA 632 Q5 37 7/26 26.92% 6/26 23.08% 12/26 46.15%

A BUSA 632 Q12 37 4/25 16.00% 10/25 40.00% 9/25 36.00% 2/25 8.00%

B BUSA 632 Q5 37 2/27 7.41% 11/27 40.74% 11/27 40.74% 2/27 7.41% 1/27 3.70%

B BUSA 632 Q12 37 5/27 18.52% 9/27 33.33% 11/27 40.74% 1/27 3.70% 1/27 3.70%

A/B EXMN 652 Q5 18 7/14 50.00% 3/14 21.43% 4/14 28.57%

A/B EXMN 652 Q12 18 9/14 64.29% 2/14 14.29% 2/14 14.29% 1/14 7.14%

A/B EXMN 662 Q5 31 6/23 26.09% 8/23 34.78% 8/23 34.78% 1/23 4.35%

A/B EXMN 662 Q12 31 6/23 26.09% 7/23 30.43% 6/23 26.09% 3/23 13.04% 1/23 4.35%

A/B EXMN 675 Q5 26 10/17 58.82% 5/17 29.41% 2/17 11.76%

A/B EXMN 675 Q12 26 11/17 64.71% 5/17 29.41% 1/17 5.88%

A/B EXMN 661 Q5 9 1/5 20.00% 2/5 40.00% 2/5 40.00%

A/B EXMN 661 Q12 9 2/6 33.33% 1/6 16.67% 3/6 50.00%

A/B EXMN 668 Q5 9 3/7 42.86% 3/7 42.86% 1/7 14.29%

A/B EXMN 668 Q12 9 5/7 71.43% 1/7 14.29% 1/7 14.29%

A/B HRMN 639 Q5 9 1/6 16.67% 2/6 33.33% 3/6 50.00%

A/B HRMN 639 Q12 9 1/6 16.67% 3/6 5.00% 2/6 33.33%

A/B HRMN 641 Q5 9 5/7 71.43% 1/7 14.29% 1/7 14.29%

A/B HRMN 641 Q12 9 4/7 57.14% 1/7 14.29% 2/7 28.57%

A BUSA 650 Q5 38 16/35 45.71% 18/35 51.43% 1/35 2.86%

B BUSA 650 Q5 38 9/33 27.27% 17/33 51.52% 7/33 21.21%

2011-2 C BUSA 507 Q5* 47 13/21 61.90% 6/21 28.57% 1/21 4.76% 1/21 4.76%

C BUSA 507 Q12* 47 17/21 80.95% 3/21 14.29% 1/21 4.76%

D BUSA 507 Q5 42 11/18 61.11% 5/18 27.78% 2/18 11.11%

D BUSA 507 Q12 42 14/18 77.78% 3/18 16.67% 1/18 5.56%

C BUSA 508 Q5 47 4/30 13.33% 11/30 36.67% 9/30 30.00% 5/30 16.67% 1/30 3.33%

C BUSA 508 Q12 47 17/31 54.84% 6/31 19.35% 5/31 16.13% 1/31 3.23% 2/31 6.45%

D BUSA 508 Q5 40 9/32 28.13% 12/32 37.50% 9/32 28.13% 2/32 6.25%

D BUSA 508 Q12 40 17/33 51.52% 14/33 42.42% 2/33 6.06%

C BUSA 514 Q5 46 7/20 35.00% 9/20 45.00% 3/20 15.00% 1/20 5.00%

C BUSA 514 Q12 46 12/20 60.00% 4/20 20.00% 3/20 15.00% 1/20 5.00%

D BUSA 514 Q5 41 6/15 40.00% 5/15 33.33% 4/15 26.67%

D BUSA 514 Q12 41 7/15 46.67% 6/15 40.00% 1/15 6.67% 1/15 6.67%

Intake - Cohort

MBA Annual Review 2011-2012

Student Evaluations

Excellent Very Good Satisfactory Poor UnsatisfactoryCourse Question

Total

Enrolled

*Q5

*Q12 Overall, how would you rate the quality of instruction provided by the instructor as it

contributed to your learning?

Overall, how would you rate your learning experience in this couse?

of 5

# % # % # % # % # %

2011-2 C BUSA 506 Q12 44 14/22 63.64% 6/22 27.27% 1/22 4.55% 1/22 4.55%

D BUSA 506 Q5 40 7/17 41.18% 6/17 35.29% 4/17 23.53%

D BUSA 506 Q12 40 13/17 76.47% 3/17 17.65% 1/17 5.88%

C BUSA 513 Q5 41 6/25 24.00% 12/25 48.00% 5/25 20.00% 1/25 4.00% 1/25 4.00%

C BUSA 513 Q12 41 4/25 16.00% 11/25 44.00% 7/25 28.00% 1/25 4.00% 2/25 8.00%

D BUSA 513 Q5 35 7/21 33.33% 11/21 52.38% 2/21 9.52% 1/21 4.76%

D BUSA 513 Q12 35 8/21 38.10% 9/21 42.86% 3/21 14.29% 1/21 4.76%

C BUSA 522 Q5 41 3/25 12.00% 11/25 44.00% 10/25 40.00% 1/25 4.00%

C BUSA 522 Q12 41 4/25 16.00% 14/25 56.00% 5/25 20.00% 2/25 8.00%

D BUSA 522 Q5 33 4/21 19.05% 14/21 66.67% 3/21 14.29%

D BUSA 522 Q12 33 9/21 42.86% 11/21 52.38% 1/21 4.76%

C BUSA 523 Q5 38 14/22 63.64% 6/22 27.27% 2/22 9.09%

C BUSA 523 Q12 38 2/22 9.09% 8/22 36.36% 9/22 40.91% 3/22 13.64%

D BUSA 523 Q5 42 1/21 4.76% 10/21 47.62% 7/21 33.33% 2/21 9.52% 1/21 4.76%

D BUSA 523 Q12 42 3/21 14.29% 6/21 28.57% 10/21 47.62% 1/21 4.76% 1/21 4.76%

C BUSA531 Q5 40 11/26 42.31% 7/26 26.92% 8/26 30.77%

C BUSA531 Q12 40 9/26 34.62% 10/26 38.46% 7/26 26.92%

D BUSA531 Q5 40 8/27 29.62% 14/27 51.85% 5/27 18.52%

D BUSA531 Q12 40 10/27 37.04% 15/27 55.56% 2/27 7.41%

C BUSA 608 Q5 37 2/23 8.70% 12/23 52.17% 5/23 21.74% 4/23 17.39%

C BUSA 608 Q12 37 3/23 13.04% 5/23 21.74% 8/23 32.78% 5/23 21.74% 2/23 8.70%

D BUSA 608 Q5 38 6/15 40.00% 6/15 40.00% 2/15 13.33% 1/15 6.67%

D BUSA 608 Q12 38 5/15 33.33% 7/15 46.67% 3/15 20.00%

C BUSA 632 Q5 37 2/24 8.33% 14/24 58.33% 6/24 25.00% 2/24 8.33%

C BUSA 632 Q12 37 4/24 16.66% 10/24 41.66% 7/24 29.16% 2/24 8.33% 1/24 4.16%

D BUSA 632 Q5 36 1/14 7.14% 4/14 28.57% 10/14 71.43%

D BUSA 632 Q12 36 6/14 42.85% 7/14 50.00% 1/14 7.14%

2012-1 A BUSA 507 Q5* 44 13/32 40.63% 15/32 46.88% 3/32 9.38% 1/32 3.13%

A BUSA 507 Q12* 44 15/32 46.88% 11/32 34.38% 5/32 15.63% 1/32 3.13%

B BUSA 507 Q5 41 9/30 30.00% 15/30 50.00% 4/30 13.33% 2/30 6.67%

B BUSA 507 Q12 41 10/30 33.33% 12/30 40.00% 5/30 16.67% 3/30 10.00%

A BUSA 508 Q5 45 3/45 6.67% 13/45 28.89% 16/45 35.56% 13/45 28.89%

A BUSA 508 Q12 45 4/45 8.89% 9/45 20.00% 19/45 42.22% 13/45 28.89%

B BUSA 508 Q5 42 2/29 6.90% 5/29 17.24% 9/29 27.59% 7/29 24.14% 7/29 24.14%

B BUSA 508 Q12 42 1/28 3.57% 4/28 14.29% 6/28 21.43% 9/28 32.14% 8/28 28.57%

A BUSA 514 Q5 44 23/36 63.89% 11/36 30.56% 1/36 2.78% 1/36 2.78%

A BUSA 514 Q12 44 31/36 86.11% 3/36 8.33% 1/36 2.78% 1/36 2.78%

B BUSA 514 Q5 40 16/31 51.61% 13/31 41.94% 2/31 6.45%

B BUSA 514 Q12 40 22/31 70.97% 9/31 29.03%

A BUSA 506 Q5 40 13/31 41.94% 16/31 51.61% 2/31 6.45%

A BUSA 506 Q12 40 18/31 58.06% 11/31 35.48% 1/31 3.23% 1/31 3.23%

B BUSA 506 Q5 38 7/24 29.17% 13/24 54.17% 4/24 16.67%

B BUSA 506 Q12 38 13/24 54.17% 11/24 45.83%

A BUSA 513 Q5 37 6/19 21.58% 9/19 47.37% 4/19 21.05%

A BUSA 513 Q12 37 2/19 10.53% 12/19 63.16% 2/19 10.53% 3/19 15.79%

B BUSA 513 Q5 35 10/23 43.48% 11/23 47.83% 2/23 26.09%

B BUSA 513 Q12 35 10/23 43.48% 12/23 52.17% 1/23 4.35%

A BUSA 522 Q5 37 4/19 21.05% 12/19 63.02% 3/19 15.79%

A BUSA 522 Q12 37 7/19 36.84% 8/19 42.11% 3/19 15.79%

B BUSA 522 Q5 35 6/23 26.09% 12/23 52.17% 3/23 13.04% 2/23 8.70%

B BUSA 522 Q12 35 11/23 47.83% 8/23 34.78% 2/23 8.70% 2/23 8.70%

Very Good Satisfactory Poor UnsatisfactoryIntake - Cohort Course Question

Total

Enrolled

Excellent

of 1

PROGRAM AND RESEARCH COUNCIL

BRIEFING NOTE

MEETING: 17 September 2013

AGENDA ITEM: MACAM 5-year external program review and program response

SPONSOR: Steve Grundy, Chair of Academic Council

PURPOSE: For information

Consistent with its terms of reference and in alignment with RRU and Academic Council Quality Assurance Policies, Academic Council recently reviewed a 5-year external program review and program response for the MA in Conflict Analysis and Management. The review team identified a number of strengths in the program including:

MACAM is recognized as a premier program in Canada on conflict analysis and management programs, with a unique focus on professional education and applied learning

MACAM program goals and priorities appear to be fairly well matched with those of the university at large

The instructional approaches and content levels of the MACAM program are ideal for its desired student cohort

The opportunity for input by professional conflict practitioners into the learning curriculum of an applied master’s program is to be applauded and continued

Recommendations include:

1. Seek to more actively promote the program and organizational learning 2. Seek to become identified with a particular CAM substantive focus or niche 3. The emphasis of MACAM and the university on blended learning and the newest

technologies for pedagogy should be better exploited to set MACAM apart 4. MACAM should foster a more robust relationship with its alumni, who represent an

untapped resource of social capital and financial capital 5. MACAM should use this opportunity to identify 21st century program and curricular

priorities While some of the recommendations can be acted on in the shorter term, others will be addressed in a forthcoming program revision proposal, which will incorporate recommendations coming out of the self-study guide, the external review report, and the School’s graduate program harmonization initiatives.

Motion: That the Program and Research Council receive information on the MACAM 5-year external program review and response for information.

khakkarainen

Typewritten Text

Attachment 3

khakkarainen

Typewritten Text

Open Session 3.2

khakkarainen

Typewritten Text

khakkarainen

Typewritten Text

khakkarainen

Typewritten Text

khakkarainen

Typewritten Text

khakkarainen

Typewritten Text

khakkarainen

Typewritten Text

mbracewell

Typewritten Text

mbracewell

Typewritten Text

mbracewell

Typewritten Text


mbracewell

Typewritten Text

mbracewell

Typewritten Text

mbracewell

Typewritten Text

mbracewell

Typewritten Text

1

Royal Roads University

MA in Conflict Analysis and Management (MACAM) Program

EXTERNAL REVIEW

Submitted May 7, 2013

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The MA in Conflict Analysis and Management (MACAM) Program at Royal Roads University is

one of the most recognized conflict analysis and management programs in Canada, with a unique

commitment to professional education and applied learning. Its focus on blending distance and

residential learning components makes it ideal for attracting and serving mature learners. As part of the

process for periodic program review and future planning, this external review was commissioned and

conducted Spring 2013. This external review process included a site visit accompanied by numerous

interviews, and supplemented by a review of documents, the program website, and a self‐study also

prepared for this program review.

MACAM’s strength and attractiveness stem from its unique educational model, which stresses

both integrated learning and blended learning. Across the curriculum, substantive themes are

integrated with a theory‐practice nexus. At the same time the program blends diverse learning

platforms, utilizing both intensive residencies and online distance learning in order to provide career

advancement and self‐discovery opportunities for busy professionals across Canada. MACAM is

positioned to expand its national and international leadership in blended learning approaches for the

teaching of conflict analysis and management.

Upon reviewing program strengths and challenges, the external review committee has several

recommendations. These can be summarized and grouped into the following overarching

recommendations:

First, MACAM should seek to more actively promote program and organizational learning. This

is a systemic recommendation for the increased use of input and feedback, from encouraging the

development of mechanisms for assessment and review of student learning outcomes, as well as for

faculty and staff review, to the reinstatement of an Advisory Council to provide insight on field trends

and market needs. Increased monitoring of retention, as well as post‐degree career advancement and

placement, will give information needed for program planning and growth. Articulation of roles and

responsibilities, coupled with processes for monitoring and rewarding their successful execution, will

channel energy into constructive growth. This shift in information‐seeking and self‐reflection will enable

the program to reach its full potential.

Second, MACAM should seek to become identified with a particular CAM substantive focus or

niche that emerges from its program strengths, those of the University, and its British Columbia home.

2

Integrating MACAM’s focus on organizational and intergroup conflict more consciously with the

university’s focus on policy, sustainability, and/or British Columbia’s association with First Nations and

indigenous issues could provide important and unique emphases that would draw CAM students and

scholars from across Canada and the globe.

Third, the emphasis of MACAM and the University on blended learning and the newest

technologies for pedagogy should be better exploited to set MACAM apart. This will require better

awareness and use of the newest and most innovative technologies by all faculty, full‐time and associate

alike, and incentives for doing so. Fortunately, Royal Road’s CTET seems well positioned to provide the

needed capacity building for MACAM’s faculty to achieve this. This part of RRU’s “brand” should be

reflected in MACAM’s activities. As academics in general, and conflict analysis and management faculty

in particular, are asked to make more use of technology and distance learning, MACAM could position

itself to provide leadership and training for the entire field.

Fourth, MACAM should foster a more robust relationship with its alumni, who represent an

untapped resource of social capital and financial capital. This group of loyal, talented and well‐placed

practitioners could provide a very rich network of internships, student placement, recruitment, guest

speakers, and even future associate faculty. They may be able to provide financial and in‐kind support.

Many alumni expressed interest in regional events and networking, providing a logical market for

MACAM to develop continuing education and alumni symposium events and revenue streams.

Finally, in the context of curriculum changes required for university‐wide harmonization, MACAM should

use this opportunity to identify 21st century program and curricular priorities. This is the ripe moment to

engage in deliberative processes in order to consider what combination of residence‐based and online

learning, of full‐time and associate teaching, of theory and practice learning might best meet these

priorities.

3

INTRODUCTION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE

The external review of the MACAM program occurred in March 2013. This review team was

composed of Dr. Tamra Pearson d’Estree (Denver University) Dr. Cheryl Picard (Carleton University) and

Dr. Daniel Rothbart (George Mason University). Drs. d’Estree and Picard conducted interviews on‐site

at the Royal Roads University campus, while Dr. Rothbart participated in all of the interviews by Skype.

Interviews took place March 6 and 7, 2013.

This external review team has been asked to do a formative rather than a summative

evaluation, meaning the provision of feedback on quality to further aid in achievement rather than

judgments of quality. The team was asked in writing to “provide constructive feedback to the programs

about their strengths and weaknesses, and to suggest ways the program quality can be improved”1.

Reviewers were asked to comment on the following six sections: 1) Program Identity, 2) Curriculum and

Course Development, 3) Student Standing and Performance, 4) Student Experience, 5) Faculty and

Administration, and 6) Planning2. The review team also assembled specific questions raised by those

interviewed.

The report has been organized to summarize observations and feedback in each of the six

sections noted above. Each section includes noted areas of strength and challenge as well as

recommendations for improvement and further growth.

1. PROGRAM IDENTITY

1.1 MISSION, VISION, AND GOALS

Royal Roads University was established in 1995 by the Province of British Columbia on the

former campus of one of Canada’s three military academies. From the start RRU exhibited a brand of

innovation and leadership by developing what was then a fairly new approach to higher education,

blending short campus residencies with extensive collaborative online learning. This “blended learning”

model characterizes all of RRU’s degrees and certificate programs. It is probably fair to say that this

model is the source of its primary strengths, and paradoxically also the source of some of its challenges.

The University seeks to be “the university of choice for relevant applied and professional

education providing continuous opportunities to learn and transform lives and careers.”3 Thus, the

University seeks students who are self‐directed and highly motivated, with strong interpersonal,

research and communication skills. RRU also sees its mission as one of responsiveness to the needs of

the local community, and responsiveness to the labour market needs of British Columbia, such that

expansion is demand‐driven. Other priorities include partnerships, interdisciplinarity, collaboration,

inclusiveness, and environmental sustainability and stewardship.

1 Guide to External Reviewers Summer 2012, p. 7. 2 Guide to External Reviewers Summer 2012, pp. 7‐8. 3 Royal Roads University Strategic Direction, January 2012, p. 2.

4

The Masters Program in Conflict Analysis and Resolution (MACAM) was established in 1997 as

one of the University’s first MA programs. Recognizing the ever present nature of conflict and its impact

on Canadian organizations and institutions, a strategic choice was made to focus on inter and intragroup

conflict, rather than interpersonal conflict. Experts in the field with both scholarly and practice

credentials were called upon to frame the initial program, and became some of its first core and

associate faculty members.

The mission of the MACAM Program is to “[develop] reflective professionals who understand

the multiple forces at work in conflict situations related to their area of specialization, and who can offer

leadership in taking action to anticipate, analyze, prevent, manage and resolve conflict”4. This is

accomplished through “a holistic, cross‐cultural approach to conflict analysis and management... [that]

focuses on multi‐party disputes between governments, corporations and civil society.”

The MACAM program website also lists the following goals or “aims”:

● deal with all elements of conflict, including early detection, prevention, management, resolution

and reconciliation;

● provide the students with a broad theoretical understanding of conflict analysis and

management together with exposure to a range of skills for dealing with conflict in a variety of

organizational large group, and multi‐party settings;

● emphasize a systems‐based, cross‐cultural approach to conflict analysis and management;

● focus on intergroup and multi party disputes between governments, corporations, institutions

and ethnic groups over issues related to community, trade, development, resource use, the

environment, governance, ethnicity and security;

● emphasize the international dimensions of conflict management in the relevant concentrations

with a special (though not exclusive) focus on the Pacific Basin area;

● create an academic climate that is interdisciplinary, innovative, interactive, competency‐based,

and student‐centered.

Other goals embedded in the Program’s “Outcomes” webpage include

● expose students to various roles and basic skills typically employed in the field of conflict

analysis and management, including negotiation, mediation, arbitration, facilitation, and

consultation

● develop reflective professionals

● develop in students the ability to plan, integrate and direct the application of these skills within

a strategic conflict management framework specific to the conflict situation and its context

One current initiative of the University and the School of Peace and Conflict Management

(SPCM) centers on the “harmonization” of credit hours and the timing of semesters across programs.

With such harmonization, students will have increased ability to take electives in other programs. By

4 Taken from the MACAM website.

5

standardizing credit hours at 3 credits per course, student progress toward degree will be simplified.

This new priority of course and semester alignment impacts planning for curriculum design, course

scheduling and delivery, and faculty (particularly Associate Faculty) staffing of courses (see Section 2,

Curriculum, below).

Strengths

MACAM is recognized as a premier program in Canada on conflict analysis and management

programs, with a unique focus on professional education and applied learning. Its blend of distance and

residential learning components makes it ideal for mature learners seeking this important and unique

focus.

MACAM program goals and priorities appear to be fairly well matched with those of the

University at large. These goals emphasize midcareer applied and professional education that is

catalytic and life‐changing. Its curriculum reflects interdisciplinarity and learning through partnerships.

Collaboration is a core feature of pedagogy, woven throughout faculty and student relationships.

Challenges and Recommendations

Clarity of goals. Though laudable, the goals documented above would benefit from attention to

framing them in a way that makes it easier (a) to develop objectives to guide the achievement of these

goals, and (b) to develop indicators to determine if the program is on track in terms of achieving its

goals. In their current formulation, some of these goals are so broad as to be unlikely to be achievable

in a 2‐year program, such as “deal with all elements of conflict, including early detection, prevention,

management, resolution and reconciliation.” The Program may find it useful to reexamine these goals

and consider how (and where in the curriculum) each of them will be achieved. Some goals will be

worked on in many courses, e.g., interdisciplinarity, innovation, and focusing on intergroup and

multiparty conflict. Other goals may be addressed in specific courses, and without specific targeting

may not be achieved at all, e.g., a cross‐cultural approach to conflict management.

Match between university and program goals. While many goals are aligned, other goals and

priorities of the University that receive less emphasis by the MACAM program are the following:

responsiveness to local community needs, responsiveness to the British Columbia labour market, and a

focus on environmental sustainability and stewardship.

1.2 EFFECTIVENESS OF METHODS FOR MEASURING QUALITY & ACHIEVEMENT OF PROGRAM GOALS

Assessing quality or success must be done relatively, that is, in relation to some comparison

standard. Logical standards for comparison include: (1) where the program has been in the past, (2)

where the program aims to be, through its goals and vision statements, and (3) peer institutions. As

noted in the previous 5‐year review5, the lack of similarly constituted programs at peer institutions in

Canada make this last type of comparison difficult. Therefore, the program can best be judged by

5 see External Review MACAM, Royal Roads University,, December 3, 2004

6

comparing it to where it has been in the past, and also where it would like to be as captured in the goals

it has set for itself (see Section 1.1 above).

Regarding assessment of academic programs, the University is committed to achieving and

maintaining education of high quality that are consistent with national standards.6 The MACAM

program is subject to external reviews, such as this one, along with self‐evaluation, which appears to

largely involve student feedback at the completion of each course, as well as a self‐study accompanying

the external review process.

For the purposes of course assessment, questionnaires are administered using the likert scale of

excellent, very good, good, satisfactory, and needs improvement. Students on average tended to rate

their courses as excellent, very good and good, with only a very small percentage indicating that a

particular course was only satisfactory or needed improvement7 (see section 2. Curriculum below).

For the purposes of program assessment, the MACAM Program has well‐articulated Student

Learning Outcomes that were developed in 2002. These include the following “competency domains”8:

1. Recognize, identify and analyze conflict in a variety of situations 2. Identity and analyze the context and culture of conflict 3. Knowledge of and ability to apply conflict systems, theories and analysis 4. Communicate with and enable others to communicate 5. Apply research methods in a systematic inquiry 6. Apply reflective practice principles to conflict analysis and management Each competency domain is accompanied by more elaborated “competency outcomes”, or learning

outcomes (LOs). It is implied, though not stated, that the process of Curriculum Committee approval of

courses somehow includes attention to distributing coverage of these LOs in various courses. The 5

year report has no details in the text on how these LOs are assessed but states that course outlines

describe the assessment methods used in each course.

Strengths

The MACAM Program has well‐articulated competencies and Learning Outcomes that were

developed in 2002.


The instruments currently deployed to assess the achievement of these outcomes are rather

thin. The end‐of‐semester course evaluations appear to be the primary means deployed for

assessment. While this instrument provides an important source of information about the quality of

individual courses, course evaluations provide, at best, indirect means for evaluating whether the

program is meeting its learning outcomes and for offering high quality education to students. The Self‐

6 Review Report p.4 7 Review Report, pp.130‐131. 8 5 year review, pp. 26‐29.

7

Study itself notes this gap: “There are no mechanisms to measure student gains in knowledge other than

course assignments.”9 Thus it is not clear that program‐level student learning goals are being met. It

was also noted that the Program Head periodically engages faculty in a collaborative discussion about

program direction. But it is not clear that this is a review regarding goal achievement, nor is it clear that

the review offers a suitable venue and means for long‐term planning on various matters (see section 6.

Planning below).

It is also not clear that there is a procedure in place for periodically engaging in program

reflection and review. If the program hopes to be “responsive to labour market needs,” then some

mechanism for assessing these needs and using this information in program planning should be

deployed.

Review of Associate Faculty seems to be uneven and sometimes absent. Evidently course

materials and course evaluations are periodically reviewed in conjunction with the Program Head.

However it is not clear that performance criteria have been established, nor a process for continuing

reflection, goal‐setting, and review.

Finally, one significant measure of a program’s success is career advancement and placement of

graduates (presuming this is an implicit if not explicit goal). However, no data is collected on

advancement and placement of MACAM graduates, or if it is, it is done by another division of RRU in a

way that it is not made available to the MACAM program, nor was it available to us as external

reviewers.

Additional Recommendations:

The self‐study states that student learning outcomes will be revised during the harmonization

process. Once learning outcomes (LOs) have been revisited and revised, a matrix should be constructed

that maps these LOs onto existing courses. In which courses are each of these LOs expected to be

developed? Once that is done, choices can be made for when and where each LO will be assessed ‐ in

one course, in more than one course, or in some outside form of assessment, and assessment measures

can be developed. Assembling the assessment of LOs at various points throughout the curriculum can

allow for assessment of program level goals. We recommend developing a procedure and a reporting

responsibility for monitoring and evaluation. We also recommend continued expansion (and

incentivizing) of procedures and traditions of program reflection and review.

Traditionally, all RRU units have used external Advisory Councils, in part to gauge market

trends. MACAM’s Advisory Council has fallen out of use. Associate faculty who are practitioners can

provide some input into labor market needs. However, an external Advisory Council could provide

broader input into market needs assessment that also would be less susceptible to conflicts of interest.

We recommend that this Advisory Council be reconstituted and utilized, both to review labour market

needs but also to develop a network of potential employers of MACAM graduates and a pipeline for

placement.

9 5 year review, p. 18

8

We also recommend instituting a procedure for review of Associate Faculty that includes

performance criteria, joint‐setting of goals, and joint review of goal achievement. Joint planning of

regular curriculum review and modification will also increase joint ownership of program goal

achievement.

Finally, enhanced tracking of graduate placement would be useful for program evaluation,

market analysis, program revision, and recruitment.

2. CURRICULUM AND COURSE DEVELOPMENT

2.1 GENERAL CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

The curriculum of the Masters of Arts in Conflict Analysis and Management (MACAM) was first

approved in 1997 and offered to a group of 35 students in 199810. Over the past fifteen years the

program offerings and curriculum have undergone several changes, including:

● the reduction of the on‐site residency requirements from 5 weeks to 3

● shifting the focus from intergroup and interpersonal conflict to inter‐group and multi‐party conflict

● phasing out of the peacekeeping specialized option

● cancellation of the environmental and trade and commercial concentrations

● addition of two new streams – organizational conflict management and school and community

conflict management; the community stream being phased out due to lack of demand

● discontinuation of the Thai‐MACAM program, which was an international specialization offered in

partnership with a consortium of Thai universities that enrolled two cohorts.

Two current streams remain at the time of this review:

● Political, ethnic, and security (previously referred to as ethno‐political issues)

● Organizational conflict management.

However, the “Possible Future Structure and Content for MACAM Program (Draft)”, document suggests

that the content and delivery of courses may be revised as early as the 2014 intake. Two new full‐time

faculty have several innovative ideas for revising and updating the curriculum.

The University as a whole has recently undergone a process to ‘harmonize’ credit hours and

align terms to allow for standardization in administration as well as increased collaboration and cross‐

registration across programs. Because MACAM was without permanent leadership during this transition

period, it is undergoing this ‘harmonization’ process now.

Overall Program Strengths:

MACAM is unique in Canada with respect to its combination of residency and distance learning

courses. Students enrolled in the program are adult learners with undergraduate degrees and at least

10 5 year review, p. 8.

9

five years of related conflict resolution experience. Students’ progress through the program as a cohort

with each cohort receiving a similar learning experience. The faculty with whom we spoke regard this

model positively and see it as important to retain. Students and alumni also made many positive

comments about their cohorts and the value of this model both in our interviews and in the written

alumni feedback. Furthermore, they expressed interest in post‐cohort contact and ongoing learning

opportunities.

MACAM prides itself on offering a program that has a strong emphasis on the integration of

theory and practice. This emphasis on skills development along with the emphasis on reflective

practice was also seen by faculty, alumni and students as a strength of the MACAM program. The strong

emphasis on the application of theory is thought to differentiate MACAM from other Canadian masters

programs. For students, learning skills was seen as providing them with the “hows” in addition to the

“whys” of conflict intervention and practice. The skills learned were said to be of value in everyday

life11. Curricular components such as the Practicum encourage the active integration of skills and

theory into students’ developing professional practice.

RRU provides considerable support to its faculty. One of these resources is the Centre for

Teaching and Educational Technologies (CTET), which is responsible for supporting faculty through the

course development and delivery process. Faculty have access to an instructional designer who works

with them to ensure understanding of the pedagogical model, the appropriate use of learning

technologies, and best practices for learning facilitation12. Both students and faculty are able to attend

courses on the use of various classroom technologies.

In looking at the written student feedback provided in the Review Report and from our

interviews, another strength of MACAM is the quality of instruction, the inclusion of practitioner‐

scholars and the diversity of guests invited into the classroom. Comments were made about the

congeniality, accessibility and attention given to individual students by the faculty.

Students and faculty have access to a library that offers document delivery (“Doc Del”) at no

cost and interlibrary loan that, while free for students, does cost faculty a small fee. In addition, the

librarians offer instruction on library research on using RefWorks.

MACAM has recently added two new full‐time faculty filling positions that have been vacant for

some time. From the faculty bios and our meetings with these individuals, it appears this team is quite

complementary; between them they have an impressive range of academic and applied experiences to

offer to the program.

MACAM also has an impressive list of associate faculty some of whom, if not all, appear to have

a strong interest in insuring a high quality program beyond their responsibility for course delivery. The

same can be said about the impressive nature of the MACAM student body and alumni. Utilizing these

11 Review Report, p. 143. 12 Handout provided by CTET personnel.

10

individuals during the time the program is undergoing change, and beyond, could prove very beneficial

to those charged with program design and delivery.

That the program is located within the School of Peace and Conflict Management is an

additional resource. Once harmonization is complete, it appears that students may be given the option

to take courses from other programs within the school and thus broaden the range of courses that can

be taken through the MACAM program making it even more attractive to potential students.

Overall Program Challenges and Recommendations:

The MACAM curriculum has not had an external review since 2004, in part due to the

unfortunate and unexpected loss of the Program Head which resulted in the MACAM program being

without a full‐time faculty member and program head for some time. Not surprisingly, this lack of

leadership and the opportunity for substantive review of the curriculum had negative consequences.

While the leadership problem has been rectified with the hiring of two new full‐time faculty members in

2012 (one of whom is program head), there was concern expressed at the time of this review about the

different viewpoints for how the program should look in the future between the newer faculty and the

existing associate faculty. A planning meeting of the MACAM faculty took place in December of 2012.

That meeting was seen as beginning the collaboration process to update and revise the curriculum.

Additional meetings of this nature along with systematic and regular dialogue between full‐time and

associate faculty might lessen concerns over the different viewpoints that exist. Furthermore, periodic

discussions between full‐time and associate faculty about such things as course offerings, student issues

and program evaluation would enhance the MACAM program given the diversity of expertise of the

current faculty13. From time to time students and alumni might also be invited to attend these

meetings, as they too hold a wealth of information of importance to the long term viability of MACAM.

As stated in the Review Report the MACAM program has been in basic “maintenance mode” for

a prolonged period of time. During our interviews with faculty, staff, and administrators we were left

with the impression that during the period without an active program head responsibilities had to be

assumed by others in addition to their existing responsibilities, and that in some cases these

responsibilities went beyond their job descriptions. Based on these comments, we believe that the

current program review was seen to be both timely and welcomed. There was also no disagreement

that because MACAM’s current learning outcomes date back to 2002, they require updating with a view

to stronger integration between the current course offerings and identified learning outcomes. In our

interviews, particular mention was made that learning outcomes in relation to inter‐group and multi‐

party conflicts could be strengthened. This objective would also be advanced if, as we were told, efforts

to include new international streams in the future are pursued.

As noted above, the MACAM program is in a state of transition due to university wide changes

that are underway to harmonize this program with other programs offered in the School of Peace and

Conflict Management and more broadly with all programs offered at RRU. While there were concerns

13 see faculty CVs in the Review Report.

11

expressed to us about this process during the review process, it appears that harmonization is part of a

wider university policy initiative and thus specific comments from us about harmonization per se seems

unnecessary. We will, however, where appropriate mention this topic in relation to concerns expressed

by others. For instance, one of the outputs of this harmonization process is the reallocation of numbers

of credits to current course offerings. Such is the case with the residencies where the number of credits

currently allocated to each residency would be reduced. The reduction in credit value is of real concern

to the associate faculty we interviewed. The concern is that the reduction in the number of credits may

mean that what can be offered in the residencies may also be reduced. If this were to happen it is likely

to have a negative impact on student learning and skills development due to the inability to continue to

offer the same range and diversity of topics and guest speakers, and reduced opportunity for students

to practice their skills.

Other associate faculty concerns were raised after the “Possible Future Structure and Content

for MACAM (Draft)” document was presented to them at their December onsite meeting. In addition to

concerns about program content, other questions were raised in relation to course structure, course

sequencing and the consideration of new skills courses. It will be important that ongoing dialogue

between full‐time and associate faculty continue while decisions about harmonization of course

offerings are being made. That said, it will also be important for the two new full‐time faculty to feel

they have the support to make curriculum decisions in the absence of associate faculty consensus.

Building strong leadership within the MACAM program at this point in times should be a priority.

In the previous examiner’s report it was recommended that “closer relationships between

MACAM and other British Columbia University programs be explored” (p.1)14. From the materials

included in this review, it does not appear that this has happened to any extent, although no direct

discussions on this recommendation took place. As reviewers, we think this suggestion is well worth

exploring for a number of reasons. It will help to keep the MACAM program current about the strengths

and challenges of other provincial masters programs who offer conflict studies programs. Staying

current on what other academic institutions are doing both programmatically and in the areas of

research contributes to the planning and evaluation of one’s own program. Interaction with other B.C.

universities and those across Canada, the United States, Europe and globally can also provide creative

ideas in relation to funding, faculty, student admissions and retention, and program expansion and

evaluation. Interaction with other universities would also allow RRU to showcase the value of its

integrative theory and practice programming to other academic institutions, as well as its advancements

in pioneering blended learning approaches.

The document that begins looking toward the future of MACAM states a mission that focuses on

“the development of reflective practitioners who understand the multiple forces at work in conflict

situations, who can design and implement applicable conflict transformation mechanisms, and who can

offer leadership and take action to anticipate, analyze, prevent and manage conflict”15. This is a lofty

goal that MACAM will want to be certain it can achieve through systematic and broad‐based program

14 External Review, MACAM program, December 3, 2004. 15 Possible future structure and content for MACAM Program (draft), 2013

12

evaluation of its residency and on‐line courses. It was not clear to us at time of this review that MACAM

does in fact have the courses in place to achieve its full mission (see Section 1.2 above). While we heard

from students that they do feel ready to analyze and anticipate conflict after completing the program,

they did not feel ready to actually intervene in conflict situations. Students from MACAM are not alone

in feeling this way. As faculty in other Canadian and American universities with integrated theory and

practice programs, we too recognize the challenge in ensuring that students leave with skills

competency. The recent hiring of full‐time faculty will now allow attention to be paid to assessing

whether the current courses, in particular the residencies and skills option, are sufficient to provide

students with the requisite skills to actually intervene in a real‐life conflict. While there appears to be

time built into the residencies for simulated practice of a variety of intervention strategies, there was no

indication of how students are assessed in relation to their competency or potential of competency to

actually use these skills. We recommend that full‐time faculty undertake to research how other

academic programs (such as Carleton University) and professional associations (for instance the

Association for Conflict Resolution, Family Mediation Canada/Médiation Familiale Canada and

Alternative Dispute Resolution Canada) address the question of certification and competency.

To address the interest in ongoing learning opportunities, one suggestion that was said to be

supported by a number of alumni was the idea of a Community of Practice Symposium or gathering that

might occur at the time of a residency and serve as a MACAM think tank16. The offer to prepare a

concept paper on this idea by the alumnus who made the suggestion shows the level of commitment

and perceived value in continuing to learn and network with MACAM students post‐graduation. Alumni

also encouraged utilizing them at regional recruiting events.

2.2 APPROPRIATENESS OF INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACHES AND CONTENT LEVELS

The MACAM program runs over two years and involves students in two 3 week residencies (CAMN

500 and 520; CAMN 600 and 650 or 680) and four on‐line distance courses (CAMN 510 or 514; 521, 575,

530). After completing their second residency they either do a major research project by distance

(CAMN 690), or the Applied Skills Option (CAMN 692 and 694) which is a combination of residency and

distance on‐line work.

Strengths

The instructional approaches and content levels of the MACAM program are ideal for its desired

student cohort. The combination of residency and on‐line distance courses allows learners who work

full‐time to study at the graduate level without having to leave their jobs, or homes, for extended

periods of time. This combination of on‐site and distance learning is also intended to allow for the

potential of students to become competent in the application of the skills and knowledge they are

acquiring. This type of programming fits with the mission of the University and targets a unique student

body which is in line with the university’s business model.

16 see Alumni Feedback, Appendix 7 Review Report p.141.

13

The MACAM integrated learning model of theory and practice emphasizes systems thinking as it

teaches learners about organizational, systems and conflict theories, legal frameworks, conflict analysis,

system design, research methods and ethics, along with many of the practical skills used by negotiators,

mediators, community developers, peacebuilders and peacemakers.

Students, alumni and faculty all commented on the importance of the residencies for learning

skills and group work. They also spoke of the richness that is provided through team teaching and

having professional practitioners as part of the teaching team.

The opportunity for students to specialize in one of two tracks ‐ organizational or

ethnic/political/security is another strength of the program. MACAM has recognized the importance of

choosing to do a few things well, rather than trying to do many things. Students are also offered the

choice of completing either a major research paper or doing an applied skills option. Providing the

option of either specializing in research or applied skills allows for a more diverse student body.

Furthermore, the option to graduate with a diploma or with a masters degree allows students to study

at the graduate level who otherwise may not be admitted into a more traditional program. It also

means students have greater chance of success, as they can achieve the diploma if continuing with the

full degree becomes less feasible.


While the use of associate faculty does offer students a diverse and rich experience, being at

arm’s length from the administrative culture of RRU and of the MACAM program itself makes it difficult

to maintain internal program consistency and accountability regarding instructional approaches and

content quality. This was most apparent during our discussions regarding the review of course

materials, syllabi and course outlines. In looking at the course outlines provided, it occurred to us that a

program template for course outlines is needed. This would serve to ensure students are provided with

consistent information about each course and its requirements, information that would clearly link

learning outcomes to activities and readings. A consistent template for course outlines would also be

helpful for current and new faculty.

The frequency with which course outlines are updated was also not clear to the reviewers. A

policy that provides faculty with a framework for the structure of course outlines, how the course

material is linked to student learning outcomes, expectations regarding the quality and amount of

required reading, course evaluation requirements, and expectations regarding the updating of course

materials, readings and outlines is recommended.

We learned from students and alumni that knowledge of required readings and access to course

materials was sometimes last minute, which made it difficult for them to prepare in advance of the

course and to complete required readings in a timely fashion. Staff separately observed that having

multiple faculty members on a residency complicated preparation schedules and execution, leading to

last minute adjustments. While flexibility is desirable, establishing adequate guidelines and

expectations for timely course preparation could support smooth course execution.

14

We also heard from students and alumni disappointment that in spite of British Columbia’s

connection to First Nations, RRU’s emphasis on inclusivity, and MACAM’S specific focus on addressing

political/ethnic conflict, few First Nations students and faculty are actually part of the program, and

limited opportunity exists to study the conflicts between First Nations communities and governmental

organizations as a prime example of ethnopolitical conflict. Attracting more indigenous peoples to the

program; inviting more First Nations people to be faculty or at the very least guest speakers; including

more conflict‐related material involving First Nations issues and national issues; as well as focusing skills

development courses to enable graduates to offer their services in Canadian cross‐cultural conflict are

areas which could fruitfully be strengthened and would provide a unique niche for the MACAM

program.

2.3 DEGREE OF CONGRUENCE BETWEEN THE PROGRAM CURRICULUM AND PROGRAM LEARNING

OUTCOMES

As noted under section 1.2 above, the curriculum of MACAM is guided by a set of six learning

outcomes that date back to 2002. These learning outcomes are:

1 Recognize, identify and analyse conflict in a variety of situations

2 Identify and analyze the context and culture of conflict

3 Knowledge of and ability to apply conflict, systems theories and analysis

4 Communicate with and enable others to communicate

5 Apply research methods in a systematic inquiry

6 Apply reflective practice principles to conflict analysis and management

The curriculum that is currently offered to meet the above learning outcomes includes:

Year One

Residency 1 CAMN 500 and CAMN 520 (currently 8 credits) (Learning outcomes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)

Distance CAMN 510 or CAMN 514 (2 credits) (Learning Outcomes 1, 2,3,4,5,6,)

CAMN 521 (Practicum 2 credits)(Learning outcomes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)

CAMN 575 (Methods 4 credits)(Learning outcomes listed but not linked to above)

CAMN 530 (Dispute design 4 credits)(Learning outcomes 1, 2, 3, 4, 6)

Year Two

Residency 2 CAMN 600 (Learning outcomes 1, 2, 3, 4)and either CAMN 650 (currently 8

credits)(Learning outcomes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)or 680 (Learning outcomes not listed)

Distance CAMN 690 (MRP 8 credits) (Learning outcomes 1, 2, 3, 4)or CAMN 692 (Skills 6 credits)

(Learning outcomes 1, 2, 3)& CAMN 694 (2 credits)(Learning outcomes not listed)

Course outlines were used to determine which of the six learning outcomes are being

addressed in a particular course. All of the course outlines, with the exception of CAMN680 and CAMN

694, listed learning outcomes. However, how learning outcomes were presented was inconsistent.

15

Some faculty were quite specific in indicating how the course linked to specific learning outcomes, while

others appeared to list the six learning outcomes of the MACAM program without making specific

connections to how they linked to the course itself. Consistency in the presentation and use of learning

outcomes as part of each course outline is recommended.

A separate issue relates to the provision of specialized tracks within the curriculum. MACAM

has cycled through several specializations, and currently offers two: political/ethnic/security conflict

and organizational conflict. One of the questions we as reviewers were asked was, “how many

specializations can realistically be offered in the CAM program, given the RRU business model, which

follows a cohort model and generally supports classes of 45 or more students?” This is a difficult

question and one that is shared by us as program directors in other universities. While ideally we would

like to offer students a range of specialization options, realistically the resources are usually only there

for a few to be done well.

We were unable to comment on the congruence between the curriculum and the Learning

Outcomes of the specialized tracks, as LOs for specializations have not yet been articulated. One

recommendation for future program enhancement would be the addition to the LOs list of those

additional learning outcomes expected for each specialization, or of specializations in general.

Strengths

This review team believes that the integration of theory and practice in the residencies is a

major strength of the MACAM program and should continue. This integration critically begins in the first

residency. Both full‐time and associate faculty mentioned the importance of adding skills to this first

residency, though it may mean less time for theory. Also, the reduction to 6 credits from the current 8

credit allotment due to harmonization should not imply either a reduction in the content or a reduction

in the importance of this residency. Residency Two is also seen to be a valuable part of the students’

overall learning program.


There is considerable concern among the associate faculty in particular that bringing the current

number of allotted course credits in line with the RRU standardized 3‐credit level system will have a

negative impact on the program. Of particular concern is how many credits will be allocated to the

residency parts of the program. This concern was heightened with discussions about reducing the

residency to two weeks (see R. Fisher’s memo dated Jan 13, 2013). It appears from the most recent

draft of “Possible Future Structure and Content for MACAM” that through the harmonization process

the 3‐week residency will be continued and that it will constitute 6 credits. It also appears that the

residency will continue to be an integration of theory, analysis, and skill based work. Some of the

associate faculty expressed concern about the inadequate participation of associate faculty in the

decision making process. One factor seems to be ambiguity around roles of associate and full‐time

faculty, and whether or not the role of associate faculty in curriculum reform is consultative or decision‐

making.

16

With a cohort model of approximately 45 students, MACAM needs to make clear decisions

about which areas of specialization it will offer in the future. We agree that differentiating between

CAM and HPSB learning outcomes is important. The idea of considering shared courses across the

programs seems to make good sense, even in a cohort model. Allowing students to come into one or

perhaps two course offerings in other programs in order to pursue an area of specialization that would

otherwise not be available to them seems judicious. In our experience, this would not necessarily

separate them from the cohort such that they would no longer retain the benefits of being part of the

cohort.

More coordination and integration between these residencies may enhance the learners’

experience ever further and was specifically mentioned as a strength.

Because residency one has been largely overseen and taught by associate faculty in recent

years, and because it would appear that full‐time faculty will be taking on major responsibilities for the

design and teaching of this residency in the future, the opportunity for associate faculty to have input

into the new design seems important.

Feedback about the intensity of the residency both with the amount of material to be covered in

terms of content and preparing to do graduate‐level work, along with group team‐building and bonding

has long been recognized as a difficulty for students (see comments from students in the evaluations).

Providing students with texts and course syllabi that include the required readings in each course well

ahead of the start of classes was mentioned by alumni as a way for them to have time to stay on top of

the reading requirements. We agree with the recommendation to assign pre‐reading, and we build

upon it by inviting program faculty might to consider assigning students pre‐work before arriving at both

residency one and two. For instance, we suggest that pre‐work in the first residency could include

activities such as:

1 reading a selection of course articles and completing a short critical thinking piece, which would

enable the faculty to get a sense of individualized student reading and writing capabilities very

early in a student’s program;

2 completing a short essay related to personal learning goals while in the MACAM program that

would include a list of strengths (this would be more structured than their admissions

statement). Students could discuss this essay and/or share it in small groups or other activities;

3 students could be asked to map their constellation of theories as suggested by Lang and Taylor

in, The Making of a Mediator(2000).

It was mentioned that integration between the first‐year and second‐year residency could be

strengthened. Better coordination between these two residencies would provide the opportunity to

prepare students in their first residency for what they need to know and be able to achieve in their

second residency. Both residencies are considered to be extremely important in the student’s

acquisition of applied skills. The possibility of closer learning links between the residencies and the

Applied Skills Option is one suggestion for enhancing students’ acquisition of intervention skills.

Providing students with opportunities to acquire skills before the first residency, or providing them with

information on how to go about acquiring skills through outside organizations who offer skills‐based

17

training is another suggestion. A further suggestion that came from an alumnus was to provide

opportunities for more skills coaching. Both associate and full‐time faculty both made the suggestion to

add more skills training in the first residency.

2.4 THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROGRAM DESIGN FOR THE DELIVERY OF PROGRAMS BY DISTANCE

Strengths

The Centre for Teaching and Educational Technologies (CTET) provides support to faculty

through course development and media services. MACAM is assigned an instructional designer to act as

liaison to faculty and staff. Given the heavy load of distance learning courses in the MACAM program

CTET seems to fill an essential role in the quality of the student’s distance learning experience. Based on

our interview with the Head of this Centre, there was a strong mandate to deliver quality distance

learning programs.

CTET offers a major a resource for the delivery of both distance and residency courses. What is

unclear is how much this resource is being used. As the program head and full‐time faculty become

more settled in their new jobs, it is recommended that they give full attention to ensuring the design

and delivery of all on‐line and residency courses meet with the high quality of teaching that is said to be

a goal of RRU programs.

Challenges and recommendations

Interviews with alumni and students of the MACAM program at the time of this review reported

less than satisfying experiences with on‐line distance courses. Comments were made about the lack of

consistency with respect to format and to faculty input in the course (more interaction with faculty

during online courses was desired). Other criticisms were made about the use of Moodle as a limited

learning tool. As reviewers, we were left wondering if full‐time faculty and associate faculty were taking

full advantage of the resources of CTET in the delivery of their on‐line and residency courses. We

recommend that since online teaching platforms are such a core component of the RRU identity, all full‐

time and associate faculty be given incentives to participate in CTET trainings and consult annually with

CTET resource staff in the ongoing refreshing and revising their courses.

2.5 THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INSTRUCTIONAL PROCESSES AND COMMITTEES USED TO ENSURE AND

OVERSEE THE QUALITY OF CURRICULA

Strengths

Faculty are encouraged to refine and revise their resources, however, it was unclear from the

materials we received how much this was actually happening. The recent hiring of two full‐time faculty

should provide the impetus to ensure course outlines are regularly updated and linked to learning

outcomes. So too would a policy that clearly states faculty responsibilities in this area.


18

The absence of advisory committee to assess appropriateness of course materials has been a

loss for the MACAM program. Discussions with other program heads about the value and constitution

of Advisory Councils is recommended.

2.6 THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ADVISORY COUNCILS IN ENSURING THAT THE CURRICULUM IS CURRENT

AND MEETS LABOUR MARKET NEEDS.

Quality is said to be monitored in RRU programs on an ongoing basis through the Advisory

Councils, individual Faculties and programs. In addition, “senior faculty from other post‐secondary

institutions and qualified industry personnel are to be used to assess that the curriculum is equivalent to

other university programs and relevant to real world needs”17.

Strengths

The opportunity for input by professional conflict practitioners into the learning curriculum of an

applied master’s program is to be applauded and continued. So too is the pattern of conducting a

review every five years by outside academics to ensure the quality of the program remains high.


Currently, there is no functioning Advisory Council for the MACAM program. Information on

previous advisory councils was not contained in the review materials so the relevance of its constitution

and usefulness in previous years cannot be assessed. The use of an Advisory Council to monitor

program quality and provide links to the professional community of practice seems wise. For that

reason, it is recommended that a new Advisory Council be established with the mandate to review

MACAMS program curriculum that includes feedback from faculty, students and alumni. Impressions

and recommendations from this group would be submitted to RRU through an annual report. This

Advisory Committee should be constituted by individuals from various sectors including but not limited

to: academia, conflict resolution professionals, First Nations, business, industry, NGOs and public sector

organizations who work in international conflict areas, faculty, alumni and students.

Constituting an Advisory Council is consistent with policies and practices at RRU. Best practices

in the use of Advisory Councils should already be something known to RRU senior managers.

3. STUDENT STANDING AND PERFORMANCE

As one of its primary missions, RRU addresses the needs of those students who are seeking

advancement in the workplace, hoping to expand the range or depth of their experience for the

purpose of augmenting their career potential. With this mission, all of the university programs focus on

17 Review Report, p.4

19

the applied or professional fields, and programs that respond to the labour market of the local

community and of British Columbia. The programs in the School of Peace and Conflict Management

(MACAM, HSPB, DEM) share a similar market, namely law enforcement, Canadian military, municipal

and regional government, and national government.

As with many programs at RRU, the students who enter the MACAM program come with

extensive work and life experience. This is reflected in the age of students entering the MACAM

program in July, 2012. For students seeking the MA degree, the average age is 38.5 years old; for

students seeking the diploma in conflict analysis and resolution, the average age is 42.5.

For all students entering these two programs, extensive work experience is required for

admission. MACAM relies on ‘standard’ admissions criteria. That is, admission to one of the MACAM

programs requires graduation from an accredited undergraduate degree program, a “good GPA”, and a

minimum of five years of full‐time experience preferably in a related area. Alternatively, students may

be considered that have 10 years of relevant experience in lieu of a BA or BS. These admissions criteria

are appropriately rigorous in relation to admissions criteria for similar programs in conflict analysis and

resolution. With these criteria for the MACAM program, the admission rate for 2010, 2011, 2012 per

semester is approximately 50%, [total registered to start the semester over total applications received

for a given semester].

On a related point, the administrators of the MACAM program recognize the importance of

drawing upon international students as well as giving Canadian students international experience. An

exchange program was established with a university in Thailand, although subsequently discontinued

due to instability in institutional arrangements there. Though this may have been discouraging, we

encourage the cultivation of similar initiatives that expand the international presence in the MACAM

program, particularly to draw upon students who live in post‐conflict regions. Additionally, while taking

MACAM students abroad may require increased administrative burdens, our universities’ experiences

are that the benefits to the students are worth the increased investment.

Regarding student performance, we have some evidence to indicate that the MACAM program

succeeds at its stated mission. If we focus on grade distribution, we find that almost all of the students

pass courses for which they enroll, and a reasonable number of students meet high standards of

achievement by acquiring A or A‐ as the course grade. In general, the distribution of grades is consistent

with the distribution of similar programs in Canada and the United States.

Strengths

Students in the MACAM program are advanced, mature learners with life experiences that

enrich the collective learning enterprise for students and faculty alike. They are drawn from leadership

and public service sectors, and bring commitment and seriousness to the learning experience in the

MACAM program.


20

The MACAM program, and RRU more generally, has been developed to meet the needs of more

mature, professional learners. This is part of the RRU “brand.” This makes it difficult when students are

admitted who actually have a range of skills and experience, some less than others. Some of the more

experienced students we interviewed felt that it detracted from the program when the program also

admitted those younger and with less or no experience – and thus instructors (and fellow students)

ended up having to spend more time on fundamentals and review. One recommendation put forth by

one of these more experienced students was for a kind of “orientation” or pre‐program remedial session

for students with less background to bring them up to the same level with the ideal profile for a

prepared entering student. It was also suggested that expectations for pre‐course preparation be clearly

specified and then followed, so students did not have to endure repetition and reviews done for

unprepared students.

One area where we felt that important information was notably missing was in the area of

student retention. Student retention data can help the MACAM program in several ways. It can be

instructive to determine the reasons why students may leave. For example, are they transferring to

other programs on campus? Was the program too difficult (may relate to admissions decisions) or were

they lacking support (may relate to staffing decisions)? They may have been deployed with the military

or the peace corps and will be returning eventually. Having not only admissions but retention figures

are also important for accurate budgeting. A second area where information is notably missing is

measuring performance not only through course grades but also through learning outcomes (see

Section 1.2 above). Finally, one ultimate indicator of student performance is successful career

advancement, either through subsequent increased salary or rank, or through job placement. We

recommend the development of internal information systems that can help the MACAM program to

assess both student progress and its own program progress.

4. STUDENT EXPERIENCE

The MACAM program enjoys a reputation for innovative teaching strategies that include

alternative learning strategies, case studies and team activities, online instruction and various modes of

technology‐enhance communication and knowledge management. Overall, such innovations represent

a major factor in the quality of educational experience for students.

Again, quality‐control of programs is a major university commitment. This is evident structurally

in the work of each program’s academic council, which is responsible for overall academic standards

regarding curricula, awards and admission. One function of the council is to monitor the academic

programs overall, requiring an annual review of every curriculum. And every five years, all academic

programs are subject to external review, although nine years has passed since the time that the MACAM

program was reviewed [2004].

One instrument used currently for assessing student experience in the MACAM programs is the

end‐of‐course surveys distributed to students in every course section. The ratings we received

represent a summation of responses to the question “how would you rate the overall learning

21

experience provided during this course?” The data indicate a high level of student satisfaction and a

clear sense that most courses meet, or exceed, students’ expectations. Of the 48 sections for which we

received student ratings, more than 50% of students in 44 of these sections rated the course as either

excellent or very good. This represents a clear indication of the high quality of classroom instruction for

these 44 sections. The following courses received a rating that was either minimally adequate or

unsatisfactory: CAM 575 March 2009; CAMN 530 2011; CAMN 692 December 2008; and CAMN 694

February 2012. The school and program administrators are responsible for responding appropriately to

information about these problematic courses.

The data acquired from end‐of‐course surveys can and should be used by program

administrators to determine whether and how the courses could be improved, and to contribute to

decision on the selection of instructors. Precisely how the MACAM administrators and program head

responded to these courses was not clear. We have some evidence that the process for quality control

of courses lacks coherence (see Section 5 below).

Strengths

Most students we interviewed offered high praise for the MACAM program generally. Some

students found the program to be ‘fantastic’ for giving them a broad and deep understanding of

conflicts and for contributing to their professional development. And the teaching faculty was

commended for their academic and professional credentials, their devotion to the program and their

commitment for high quality instruction. The following strengths of the program were mentioned by

individual students:

‐the cohort model enhanced the learning experience by fostering collaboration, partnership and

possible networking

‐the collective learning experience was powerful, particularly in the residencies; students liked

the “liberal exchange of different ideas”; students felt the team teaching provided a richer

experience

‐the blended learning model (online and residency) works well for professional, mid‐career

students that have jobs and families; this model made it logistically and financially possible for

career enhancement

‐the selection of either conflict research or conflict skills provides students with an important

option which they can choose based on their interests and professional goals

‐The Applied Skills Option [CAMN 692 and 694] provides a valuable way to integrate skills‐

enhancement with self‐reflection. Students also mentioned appreciation for the coaching they

received in skills such as negotiation and mediation.

‐Students described improved critical thinking, changes in perspective, self‐insight, and

increased confidence (e.g., “I now have written op ed pieces”)

22

‐Individual faculty members were praised for their professional credentials, devotion to the field

and dedication to teaching.


Echoing a concern we expressed above on student performance, we found the methods for

gauging the student experience to be minimally adequate; more data sources are needed to acquire a

sound understanding of such experiences.

Of course, as with almost every masters program seeking input from students, students had

various concerns and suggestions. We mention those concerns expressed by the students interviewed,

although we cannot determine how pervasive the concerns are among the MACAM students:

∙ While the online mode of instruction offers considerable flexibility for students, we heard various

concerns about this delivery method, such as difficulty in learning material, challenge with using the

online technology MOODLE, and over‐emphasis on student discussion at the expense of interaction with

instructor.

∙ Seeking to establish great connections to the university, some alumni felt disconnected from the

program and from individual faculty. As one said, “I feel like I fell off the water.”

∙ Some students expressed concern about the lack of uniformity and wide variation in the credits

given to courses. Of course, this problem has led to the initiative for harmonization throughout the

university, an initiative that is important and long overdue.

∙ Individual courses were identified as problematic. For example, the instruction of systems theory in

CONF 600 seems disconnected from many of the other courses in the curriculum.

∙ Some also felt courses had not been updated or revised with current literature and updated

thinking, and were missing innovations in tools and research that had been developed in the last

decade. Students also expressed that distance learning components would benefit from richer content

and tools, and the use of more current and cutting edge online learning tools.

∙ Some expressed concern that, though they had come to take their professional work to the next

level, they didn’t get as much as they had wanted or needed. Some had wanted to emerge as a ‘conflict

analyst’ and felt they had not yet achieved that. Others mentioned not yet knowing how to apply

theory to make changes in real settings, how to “make this work,” what to do when, why would or

wouldn’t do something. Two recommendations that might begin to address their concerns are: (1)

develop or reinforce existing reflective practice opportunities such as those provided by a practicum

where faculty and students reflect on what to do, and then after actual intervention reflect on what

worked well and what they would do differently, (2) bring in guest speakers or ‘practitioners‐in‐

residence’ who can describe how they made decisions in real settings. (While logical to begin with

university funding, this could become a targeted funding opportunity for an outside donor to support ‐

e.g., “the So‐and‐So Speaker Series”)

23

∙ The integration of Residency 1 and Residency 2 was thin. Some mentioned that the course content

for Residency 2 was repetitive of material in previous courses; one noted that some repetition may have

come from the need to review previously presented material for some students who had not adequately

prepared in anticipation of Residency 2.

∙ Some desired greater consistency in the standards for grading for the courses. This could be

achieved through the development of grading rubrics, which can be particularly useful for clarifying

expectations for midcareer students returning to college study.

∙ Some students wanted to take both ASO and research/thesis.

∙ Several students mentioned a desire to learn more about First Nations issues. It would be good to

have indigenous faculty, guest speakers, or at least faculty that could speak to these issues (see Section

2.2 above).

∙ Because the University seems to be on general alumni programming only, leading to most alumni

professional events being dominated by larger programs like the MBA and environment program alums,

some respondents sought more MACAM‐focused alumni events. Regional alumni events could support

development goals. Combining regional alumni events with regional recruiting was also recommended.

Students would like alumni activities, as well as continuing professional development. We

recommend the enhancement of career development support. All could benefit from better

coordination between the University’s career placement office, the alumni office, and the development

office.

Some alumni expressed disappointment at not being able to specialize in the “community and

school stream” that was marketed as being offered. While ideally we would like to offer students a

range of specialization options, realistically the resources are usually only there for a few to be done

well. More importantly, however, was how upset they were that notification that this stream would not

be offered only happened after they had arrived at the beginning of residency 1, and by the suggestion

that if they could persuade other students to switch into this stream it could potentially be offered.

While these actions appear less than satisfactory, we assume they occurred during the period of flux

when there was no program head or full‐time faculty running the program, and that they would not

continue in the future.

Finally, the ability of administrators and program head to gauge the student experience rests on

range and quality of information gathered. In that regard, the primary reliance on the end‐of‐course

surveys by the administration and program head represents a limited basis for assessing student

experience. We recommend the following measures be instituted for data gathering:

1. All students in their final semester of academic study should be surveyed about their experiences to

date in the MACAM program, including a range of questions about the content and integration of

courses.

24

2. All alumni should be surveyed at designated intervals after graduation, such as one/three/five year

intervals, to determine the value that they place in their graduate experience.

3. Face‐to‐face channels of communication should be established, promoted and routinely followed.

These include the following: (a) Designation of at least one student representation who meets regularly

with the full‐time faculty, (b) creation of a blog in which student can chat with the program director or

administrator, (c) facilitation of open‐house sessions for face‐to‐face discussion involving the full‐time

faculty and students [as many as possible]. Of course, the purpose of establishing such information

channels is both to give program administrators a clearly picture of the students’ experience in the

program and to give students a greater sense of participation and engagement in the program overall

quality and success.

4. One critical element of this mission is the responsiveness to the challenges, problems, and

opportunities in various workplace environments. Yet, we did not see how the MACAM program

monitors such changes, how the program is responsive to the students needs regarding the evolution of

the field of conflict resolution. A clear and effective means for assessing the changes in this field should

be developed and implemented.

5. FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATION

The RRU model for faculty builds on a few full‐time faculty who often teach across specific

degree and certificate programs, supported by a network of associate faculty who are professionals and

practitioners in the relevant fields and are contracted to teach specific courses. Schools each may

contain several programs, each of which is chaired by a faculty Program Head. These schools are each

administered by School Directors with support and assistance from staff composed of school managers

and program coordinators. Each program also ideally receives input from its outside Advisory Council.

In addition to teaching, the University has an active research emphasis. This means the

provision of research funds to faculty applicants, as well as consultation with the VP for Research and

Faculty Affairs. A healthy research intensity ratio exists at RRU, and the University has underlined its

research emphasis with the presence of “Canada Research Chairs.”

The MACAM program includes two recently replaced full‐time faculty, one of whom has the role

of Program Head, and several associate faculty, many of whom have been affiliated with the program

for several years. The two full‐time core faculty bring strength and expertise in perception and

management of conflicts, risk communication and cross‐cultural communication, mediation, peace

processes and peacebuilding. The associate faculty have primary appointments elsewhere, often as

practitioners, so provide the potential to bridge theory and practice. They bring strong and varied

experience, including in the areas of human security, peacebuilding, disaster management, emergency

management, natural resource management, organizational consulting, conflict coaching, mediation,

conflict and dispute resolution system design, family conflict, and inner conflict.

25

The university is currently proposing significant changes in the structure of its academic

programs, seeking in particular to harmonize certain elements of the curricula. The initiative for

harmonization is important and overdue; the administrators should be commended for undertaking this

important and at times difficult task.

In many university settings, large‐scale changes in academic programs often give rise to

questions from faculty about the appropriate decision making procedure. Such questions include the

following: (1) what is the proper procedure established in current academic policy for implementing

programmatic changes?, and (2) is there a shared understanding of such policy among the

administrators, staff, and faculty, both associate and full‐time? We will not comment on question (1)

since this goes beyond our responsibility as external reviewers. Regarding question (2), we have serious

concern about the lack of shared understanding of the decision‐making procedure for programmatic

change. The administrators who we met provide a clear, coherent and reasonable model for evaluation

and assessment of academic program, a model that gives due attention to the roles of faculty, staff,

program director, dean, and vice‐president. Yet, this model was not clearly understood or at least

shared among faculty, both associate and full‐time. We recommend an initiative to provide explicit

articulation of the university’s decision making‐process generally for programmatic change, and the

application of this process to the current issues of curriculum reform relevant to the MACAM program.

Within this recommendation for clarity and transparency of process, the role and responsibility

of the associate faculty is critical. From the perspective of their contractual obligation, the associate

faculty have a possible consultative function on academic matters. But from the perspective of the

Royal Roads culture, the associate faculty have contributed significantly in the development, evaluation,

and at times revision of the curriculum. This has created structural ambiguities and stresses regarding

the proper function of faculty on curriculum reform. This problem gave rise to tensions expressed by

faculty over the faculty‐wide meeting of December 2012. Again, we recommend that greater clarity be

sought regarding the roles and responsibilities of associate faculty in the area of programmatic

oversight, both in the general contractual arrangement of faculty and in the evaluation and possible

change of the program.

Strengths

Full‐time and associate faculty are strongly invested in the success of the MACAM program.

During the incapacitation of the previous program head, associate faculty, staff and the school director

all pitched in to stabilize the program, some of whom took on responsibilities that went well beyond

their job descriptions. Associate faculty return year after year on limited contracts to devote teaching to

maintain continuity and quality. New full‐time faculty have brought renewed enthusiasm, and have

important and creative ideas for new program directions. A new tradition has begun to bring together

associate faculty and full‐time faculty for one onsite faculty meeting a year. Several mentioned this as a

positive addition and we recommend that this be continued, however not at the expense of a

functioning Advisory Council. Both avenues for input should be maintained. Some associate faculty may

logically transition to the Advisory Council as newer associate faculty are brought in.

26

Times of organizational transition often present ambiguity and anxiety. Fortunately for MACAM

and for RRU, the current School Director has important skills and knowledge on which to draw to lead

the MACAM program and the School through this time of transition. Her background in organizational

development and institutional leadership should serve her well as she shepherds this talented faculty

and hard‐working staff through this time of growth and transition. Both faculty and staff expressed

confidence in her leadership. We suggest that the School Director may want to convene a program

retreat where roles of full‐time faculty, associate faculty, and staff are clarified. Possible ongoing

contributions of the School Director could include: coaching/mentoring full‐time faculty, providing

oversight and direction for staff, engaging associate faculty around harmonization issues, and engaging

in performance discussions with long‐term associate faculty.


While the university may emphasize research as well as teaching, it does not appear to

incentivize its production nor structurally support its production in all programs. MACAM program full‐

time faculty are weighted with administrative and teaching loads that make research output unlikely.

This is particularly true for its junior/assistant‐level full‐time faculty who are at a career stage where

additional structural support (research monies, teaching release, mentoring) for research is critical.

Research is expected and idealized but not supported (through FTE designation) nor incentivized (not

required to be reported in self‐study). Faculty professional practice ‐‐important for bridging research

and practice ‐‐ also was not documented in the self‐study and may not currently be receiving

appropriate recognition.

Role ambiguity seems to be pervasive. While written policies and procedures exist, confusion

persists regarding actual authority and responsibility for decision‐making around curriculum,

administration, and personnel issues. The Program Head role is not articulated, or at least not well

understood by Associate Faculty and administrative staff, leading to a lack of shared understanding

regarding their authority. This role ambiguity extends to staff as well, whose roles informally extend

beyond boundaries of formal roles, filling vacuums of leadership, but without the accompanying

strategic vision.

The model of a few full‐time faculty and many contract associate faculty each teaching a course

or two presents its own unique challenges. Coordination of associate faculty can be difficult, with

constraints presented by coordinating teaching schedules with summer travel and holidays, and likely

made even more challenging by the modifying of course timing needed for harmonization. Coordination

of large number of associate faculty contributions to a few courses means larger associated

administrative responsibilities; this may not be an efficient or cost‐effective model. We suggest that the

model for the use of associate faculty may need strategic reconceptualization. While associate faculty

bring essential bridging of theory and practice to the residencies, the sheer number of these faculty

brought in to teach these courses could be reduced, while expanding the use of associate faculty in

teaching distance courses for which they would be ideally positioned. Increased use of technology‐

supported teaching such as webinars and virtual meetings could reduce the travel and coordination

27

needed while actually increasing the ‘face to face’ contact during online courses which students express

a strong desire for.

6. PLANNING

6. 1 MECHANISMS FOR SHORT‐RANGE AND LONG‐RANGE PLANNING IN THE CONTEXT OF FACULTY

AND UNIVERSITY PLANNING

for many universities planning would typically take place on both annual and multiyear cycles.

Curriculum and budget planning would happen annually, while larger program strategic planning would

happen less often. Larger strategic planning efforts would involve representatives from all relevant

stakeholder groups, including full‐time and associate faculty, administration, students, alumni, and

labour market representatives (those likely to hire graduates). Planning would be done to develop and

or revisit program goals, ways to achieve these goals, and criteria for assessing their achievement.

Program goal‐setting would be done in light of perceived market need, alumni feedback, placement

data, etc.

Though little was gleaned during our site visit on mechanisms or practices of planning, the

primary mechanisms used for short‐range planning appear to be periodic meetings between the two

full‐time faculty, and between the full‐time faculty and the school director, supplemented by infrequent

solicitation of input from associate faculty as well as an annual all‐faculty onsite meeting. Long‐range

planning appears to again involve the full‐time faculty and the school director, with oversight and input

from the Dean.

Strengths

Full‐time faculty and associate faculty appear to be invested in the future of MACAM and

interested in playing a greater planning role. At points in the program’s history, information about

labour market trends was gathered through an external advisory council.


It appears that planning processes occur with inadequate attention to relevant data. As

summarized in the 5 year report, the MACAM Program acknowledges that “there are at present, limited

formal processes for gathering student, faculty or labour market input into the program design.” The

only trend data we reviewed dealt with MACAM’s financial history. Both short‐range and long‐range

planning could benefit from faculty and administrators determining what information could inform

decision‐making and planning, and then developing monitoring systems that could supply such

information.

The MACAM Program Advisory Council was disbanded or fell into disuse a few years ago. We

feel this mechanism has value for providing information on market trends, but also on the hiring

28

potential of graduates, updates on skills needed by employers, and valuable networks for assisting in

student placement.

6.2 MECHANISMS FOR SHARING KNOWLEDGE AND BEST PRACTICES ACROSS THE UNIVERSITY’S

PROGRAMS.

The University’s decentralized approach to both planning and knowledge and delivery, and the

staggering of program start dates meant that traditionally little overlap or coordination across university

programs was possible. Our understanding is that in addition to harmonizing credit structure across the

University. This new structure will allow students to cross register across programs, as well as facilitate

faculty teaching across programs as well.

We were not made aware of other mechanisms such as interdepartmental working groups, or

inter‐school initiatives or strategic planning groups, however these mechanisms for sharing knowledge

across the university may exist. We understand that CTET plays an important role in promoting and

sharing best practices in teaching across the university. More university‐level resources and workshops

on topics common to all units, such as diversity and multicultural excellence, academic assessment, and

external fundraising and development, would provide the benefits of increased intellectual capital as

well as important opportunities for cross‐departmental collaboration and partnership.

7. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

In addition to reviewing program strengths and challenges, the external review committee has

included several recommendations throughout this report. These can be summarized into the following

overarching recommendations:

First, MACAM should seek to more actively promote program and organizational learning. This

is a systemic recommendation for the increased use of input and feedback, from encouraging the

development of mechanisms for assessment and review of student learning outcomes, as well as for

faculty and staff review, to the reinstatement of an Advisory Council to provide insight on field trends

and market needs. Increased monitoring of retention, as well as post‐degree career advancement and

placement, will give information needed for program planning and growth. Articulation of roles and

responsibilities, coupled with processes for monitoring and rewarding their successful execution, will

channel energy into constructive growth. This shift in information‐seeking and self‐reflection will enable

the program to reach its full potential.

Second, MACAM should seek to become identified with a particular CAM substantive focus or

niche that emerges from its program strengths, those of the University, and its British Columbia home.

Integrating MACAM’s focus on organizational and intergroup conflict more consciously with the

university’s focus on policy, sustainability, and/or British Columbia’s association with First Nations and

29

indigenous issues could provide important and unique emphases that would draw CAM students and

scholars from across Canada and the globe.

Third, the emphasis of MACAM and the University on blended learning and the newest

technologies for pedagogy should be better exploited to set MACAM apart. This will require better

awareness and use of the newest and most innovative technologies by all faculty, full‐time and

associate alike, and incentives for doing so. Fortunately, Royal Road’s CTET seems well positioned to

provide the needed capacity building for MACAM’s faculty to achieve this. This part of RRU’s “brand”

should be reflected in MACAM’s activities. As academics in general, and conflict analysis and

management faculty in particular, are asked to make more use of technology and distance learning,

MACAM could position itself to provide leadership and training for the entire field.

Fourth, MACAM should foster a more robust relationship with its alumni, who represent an

untapped resource of social capital and financial capital. This group of loyal, talented and well‐placed

practitioners could provide a very rich network of internships, student placement, recruitment, guest

speakers, and even future associate faculty. They may be able to provide financial and in‐kind support.

Many alumni expressed interest in regional events and networking, providing a logical market for

MACAM to develop continuing education and alumni symposium events and revenue streams.

Finally, in the context of curriculum changes required for university‐wide harmonization,

MACAM should use this opportunity to identify 21st century program and curricular priorities. This is the

ripe moment to engage in deliberative processes in order to consider what combination of residence‐

based and online learning, of full‐time and associate teaching, of theory and practice learning might best

meet these priorities.

mbracewell

Typewritten Text

mbracewell

Typewritten Text

mbracewell

Typewritten Text


mbracewell

Typewritten Text

mbracewell

Typewritten Text

mbracewell

Typewritten Text

mbracewell

Typewritten Text

1

1

MA Conflict Analysis and Management (MACAM) 5‐Year External Review Report – May 7, 2012

School of Peace and Conflict Management (SPCM) Response

Reviewed, revised and submitted to the Vice President Academic & Provost on June 24th by the Dean’s Office, Faculty of Social and Applied Sciences

This paper provides the School’s response to the 5‐year external review report. The key themes and recommendations contained in the report are summarized, and the School’s response is provided. While some of the recommendations can be acted on in the shorter term, others will be addressed in a forthcoming program revision proposal, which will incorporate recommendations coming out of the self‐study guide, the external review report, and the School’s graduate program harmonization initiatives. 1. External relations

a. Alumni relations Reviewers’ recommendations: Seeking to establish great connections to the university, some alumni felt disconnected from the program and from individual faculty. As one said, “I feel like I fell off the water.” MACAM should foster a more robust relationship with its alumni, who represent an untapped resource of social capital and financial capital… One significant measure of a program’s success is career advancement and placement of graduates (presuming this is an implicit if not explicit goal). However, no data is collected on advancement and placement of MACAM graduates, or if it is, it is done by another division of RRU in a way that it is not made available to the MACAM program, nor was it available to us as external reviewers… one ultimate indicator of student performance is successful career advancement, either through subsequent increased salary or rank, or through job placement.

SPCM response: We concur that alumni are a valuable resource, and we seek to work with the Alumni Office to develop strategies to strengthen ties to our alumni. There are resource and responsibility issues as to who would be accountable for alumni engagement.

b. Advisory council

Reviewers’ recommendations: All RRU units have used external Advisory Councils, in part to gauge market trends… Associate faculty who are practitioners can provide some input into labor market needs. An external Advisory Council could provide broader input into market needs assessment that also would be less susceptible to conflicts of interest. We recommend that this Advisory Council be reconstituted and utilized, both to review labour market needs but also to develop a network of potential employers of MACAM graduates and a pipeline for placement…If the program hopes to be “responsive to labour market needs,” then some mechanism for assessing these needs and using this information in program planning should be deployed. SPCM response: A new School advisory council is expected to be in place by fall 2013. Given the diversity of programs in the School, we anticipate being able to have a maximum of two people whose backgrounds are in the field of conflict management. In this regard, we believe periodic labour market surveys would be of value; the resource and support for this needs to be determined.

2

2

c. Other universities offering CAM programs Reviewers’ recommendations: In the previous examiner’s report it was recommended that “closer relationships between MACAM and other British Columbia University programs be explored” (p.1)1. From the materials included in this review, it does not appear that this has happened to any extent, although no direct discussions on this recommendation took place. As reviewers, we think this suggestion is well worth exploring for a number of reasons

SPCM response: We expect that our CAM core faculty, who are both new to the program, university and BC, will be able to establish connections with other universities offering conflict management programs.

2. Admission criteria and application process

Reviewers’ recommendations: The MACAM program, and RRU more generally, has been developed to meet the needs of more mature, professional learners. This is part of the RRU “brand.” This makes it difficult when students are admitted who actually have a range of skills and experience, some less than others. Some of the more experienced students we interviewed felt that it detracted from the program when the program also admitted those younger and with less or no experience – and thus instructors (and fellow students) ended up having to spend more time on fundamentals and review. One recommendation put forth by one of these more experienced students was for a kind of “orientation” or pre‐program remedial session for students with less background to bring them up to the same level with the ideal profile for a prepared entering student. SPCM response: A review of the admission criteria forms part of the MACAM program review and will be aligned with other SPCM programs. The SPCM harmonisation process foresees an introductory, fundamentals course for all programs that will specifically target aligning the diverse knowledge base of the cohorts and include academic preparedness components along with introduction to the respective field of study/expertise.

3. Curriculum and course recommendations

a. Context and focus of program

Reviewers’ recommendations: MACAM should use this opportunity to identify 21st century program and curricular priorities… MACAM should seek to become identified with a particular CAM substantive focus or niche that emerges from its program strengths, those of the University, and its British Columbia home. Integrating MACAM’s focus on organizational and intergroup conflict more consciously with the university’s focus on policy, sustainability, and/or British Columbia’s association with First Nations and indigenous issues could provide important and unique emphases that would draw CAM students and scholars from across Canada and the globe. SPCM response: MACAM’s program revisions along with SPCM’s harmonisation process foresee several steps in the direction of the reviewers’ recommendations. MACAM’s solid reputation related to organizational and intergroup conflict will become the primary focus of the program. We recommend eliminating the ethno‐political, security stream, and suggest that students interested in this specialization will be attracted to a revised HSPB program which will strengthen its peacebuilding component. Further, as part of the School’s

1 External Review, MACAM program, December 3, 2004.

3

3

harmonization plan, a course‐based option will be offered. We will explore options to introduce electives related to conflict analysis and management associated with First Nations contexts. Another possibility is to offer electives in environmental conflict, in collaboration with the School of Environment and Sustainability; this was a concentration the program had previously offered but it was discontinued some time ago.

b. Professional competencies Reviewers’ recommendations: While we heard from students that they do feel ready to analyze and anticipate conflict after completing the program, they did not feel ready to actually intervene in conflict situations. Students from MACAM are not alone in feeling this way. As faculty in other Canadian and American universities with integrated theory and practice programs, we too recognize the challenge in ensuring that students leave with skills competency. The recent hiring of full‐time faculty will now allow attention to be paid to assessing whether the current courses, in particular the residencies and skills option, are sufficient to provide students with the requisite skills to actually intervene in a real‐life conflict. While there appears to be time built into the residencies for simulated practice of a variety of intervention strategies, there was no indication of how students are assessed in relation to their competency or potential of competency to actually use these skills. We recommend that full‐time faculty undertake to research how other academic programs (such as Carleton University) and professional associations (for instance the Association for Conflict Resolution, Family Mediation Canada/Médiation Familiale Canada and Alternative Dispute Resolution Canada) address the question of certification and competency. SPCM response: We aim to build stronger ties with professional associations to identify areas where skills and competency acquired by students throughout the MACAM program can be strengthened. This includes, for example, increased ties with Mediate BC regarding mediation accreditation. Furthermore, the complete review of all MACAM courses will strengthen the bridging of theory and practice and student’s capstone experience. The expected outcome will be a clearer focus on skills building and assessment of competencies upon graduation from the program.

c. Specializations Reviewers’ recommendations: A separate issue relates to the provision of specialized tracks within the curriculum. MACAM has cycled through several specializations, and currently offers two: political/ethnic/security conflict and organizational conflict. One of the questions we as reviewers were asked was, “how many specializations can realistically be offered in the CAM program, given the RRU business model, which follows a cohort model and generally supports classes of 45 or more students?” This is a difficult question and one that is shared by us as program directors in other universities. While ideally we would like to offer students a range of specialization options, realistically the resources are usually only there for a few to be done well… With a cohort model of approximately 45 students, MACAM needs to make clear decisions about which areas of specialization it will offer in the future. We agree that differentiating between CAM and HPSB learning outcomes is important. The idea of considering shared courses across the programs seems to make good sense, even in a cohort model. SPCM response: Drawing from both MACAM’s and HSPB’s external reviews, the ethno‐political, security stream in MACAM, as noted above, will be eliminated as an offering. We

4

4

expect that the course‐based track will provide options for specialization, however the specific options have not been defined. The ability to offer options is dependent on the business model. It may be that a rotating system for offering of specializations will be considered, e.g. offering a First Nations specialization in even years and a specialization on environmental or school conflicts in odd years, however we have not yet tested the market viability of this approach.

d. First Nations specialization Reviewers’ recommendations: We heard from students and alumni disappointment that in spite of British Columbia’s connection to First Nations, RRU’s emphasis on inclusivity, and MACAM’S specific focus on addressing political/ethnic conflict, few First Nations students and faculty are actually part of the program, and limited opportunity exists to study the conflicts between First Nations communities and governmental organizations as a prime example of ethno political conflict. Attracting more indigenous peoples to the program; inviting more First Nations people to be faculty or at the very least guest speakers; including more conflict‐related material involving First Nations issues and national issues; as well as focusing skills development courses to enable graduates to offer their services in Canadian cross‐cultural conflict are areas which could fruitfully be strengthened and would provide a unique niche for the MACAM program. SPCM response: More efforts will be made to integrate First Nations and conflict management practice related topics into the course offerings and to recruit First Nations as associate faculty and guest lecturers.

e. Learning outcomes and curriculum mapping Reviewers’ recommendations: In our interviews, particular mention was made that learning outcomes in relation to inter‐group and multi‐party conflicts could be strengthened… Consistency in the presentation and use of learning outcomes as part of each course outline is recommended… Once learning outcomes (LOs) have been revisited and revised, a matrix should be constructed that maps these LOs onto existing courses… Assembling the assessment of LOs at various points throughout the curriculum can allow for assessment of program level goals. SPCM response: The MACAM learning outcomes are currently undergoing a complete overhaul (they were last updated in 2002) to reflect the development of the field of study and practice, and to increase alignment with the program focus and strengths. As specializations evolve and electives are offered, the associated learning outcomes will be articulated. At present, assessment of outcomes is at the course level, discussion is required to determine the need for, and method for outcomes assessment at the program level.

f. Course outlines Reviewers’ recommendations: While the use of associate faculty does offer students a diverse and rich experience, being at arm’s length from the administrative culture of RRU and of the MACAM program itself makes it difficult to maintain internal program consistency and accountability regarding instructional approaches and content quality. This was most apparent during our discussions regarding the review of course materials, syllabi and course outlines. In looking at the course outlines provided, it occurred to us that a program

5

5

template for course outlines is needed…. The frequency with which course outlines are updated was also not clear to the reviewers. SPCM response: Many of the MACAM course do not have current course outlines. As we move forward with each course, we are working with associate faculty to create or update course outlines.

g. Course credit value Reviewers’ recommendations: One of the outputs of this harmonization process is the reallocation of numbers of credits to current course offerings. Such is the case with the residencies where the number of credits currently allocated to each residency would be reduced. The reduction in credit value is of real concern to the associate faculty we interviewed. The concern is that the reduction in the number of credits may mean that what can be offered in the residencies may also be reduced. If this were to happen it is likely to have a negative impact on student learning and skills development due to the inability to continue to offer the same range and diversity of topics and guest speakers, and reduced opportunity for students to practice their skills. SPCM response: The MACAM program is one of the last to transition to 3 credit courses; this change is long overdue. While respecting the concerns noted by associate faculty, we believe the program review and revision process offers the opportunity to assess what content is can be conveyed in an online environment, thereby providing more focus and space in the residencies for the professional skills and practice competency outcomes that require face‐to‐face engagement and hands‐on practice.

h. Residency courses Reviewers’ recommendations: This review team believes that the integration of theory and practice in the residencies is a major strength of the MACAM program and should continue. This integration critically begins in the first residency. Both full‐time and associate faculty mentioned the importance of adding skills to this first residency, though it may mean less time for theory... It was mentioned that integration between the first‐year and second‐year residency could be strengthened. Better coordination between these two residencies would provide the opportunity to prepare students in their first residency for what they need to know and be able to achieve in their second residency. Both residencies are considered to be extremely important in the student’s acquisition of applied skills. The possibility of closer learning links between the residencies and the Applied Skills Option is one suggestion for enhancing students’ acquisition of intervention skills. SPCM response: Similar to what has been outlined in response to other points raised by the reviewers, the concerns and relevant issues raised here guide the MACAM review process, which includes an overall assessment of what content is best conveyed in which format. This includes strengthening teaching components during pre‐residency and post‐residency periods, as well as mapping the course contents over the MACAM program to avoid redundant duplications and align the students’ learning journey. Further, we view that the courses offered online between the residencies are in important bridge, and that the content of the residencies must take this into account.

i. Assessment

6

6

Reviewers’ recommendations: A second area where information is notably missing is measuring performance not only through course grades but also through learning outcomes… The instruments currently deployed to assess the achievement of these outcomes are rather thin... It is not clear that program‐level student learning goals are being met. SPCM response: The new MACAM learning outcomes will ensure clearer description of knowledge and skills outcomes. The revised courses will be adjusted accordingly and provide improved means for measuring performance and assessment of learning progress.

4. Instructional recommendations

a. Teaching with technology Reviewers’ recommendations: Interviews with alumni and students of the MACAM program at the time of this review reported less than satisfying experiences with on‐line distance courses. Comments were made about the lack of consistency with respect to format and to faculty input in the course (more interaction with faculty during online courses was desired). Other criticisms were made about the use of Moodle as a limited learning tool… The emphasis of MACAM and the University on blended learning and the newest technologies for pedagogy should be better exploited to set MACAM apart. This will require better awareness and use of the newest and most innovative technologies by all faculty, full‐time and associate alike, and incentives for doing so. Fortunately, Royal Road’s CTET seems well positioned to provide the needed capacity building for MACAM’s faculty to achieve this. This part of RRU’s “brand” should be reflected in MACAM’s activities. As academics in general, and conflict analysis and management faculty in particular, are asked to make more use of technology and distance learning, MACAM could position itself to provide leadership and training for the entire field. SPCM response: Several measures have been put in place already to address the issues expressed here. This includes working closer with our assigned CTET instructional designer to harmonize MACAM’s online platforms and improve the interactive nature of the course offerings. All courses will be strengthened accordingly as they are reviewed. All associate faculty, including residency faculty, are encouraged to take the courses offered by CTET, and we make this a requirement for new associate faculty.

b. Course access Reviewers’ recommendations: We learned from students and alumni that knowledge of required readings and access to course materials was sometimes last minute, which made it difficult for them to prepare in advance of the course and to complete required readings in a timely fashion. Staff separately observed that having multiple faculty members on a residency complicated preparation schedules and execution, leading to last minute adjustments. While flexibility is desirable, establishing adequate guidelines and expectations for timely course preparation could support smooth course execution. SPCM response: MACAM’s review process foresees adopting a lead instructor model and reducing the number of faculty teaching each individual course. Diversity of perspectives will be ensured across the overall program and through integrating guest lecturers into the courses for specialized themes and topic sessions. Pre‐residency periods are being adjusted to provide students earlier access to course materials; students are encouraged to maximize

7

7

the pre‐residency period for readings and guided self‐study. With the arrival of MACAM’s new core faculty less last minute adjustments of teachings are expected thus alleviating some of the concerns expressed here.

c. Pre‐residency assignments

Reviewers’ recommendations: Feedback about the intensity of the residency both with the amount of material to be covered in terms of content and preparing to do graduate‐level work, along with group team‐building and bonding has long been recognized as a difficulty for students (see comments from students in the evaluations). Providing students with texts and course syllabi that include the required readings in each course well ahead of the start of classes was mentioned by alumni as a way for them to have time to stay on top of the reading requirements. SPCM response: All points raised are being addressed within the MACAM review of courses, mapping of courses, strengthening of online components and community building, and alignment of the individual students’ learning journey over the course of the program. The improvements are implemented as applicable for the existing cohorts, and will be further strengthened in the reviewed program offerings.

5. Faculty recommendations a. Associate faculty review

Reviewers’ recommendations: Review of Associate Faculty seems to be uneven and sometimes absent…it is not clear that performance criteria have been established, nor a process for continuing reflection, goal‐setting, and review. We recommend instituting a procedure for review of Associate Faculty that includes performance criteria, joint‐setting of goals, and joint review of goal achievement. SPCM response: We recommend that the university adopt a process and procedures for associate faculty review. Within the MACAM program we will regularly debrief with associate faculty following the completion of all courses.

b. Role ambiguity: Reviewers’ recommendations: There was concern expressed at the time of this review about the different viewpoints for how the program should look in the future between the newer faculty and the existing associate faculty... Some of the associate faculty expressed concern about the inadequate participation of associate faculty in the decision making process. One factor seems to be ambiguity around roles of associate and full‐time faculty, and whether or not the role of associate faculty in curriculum reform is consultative or decision‐making… Role ambiguity seems to be pervasive… We have serious concern about the lack of shared understanding of the decision‐making procedure for programmatic change. The administrators who we met provide a clear, coherent and reasonable model for evaluation and assessment of academic program, a model that gives due attention to the roles of faculty, staff, program director, dean, and vice‐president. Yet, this model was not clearly understood or at least shared among faculty, both associate and full‐time… The School Director may want to convene a program retreat where roles of full‐time faculty, associate faculty, and staff are clarified. SPCM response: Given MACAM’s unique situation over the past few years, some of the associate faculty have been invited to contribute above and beyond normal contractual

8

8

obligations. Their input and dedication has been and is valued greatly. As we move forward, our new core faculty will take the lead in the program review and revision process, while maintaining open lines of communication and consultation with the associate faculty and other interested parties/stakeholders as appropriate. As with all change processes, it is not an easy task to ensure that all parties involved partake equally in the process. We have communicated and shared our process on numerous occasions with associate faculty and invited their feedback and comments. MACAM/SPCM seeks to hold annual full faculty retreats providing a platform for exchange and reflection between core and associate faculty.

c. Associate faculty assignments Reviewers’ recommendations: Coordination of large number of associate faculty contributions to a few courses means larger associated administrative responsibilities; this may not be an efficient or cost‐effective model. We suggest that the model for the use of associate faculty may need strategic reconceptualization. While associate faculty bring essential bridging of theory and practice to the residencies, the sheer number of these faculty brought in to teach these [residency] courses could be reduced, while expanding the use of associate faculty in teaching distance courses for which they would be ideally positioned. SPCM response: We concur with the recommendations and have been working towards moving to this model. While recognizing the benefits of providing students with a diversity of faculty perspectives, we have been working towards assigning one lead instructor for each 3 credit course, and supplementing residency instruction through use of honoraria to bring in guest speakers. We recognize the needs to support some associate faculty in transitioning from teaching in face‐to‐face settings to teaching in an online environment.

6. Quality assurance recommendations

a. Program and organizational learning Reviewers’ recommendations: MACAM should seek to more actively promote program and organizational learning. This is a systemic recommendation for the increased use of input and feedback, from encouraging the development of mechanisms for assessment and review of student learning outcomes, as well as for faculty and staff review, to the reinstatement of an Advisory Council to provide insight on field trends and market needs. Increased monitoring of retention, as well as post‐degree career advancement and placement, will give information needed for program planning and growth. Articulation of roles and responsibilities, coupled with processes for monitoring and rewarding their successful execution, will channel energy into constructive growth. This shift in information‐seeking and self‐reflection will enable the program to reach its full potential. SPCM response: We concur with these recommendations, and with the appointment of two new core faculty, have already been working in consort with the School on improving systems that address many of the points above. We are focused on improving the articulation of roles and responsibilities among staff, core, and associate faculty. Mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation, feeding into continuous program and organizational learning will be further strengthened as part of the program review process.

Attachment 4 Open Session item 6.1

BOARD OF GOVERNORS BRIEFING NOTE

MEETING: Board of Governors, 30 September, 2013 AGENDA ITEM: Approved Board Committee Terms of Reference SPONSOR: Wayne Strandlund, Chair. Governance and Nominating Committee PURPOSE: For Information Synopsis: Approved Terms of Reference for the Board of Governors Standing Committees are attached for information. Discussion: The Board of Governors Board Committee Structure document requires that the Board of Governors annually review its committee structure to determine the number, type and terms of reference for its standing committees. In 2012/13, the Board undertook this review process and approved final revisions to it committee terms of reference at its 21 June, 2013 meeting. Copies of the final approved documents are attached to this briefing:

Board Committee Structure document

Program and Research Council Terms of Reference

Finance and Audit Committee Terms of Reference

Governance and Nominating Committee Terms of Reference

Standing Committee on Appeals Terms of Reference Recommendation: That the Board of Governors receives this briefing and attached documents for information.

Approved by motion of the Board 21 June, 2013

Board Committee Structure Page 1

BOARD OF GOVERNORS

BOARD COMMITTEE STRUCTURE

AUTHORITY Powers of the Royal Roads University Board of Governors are laid out in the University Act. Section 27(2)(c) empowers the Board “to appoint a secretary and committees it considers necessary to carry out the board’s functions…and to confer on the committees power and authority to act for the board.” The Royal Roads University Board of Governors operates under a model of policy governance in which the Board as a whole sets policy and makes final decisions, and its committees undertake detailed study on behalf of the Board. Through policy, the Board also delegates some authority to the President, building in reporting mechanisms that ensure it can exercise its accountability. The work of standing committees is to examine documents, receive presentations, and undertake such other activities necessary to satisfy themselves that the areas under their purview in the university are up to standard and then to report to and make recommendations to the Board as a whole. There are some exceptions to this, as reflected in individual committees’ terms of reference.

STANDING COMMITTEES The Board of Governors has four standing committees:

The Finance and Audit Committee

The Governance and Nominating Committee

The Program and Research Council

The Standing Committee on Appeals In addition, under the authority of the University Foundation Act, the Board of Governors appoints the members and the chair of the Royal Roads University Foundation (RRUF) Board of Directors. The RRUF Board of Directors reports to the RRU Board of Governors, the latter also comprising the membership of the RRUF. Terms of Reference The Board will annually review its committee structure to determine the number, type and terms of reference of its standing committees. Unless explicitly amended, the terms of reference in place for one fiscal year will continue into the next fiscal year. See attached terms of reference for all standing committees. The Board may refer matters to any of its standing committees that are generally consistent with the purpose of the committee.



Appointment of Members By resolution, the Board, on the recommendation of the Board Chair, will appoint the members and chairs of standing committees annually during its last meeting of each fiscal year, to take effect on the first day of the next fiscal year. At the same time, the Board may decide to appoint a vice-chair for any standing committee. Each governor is expected to serve on at least one standing committee. The Chair of the Board is an ex officio member of all standing committees. By statute, the President is a member of all standing committees except standing committees on appeals (S.12(5) of the RRU Act). Internal Members are those members who are employees or students of the university. External Members are those members who are neither employees nor students of the university. In the event of a vacancy on a committee mid-year, the vacancy may go unfilled and the committee membership is deemed to be reduced by one unless the vacancy places a committee in contravention of a statutory provision or multiple vacancies render the conduct of business untenable. In that event, the vacancy will be filled by the Board on the recommendation of the committee chair. Role of Committee Chairs Each committee chair is responsible for:

approving the agenda for each meeting;

ensuring that the committee has the information it needs to make informed decisions and recommendations;

chairing committee meetings in an efficient, effective and focused manner;

setting the tone for the committee’s work;

ensuring that the committee fulfills its responsibilities in a timely fashion;

reporting to the full Board on the committee’s deliberations, decisions, and recommendations;

assigning work to committee members as required. Meetings With the exception of the Standing Committee on Appeals, committees will meet at least quarterly. Each committee’s annual meeting schedules will be synchronized to best meet its responsibilities, and will be approved by the Board prior to the beginning of each fiscal year. Additional meetings may be held at the call of the chair of the committee. Meetings of the Standing Committee on Appeals will be held as cases come forward. Committee meetings normally will be held in person, but may be held via teleconference or other electronic means at the discretion of the committee chair. Committee meetings are not public; further, a brief portion of each meeting will be held in camera.



Unless otherwise indicated here or in terms of reference, committees will carry out their responsibilities as they see appropriate and with an eye to balancing the need for sufficient information to make informed decisions with the capacity of the institution to provide the information. Support The President is responsible for ensuring that adequate administrative and internal advisory support is available for each committee. Unless otherwise provided for, committees may engage the services of external experts when deemed necessary to fulfill their responsibilities and may do so only with the prior approval of the Board of Governors. Agendas The secretary for each committee will prepare a draft agenda for each meeting, to be finalized in consultation with the committee chair and the member of the senior administration with responsibility for advising the committee. The agenda and supporting materials (together, the ‘agenda package’) will ordinarily be distributed to committee members a week in advance of the scheduled meeting. Any governor may request a copy of the agenda or agenda package. Every effort will be made to avoid ‘walk ins’ of agenda items and materials. Attendance All committee members are expected to attend committee meetings regularly. Governors who are not members of a committee may attend committee meetings as non-voting participants. Other than committee members and governors, the Board secretary, and a recording secretary, attendance is on an as required basis and subject to the approval of the committee chair. Quorum Quorum to conduct business at any committee meeting is a simple majority of the voting members of the committee (50%+1 in the case of committees with an even number of members). Rules The Board’s Code of Conduct and Conflict of Interest Guidelines and Charter of Expectations for Governors apply to the conduct of all committee business. The Board of Governors may adopt rules of order that would apply at committee meetings.



Reporting Committees will report to the Board at the Board’s next meeting, providing draft minutes and other materials as required for distribution in the Board’s agenda package. Committee chairs will provide a verbal report, identifying key issues and relaying committee recommendations to the Board on behalf of the committee. Committee members normally are expected to support the committee’s recommendations at the Board. The recording secretary is responsible for keeping a record of meeting attendance, agenda packages and correspondence, and for preparing minutes of each meeting in consultation with the committee chair and the senior internal advisor to the committee. Any materials not included in the agenda package will be appended to the approved minutes. Evaluation Periodically, each committee will conduct a self-assessment of its effectiveness in relation to its terms of reference, and report the results of this evaluation to the Board through the standing committee with responsibility for governance matters.

TASK FORCES AND AD HOC COMMITTEES From time to time, the Board of Governors may appoint task forces or ad hoc committees to undertake specific, time-limited work on behalf of the Board. In such cases, the Board will approve terms of reference that:

define the task;

identify reporting requirements;

appoint the members and chair; and

set the termination date for the body. Meetings will be at the call of the chair. Other provisions for standing committees will apply. First approved by the Board October 16, 2003 Reviewed and approved: 28 March, 2008 17 June, 2010 30 September, 2011 21 June, 2013


Program and Research Council Terms of Reference Page 1

PROGRAM & RESEARCH COUNCIL TERMS OF REFERENCE

PURPOSE The Program and Research Council supports the Board in discharging its senate responsibilities as assigned by The Royal Roads University Act and laid out in the University Act. Per Section 14 of the Royal Roads University Act, the Program & Research Council advises the Board on instructional program and research priorities, program objectives and desirable learning outcomes. The Council assists the Board in meeting the university’s mandate of offering certificate, diploma and degree programs in solely the applied and professional fields, providing continuing education, and maintaining teaching excellence and research activities that support the university’s programs in response to the labour market needs of British Columbia (S. 2 of the RRU Act).

MEMBERSHIP There will be at least eight members, including the Chair of the Board, the President, and the Chair of the University’s Academic Council. At least three of the members will be members of the Board of Governors and at least three will be external to the Board and to the University (External Members). As per Section 14 of The RRU Act, at least two-thirds of the members must not be employees of the university. Per the RRU Act, the President is the chair.

TERM The term for External Members will normally be three years. The Board of Governors may renew the term for an External Member for a maximum term of six years.

RESPONSIBILITIES 1. Academic Programs

a. Advise the Board on the academic plan and the overall mix of degree programs from time to time.

b. Review proposals from the Academic Council for new or significantly revised degree programs, both domestic and offshore, on the basis of relevance, academic rigour, and fit with strategic direction, and make recommendations to the Board.

Program and Research Council Terms of Reference Page 2

c. Review proposals from the Academic Council for new or significantly revised certificate and diploma programs and recommend to the Board decisions or actions.

d. Monitor degree programs for academic effectiveness, relevance and demand by:

reviewing annual reports from Advisory Councils;

periodically reviewing each program, including reviewing reports of five-year cyclical external reviews of degree programs;

reviewing available measures of quality and student satisfaction; and

reviewing other suitable methods of academic quality assurance as necessary. e. Annually review the offerings and up-take of non-credit programs.

2. Academic Administrative Structure

a. Review the President’s recommendations and Academic Council’s advice on the establishment or discontinuance of any faculty, school, centre, institute, or department and make recommendations to the Board.

3. Research

a. Consistent with strategic directions, periodically review and advise the Board on applied research themes.

b. Receive and review the university’s annual research report. c. Ensure that research activities comply with pertinent legal and policy requirements.

4. Academic Support Services

a. Periodically review academic and student support services and advise the Board on the quality and adequacy of such services.

5. Policy

a. Periodically review Board policies that deal with academic quality, academic integrity, research, and academic support and services, and recommend revisions, additions and deletions to the Board.

6. Other

a. Matters related to First Nations protocols, initiatives and focus be considered as part of PRC program and research review.

First approved by the Board of Governors: 17 Sept, 2010 Reviewed and approved: 29 June, 2011 21 June, 2013

Approved by motion of the Board 21 June 2013

Finance and Audit Committee Terms of Reference Page 1

FINANCE & AUDIT COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE

PURPOSE The Finance & Audit Committee assists the Board of Governors in providing strategic oversight to the management of the university’s financial resources, meeting the fiscal responsibility required to ensure that RRU is a financially sustainable, high‐performance organization. The committee is responsible for ensuring that appropriate financial and asset management and accountabilities exist within the university, that the university’s internal controls are sound, that risk management functions are performed competently, and that the university complies with pertinent legal, statutory and regulatory requirements.

MEMBERSHIP There will be five or more members of the committee: the Chair of the Board, the President, and at least three members of the Board so that at least three of the members are neither employees nor students of the university. The President and any other internal governors are entitled to vote on all matters except those involving internal and external audit, and will not be present at in camera sessions with the auditors.

The majority of members shall be able to read and understand financial statements and presentations of a breadth and complexity comparable to those of the university. At least one member of the committee shall have an accounting designation or related financial management expertise.

RESPONSIBILITIES 1. Business Planning and Performance Measurement

a. Consistent with the university’s strategic direction, review and recommend to the Board of Governors the university’s three‐year business plan and annual operating plan.

b. Within the context of these plans, review and recommend to the Board business plans (both

academic and non‐academic), and ensure that one‐year post‐implementation appraisals are conducted.

c. Review the university’s quarterly performance to plan and forecast reports, ensuring that emerging issues and opportunities are being appropriately addressed by management.


d. Review the university’s annual institutional accountability report and plan and make recommendations to the Board prior to submission to the Ministry.

e. Within the context of the Board investment policy, review the performance of investments for both the university and the RRU Foundation on a quarterly basis.

2. Risk Management

a. Ensure that risk management functions are implemented effectively on an enterprise‐wide basis. Through discussion with management, ensure that major risk exposures, both financial and non‐financial, are reviewed in relation to the university’s acceptable risk tolerance, as well as the steps management has taken to monitor and control such risks.

3. External Audit

a. Review and approve the external audit plan and scope of examination.

b. Review with the external auditor the annual audited financial statements as well as any related letters, reports or recommendations submitted by the external auditor. Recommend the annual audited financial statements to the Board of Governors for approval.

c. In consultation with management and the external auditors, review the integrity and adequacy of the university’s internal control environment, to ensure that appropriate financial and asset controls and accountabilities exist and are operating effectively.

d. Discuss annually with the external auditors all significant relationships that could impair the auditor’s independence.

e. Review annually the external auditors’ performance and provide feedback to the external auditors.

f. Periodically issue a request for proposals (RFP) for audit services, review proposals, and recommend the appointment of the external auditors, their remuneration and other terms of engagement to the Board.

4. Financial, Legal, and Regulatory Reporting

a. Monitor the accounting principles and critical accounting policies adopted by management, including alternative treatments available for consideration.

b. Monitor accounting provisions and estimates included in the financial statements to ensure the

integrity of the financial statements.


c. Ensure that RRU is compliant with current accounting and financial reporting practices, and with legal and regulatory requirements as they apply to the university.

d. Review, and where appropriate approve, other relevant reports or financial information submitted to any government body or the public, including the management discussion and analysis and management certifications, prior to their release.

e. As required, review reports pertaining to the status of legal matters and report to the Board.

5. Policy Review

a. Regularly review Board policies that deal with financial matters, and recommend revisions, additions, and deletions to the Board of Governors.

First approved by the Board of Governors: 17 September, 2010 Reviewed and approved by the Board: 29 June, 2011 Reviewed and approved by the Board: 21 June, 2013

Approved by motion of the Board 21 June 2013

Governance and Nominating Committee Terms of Reference Page 1

GOVERNANCE & NOMINATING COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE

PURPOSE Under the University Act, the Board of Governors carries authority to, among other things: determine its own processes and committees; appoint the President and others; and provide for such distinctions as honorary degrees. The Governance & Nominating Committee assists the Board in the exercise of its governance, nominating, and executive oversight responsibilities.

MEMBERSHIP There will be at least five members of the committee: the Chair of the Board, the President, and three or more members who shall be External Members (as defined in the Board Committee Structure document, namely members who are not employees or students of the university). The President is entitled to vote on all matters except those involving his or her annual goals, performance reviews, or compensation.

Members will be familiar with the provincial Board Resourcing and Development Office’s Best Practices Guidelines: BC Governance and Disclosure Guidelines for Governing Boards of Public Sector Organizations.

RESPONSIBILITIES 1. Governance

a. Ensure appropriate orientation of new governors; identify and plan opportunities for Board and

governor development. b. In consultation with the Board secretary, ensure that governors have access to all documents

relevant to the Board’s responsibilities (in paper form or on‐line). c. Design and administer a mechanism for the annual evaluation of the Board, report results to the

Board, and recommend steps for continuous improvement. The evaluation shall include: peer evaluation; an evaluation of Board effectiveness and; an evaluation of the Board Chair & Chancellor’s performance. The intent of all assessment shall be Board development and improvement in Board operations.

d. Annually review the Board’s committee structure and Standing Committees’ terms of reference, recommending any changes to the Board.

e. Keep abreast of emerging best practices and developments in governance and modify appropriately our processes.

f. Ensure that the Board has an up‐to‐date code of conduct and conflict of interest guidelines, and advise the Board on how best to observe them.

Governance and Nominating Committee Terms of Reference Page 2

g. Lead the planning and development of the Board’s annual retreat. h. Lead the development and annual review of the Board’s Strategic Plan and recommend any

changes to the Board. 2. Nominating

a. Review the Board’s Competency Matrix and Governor Role Profile from time to time and

recommend revisions. b. Analyze the skills distribution within the current Board, identifying priority skills and abilities for

pending vacancies in appointed positions on the Board. Identify candidates for Board‐appointed and Order in Council vacancies, recommend nominees to the Board, and ensure that the process with respect to OIC appointments is followed.

c. Periodically review and recommend revisions in the Chair and Chancellor’s Role Profile and recommend candidate(s) to the Board for election as Chair and Chancellor as that position comes open from time to time.

d. Periodically review and make recommendations on criteria for honorary degrees and the Chancellor’s Community Recognition Award, consider nominations for these, and recommend suitable candidates to the Board for a pool of approved candidates from which the President may select honorees for specific Convocation ceremonies.

3. Presidential Oversight

a. Work with the President to establish the President’s annual Goals and recommend them to the Board.

b. Develop and administer a mechanism for the Board’s annual and late‐term review of the President’s performance. As appropriate and within government guidelines, make recommendations to the Board for any adjustments to the President’s annual compensation.

c. Monitor the President’s succession planning at the executive level.

4. Policy

a. Regularly review policies related to governance, Board honours, Presidential oversight and executive compensation, and make recommendations to the Board on revisions, additions, and deletions.

5. Human Resources – Employee Engagement

a) Periodically monitor employee engagement and advise the Board on strategies to enhance its engagement with employees.

First approved by the Board of Governors: 17 June, 2010 Approved by the Board of Governors: 30 September, 2011 Approved by the Board of Governors: 21 June, 2013


Standing Committee on Appeals Terms of Reference Page 1

STANDING COMMITTEE ON APPEALS TERMS OF REFERENCE

PURPOSE The Standing Committee on Appeals serves as the final appeal body on behalf of the Board of Governors on designated matters. Pursuant to the University Act , there are rights of appeal to the senate or to the board of governors with respect to: 1) certain student/academic matters, and 2) by staff and employees of the University from suspensions in the manner and subject to conditions described below. Section 10 of the Royal Roads University Act states that, “The board has the duties and may exercise the powers of the board of governors or senate of a university under the University Act except those powers and duties given to the president by this Act.” Given the size and nature of Royal Roads University, the Board of Governors of Royal Roads University has decided to delegate the matters appealable to it to one Standing Committee on Appeals.

MEMBERSHIP All External Members (as defined in the Board Committee Structure Document, namely members who are not employees or students of the university) of the Board of Governors constitute the Standing Committee on Appeals. The Board Chair is the Chair of the Committee. To hear an appeal, the Chair of the Standing Committee on Appeals, or his or her designate, and no fewer than two other members of the Committee designated by the Chair will sit as the duly‐constituted Standing Committee on Appeals for the purpose.

RESPONSIBILITIES The Standing Committee on Appeals is empowered to hear appeals on the matters described below. The Board shall establish procedures for conducting hearings, deliberating, and rendering decisions. Such procedures shall be in compliance with principles of natural justice and administrative law, and shall be published as directed by the Board. The Committee is entitled to retain its own legal counsel, who may attend meetings and consult with the Committee.


Standing Committee on Appeals Terms of Reference Page 2

1. Student/Academic

Section 37(1)(v) of The University Act indicates that a senate has the power “to establish a standing committee of final appeal for students in matters of academic discipline”; Section 61 states that “(1) The president has power to suspend a student and to deal summarily with any matter of student discipline.(2) On the exercise of the power, the president must promptly report the action to the standing committee established under section 37 (1) (v) with a statement of his or her reasons. (3) The action of the president is final and subject in all cases to an appeal to the senate.” As well, Section 40 (f) indicates that the results of examinations within faculties are “subject to an appeal to the senate”. Therefore, the Standing Committee on Appeals will preside over:

a. Appeals against a decision by the President to suspend or expel a student, and b. Appeals by students on such academic matters as are appealable to the Board as senate

pursuant to the University Act.

2. Employees

Under Section 60 (1) of The University Act, “the president has power to suspend any member of the teaching and administrative staffs and any officer or employee of the university. (2) On the exercise of the power, the president must promptly report the action to the board with a statement of his or her reasons. (3) A person who is suspended under this section has a right of appeal to the board.” Therefore, the Standing Committee on Appeals will preside over: a. Appeals of the President’s decision to suspend any member of the teaching and administrative

staffs and any officer or employee of the university, and b. Such other matters as are appealable to the Board under the provisions of any collective

agreements that the Board has entered into with certified bargaining units. First approved by the Board of Governors: 17 September, 2010 Approved by the Board of Governors: 30 September, 2011 Approved by the Board of Governors: 21 June, 2013

Attachment 5 Open Session item 6.2

BOARD OF GOVERNORS BRIEFING NOTE

MEETING: Board of Governors, 30 September, 2013 AGENDA ITEM: Board Strategic Plan SPONSOR: Wayne Strandlund, Chair. Governance and Nominating Committee PURPOSE: For Information Synopsis: The approved Board Strategic Plan is attached for information. Discussion: At the Board’s Retreat in January 2012, the Board of Governors engaged in a facilitated discussion of the Board’s strategic priorities. This discussion gave rise to an initiative to develop a Board Strategic Plan. The Plan should not be confused with the University’s Board‐approved Strategic Direction. The Board Strategic Plan is intended to provides a framework to guide and assess the work of the Board of Governors, ensuring that it attends to those issues and initiatives that are of strategic importance. The Board initiated a process whereby each of the Board’s Standing Committees had an opportunity to provide input in the development of a final draft document. At its 21 June, 2013 meeting, the Board of Governors reviewed the draft document and approved the Plan with the understanding that final revisions identified during the meeting be incorporated in the Plan. The revisions have been incorporated and the final, approved Plan is attached to this briefing note. Recommendation: That the Board of Governors receives this briefing and attached Board Strategic Plan for information.

Approved 21 June 2013 Page 1

Introduction: The Board of Royal Roads University is established under the Royal Roads University Act, and sets broad

administrative and academic policy. It is as well, the employer of all the employees of the University. Key

responsibilities of the Board include:

appointing and assessing the ongoing performance of the President of the University;

overseeing the development and implementation of the University’s Strategic Plan and Strategic

Direction;

reviewing the five year plan and annual operating plan of the University;

overseeing the annual budget and expenditures; and

supporting the development of positive relationships with the university’s stakeholders.

The Board may determine committees, but has two mandatory committees under the legislation: the

Program and Research Council, which advises the Board on instructional and research priorities; and the

Standing Committee on Appeals, which hears appeals of decisions of the President regarding student

suspension or expulsion and certain matters regarding employee suspensions and faculty appointments.

The Board has established a Finance and Audit Committee and a Governance and Nominating

Committee in addition to the mandatory committees.

The Board currently has the following materials and undertakes the following activities in order to fulfill

its responsibilities for good governance:

Comprehensive policy and procedure manual including Terms of Reference for key positions and

committees;

Performance evaluation process for the President;

Annual Board evaluation: Board effectiveness; peer evaluation; Board Chair evaluation;

Board competency matrix utilized in the filling of Board vacancies;

New Board member orientation;

Board Annual Strategic Planning Workshop;

Annual review of RRU Strategic Direction;

Semi‐annual review of 1‐Year Business Plan; and

Quarterly review of Key Performance Indicators.

Board of Governors Strategic PlanJune 2013


While the University has had a strategic planning process in place for several years in which the Board

participates, this represents the first Board Strategic Plan. It is intended to complement the University’s

Strategic Plan.

Mission:

To provide independent oversight, guidance and strategic leadership to Royal Roads University.

Vision:

To be Canada’s leader in governance of a postsecondary institution through excellence in oversight.

Guiding Principles and Values:

Independence: our decisions are strategic and policy oriented, free of political or partisan

influence

Integrity: we promote and exhibit values of integrity, professionalism, accountability and

respect

Objectivity: we support the University through critical oversight, advocacy and strategic

direction, all in the best interests of the University and free of special interests

Accountability: we hold the President accountable by monitoring and challenging, and we are

accountable to the broader university community and the stakeholders of the university

Diversity: We embrace diverse views, skills and backgrounds both on the Board and throughout

the University

Fiscal Responsibility: We ensure compliance with statutory requirements, advocate for the

University’s budget and oversee the effective allocation of resources

Innovation: We embrace innovation in all aspects of the university’s activities to ensure that it

remains relevant to current and prospective students

Quality: We encourage the highest level of quality possible in all programs offered by Royal

Roads in order to maintain strong leadership within the post secondary community of BC and

Canada


Strategic Objectives:

What? How? Outputs and Measurements Strategic Priorities Academic Oversight To ensure the highest academic standards are maintained and to set the academic priorities for the University Lead Committee: Program & Research Council

Review the Academic Plan

Review new/significantly revised programs

Monitor academic effectiveness of credit programs

Review and advise on applied research priorities

Relevance

Strategic Fit

Academic rigour

Annual Advisory Council Reports

Annual program reviews

External program reviews (5yr cycle)

Satisfaction surveys – academic and student support

Annual research report

Academic and research quality

Teaching excellence

Alignment of academic programming and enrolment to support the university’s financial goals and long term sustainability

Responsiveness to labour market needs of BC and beyond

Relevance and value of RRU credentials – as reflected by our students ,their employers, and society

Internationalization Initiatives support growth and are consistent with the university’s strategic direction

Recruitment of qualified international students to Grad and UG programs based on campus

Offshore delivery of RRU programs in collaboration with high‐quality international partners

Number of international students registered in domestic programs

New programs offered overseas

Number of offshore graduates

New programs with international designations

Research and teaching opportunities abroad

Support RRU internationalization strategy


What? How? Outputs and Measurements Strategic Priorities Lead Committee: Program & Research Council

Internationalization at home Academic supports in place to

assist international students

Integrate and promote global citizenship and global leadership as key components of all relevant programs delivered at RRU

Diversity Recognition and acknowledgement of multiple and overlapping identities These identities include, but are not limited to: Race, ethnicity, culture, nationality, linguistic origin, citizenship, colour, ancestry, place of origin, creed (religion, faith, spirituality), family status, marital status, ability or disability, sex, gender identity, age, sexual orientation, education, style, socio‐economic class, and political belief.

Lead Committee: Program & Research Council

Services to support a respectful work and study environment for all

Recognition and awareness of intergenerational composition of student body

Number of international students by country of origin

Number of Aboriginal students

Programming relevant to Aboriginal Peoples

Ensure that we create a safe and respectful work and study environment for all our students, staff and faculty

Periodically conduct a cultural assessment survey

Aboriginal Peoples protocols, initiatives and focus

Commitment to the appreciation and celebration of the diversity of RRU students, faculty and staff

Uphold and review Diversity Statement

Curriculum to include recognition of intergenerational nature of workplace

Financial Stability To ensure compliance with statutory requirements and to

Maintain a balanced budget

Limit expenses to 95% of revenues

Funding is adequate to ensure strategic priorities are met

Enrolment targets are met and programs adjusted in

Receive and approve a financially viable 5‐Year Plan

Monitor achievement of enrolment goals:


What? How? Outputs and Measurements Strategic Priorities provide oversight of the University’s financial performance to ensure achievement of the goals set out in the Strategic Direction document Lead Committee : Finance and Audit

Advocate for equitable and stable funding from the Province of British Columbia

Review quarterly progress in achieving student enrolment and retention targets established in the University Plan and the implications for the suite of programs offered by the University

Advocate to funding authorities and other potential partners in support of major capital initiatives and campus development

accordance with enrolment

Feasible financially sound plans are in place for further capital development for the university and for the development of the campus

o keep apprised of developments in international initiatives

o monitor the mix of students on campus

o Keep apprised of changes in the external environment

o keep apprised of the impact of enrolments on staff, faculty, associate faculty, facilities and programs

Undertake a systematic risk analysis

Provide leadership and risk management oversight with respect to campus development

Provide leadership and risk management oversight with respect to land ownership/stewardship

Monitor execution of the exit strategy for the affiliate model in Asia

Human Resources Strategy (integrated into the university’s business plan)


What? How? Outputs and Measurements Strategic Priorities Good Governance To put in place all the required processes to ensure the highest level of effective governance Executive succession planning Lead Committee: Governance & Nominating

To provide greater information to the public about the work of the Board, enhancing placement on the University website, publishing a Board Annual report along with the University’s Report in local media.

Develop a calendar of annual Board activities including meetings with stakeholders and participation in events to support the University

Review and update the requirements of the Board for supporting materials and the timing of providing them prior to meetings.

Review current Board agenda and make changes as required to optimize opportunities for Board to contribute strategically and effectively

Update Board competency matrix and identify and support appropriate candidates to fill future vacancies on the Board

Improved understanding of the Board’s role and activities by various stakeholders reflected in communications

Board members satisfaction with their role is enhanced and their time and skills are used most appropriately to advance the priorities o f the University

Selection of future Board members is in accordance with established requirements

Periodic reports from President on succession planning

Undertake a strategy for Board renewal

Provide leadership on and engage with partnership development, e.g. alumni

Employee engagement

Undertake a strategy for executive succession planning


What? How? Outputs and Measurements Strategic Priorities Provide opportunities to Board

members to participate in ongoing educational activities to enhance role on the Board

Ensure process is in place for timely succession planning

Risk Management To ensure that the Board is kept apprised of all potential risks to the University both in terms of reputational, financial or environmental and that the University has undertaken appropriate risk analysis and reported to the Board Lead : Full Board

Board receives regular reports from the President on possible risks to the University and efforts being made to ameliorate them

Board is apprised of any situation which may pose a reputational risk to the University, wherever possible before information is released in the media

Board’s understanding of risks is enhanced and they are able to contribute constructively to minimizing potential risks or deal effectively when situations arise which pose potential risks to the University

Regular monitoring of: o International strategy o Program quality o Financial performance o Political landscape o External environment o Physical plant

NOTE: This Strategic Objective requires further development

Advancement and Partnerships To enhance the Board’s role in developing and maintaining relationships with University external stakeholders

Develop a list of existing and potential external stakeholders of the University and how and in what way the Board could play a role in enhancing critical relationships: e.g. provincial government, local

Relationships with external stakeholders will be enhanced

Creation of partnership plan

Consider role of Royal Roads University Foundation and American Friends of RRU

NOTE: This Strategic Objective requires further development; the


What? How? Outputs and Measurements Strategic Priorities Lead: Full Board

government, fund raising

RRU Foundation

American Friends of RRU

administration is scheduled to bring a recommendation to the Board in September 2013

P

V

NRGC

1 2

3

4

PROGRAM AN

Voting Memb

Non‐voting MRegrets: Guests: Council Suppo

1. CALL TO OThe Chai

2. APPROVAI) 29 Ma

3. BUSINESSI) Board

i) ThBRn

M/PR

II) Reseai) M.

theresan

ii) MeReto

M/up

4. REPORT FI) For in

i) SchS. onact

ND RESEARCH

bers: AllaKru

Members: MaKarWa

ort: Ma

ORDER ‐ APPRr welcomed n

AL OF THE MIay 2013 ‐ M/S

S/INFORMATd approved PRhe Chair revieoard approveesponsibilitieew or signific

/S Cady / MeRC terms of re

arch update . Bernard proe summary wsearch univerd professionaembers inquiesearch is repintellectual p

/S Corrigan /pdate for info

FROM ACADEnformation hool AdvisoryGrundy revien the role andtive than othe

H COUNCIL

an Cahoon (Chsekopf, Peterry Bernard, mren Kesteloo, ayne Strandlurgot Bracewe

ROVAL OF THnew member

NUTES OF PRS Meekison /

TION ARISINGRC terms of rewed the upded the recomes 1 c. PRC wicantly revised

eekison Moteference for i

vided a brief worksheet comrsity (membeal areas, and red about oportedly pursuproperty and

/ Biolik Motiormation.

EMIC COUNCI

y Council termwed revision responsibiliters, they are

hair), Anna Bir Meekison matthew heinDebora Linehnd ell (recording

HE AGENDA ‐s Anna Biolik

REVIOUS MEE/ Grundy

G eference dated PRC termended revisill now review degree, cert

tion: That theinformation.

history of facmparing 2012r of the Reseais incorporatepportunities fouing these typ(lack of) abilit

ion: That the

IL

ms of referens to the Schoties of the couan underutili

MEETING O

iolik, Phil Cad

z, Pedro Márhan

secretary)

M/S Cady / and Patrick C

ETINGS:

rms of referensions (from thw proposals aificate and di

e Program an

culty and stud2/13 funding tarch Universied into the clor industry/ppes of prospety to share re

Program and

ce ol Advisory Cuncils. The dzed source of

OF TUESDAY 17

dy, Patrick Cor

rquez

MeekisonCorrigan to co

nce noting thhe May PRC mand make recoiploma progra

nd Research C

dent researchto 2013/14 reities Council oassroom andrivate sector ects; howeveresults to wide

d Research C

Council terms deans agreed f industry spe

SEPTEMBER 20

rrigan, Steve

ouncil.

hat after carefmeeting) withommendationams.

Council receiv

h initiatives atesults to dateof BC), our red general pracgrants and cor, they come wer audiences.

Council receiv

of reference that while soecific intellige

A

013 – 9:00 AM

Grundy, Char

ful considerath the exceptions to the Boa

ve the approv

t RRU, and ree. As a designsearch targetctice. ontracts. Thewith challeng

ve the researc

and opened ome councils ence and strat

Attachment 6

1

MINUTES M IN HC 315

rles

CARRIED

CARRIED

CAHOON

tion, the on of rd on ALL

ved CARRIED

BERNARD eviewed nated ts applied

e Office of ges related

ch CARRIED

GRUNDY

discussion are more tegic

5

6

7

8

adwa

ii) Ana)bc)

S. revcostucoFuto

iii) 5‐a)

SsaDw

Mf

5. REPORT OThe Cfinancand fidown

6. REPORT OS. Gru

7. OTHER BU

8. MEETING

vice. The oppas also noted nnual Program) BCom onli) BCom onc) MBA

Grundy explaviewed by thensidered by cudents who ahort model itrthermore, wcompletion.

‐year externa) MA in Con

S. Grundy proschool agree wa major progrDiscussion thewith other ins

M/S Meekisorom Academ

OF THE PRESIChair distribucial position. inishing progn.

OF THE VICE‐Pundy briefly c

USINESS

ADJOURNED

NEXT S

portunity to cfor considera

m Reviews ne ampus

ained the proce deans and Vcouncil today,re challengedtself supportswe are currentThis data will

al program revflict Analysis

vided an ovewith a numbeam revision ien turned to tstitutions.

on / Corrigan mic Council for

DENT AND Vuted a reportDomestic FTrams) but en

PRESIDENT Aommented o

D

SCHEDULED M

reate and supation when ap

cess of annuaVPA. While , questions wd either acades students, in tly surveying l be used to in

view and proand Manage

rview of the 5er of recomms currently unthe market p

Motion: Thr information

ICE‐CHANCELt on recent E’s are on plarolments in n

ACADEMIC ANn a number o

MEETING ‐

pport a moreppointing new

al academic pthere were n

were raised abemically or peaddition to pstudents on tnform and im

gram responment

5‐year externendations manderway thatotential of th

at the Progran.

LLORactivities andan (largely dunew program

ND PROVOSTof items conta

November 2

e ethnically diw members.

program revieo specific conbout attrition ersonally. Mprogram, schothe reasons t

mprove studen

se

nal review proade by the Mt will address he program, a

am and Resea

d accomplishue to lower ts as well as n

ained in the V

20, 2013 at 1:0

verse (e.g.: A

ews compiledncerns regard and the suppembers spokool and univethey withdrawnt and acade

ocess. The VPMACAM reviewmany of thes

and opportun

arch Council

hments to cohan expectednew intakes o

VPA report to

00 pm in HC

P

Aboriginal) me

d by program ding the progport systemse highly of hoersity level initw from programic support s

PA, dean, andw team, notinse concerns. ities for partn

receive the r

ouncil, notingd attrition in of existing pro

o council.

315

Page 2 of 2

embership

heads and rams for ow the tiatives. ams prior services.

d the ng that

nering

eport CARRIED

CAHOON g a strong continuing ograms are

GRUNDY

10:50PM

P

V

NRGA C

1

2

PROGRAM AN

Voting Memb

Non‐voting MRegrets: Guests: Advisory Coun

Council Suppo

1. WELCOMI) IntrodII) Overv

A. CahoonCouncil, nresponsibconnectedinnovative

2. UPDATE FI) Susan

i) Cp

ii) Ente

iii) Cso

iv) RII) Ken B

i) Cloap

ii) Eniii) SEiv) R

bIII) Kelly

i) CMhd

ND RESEARCH

bers: AllaKru

Members: MaKarWa

ncil chairs: KeSusKel

ort: Ma

E TO SCHOOductions view of counc

n welcomed tnoting that thbilities of PRC,d to industry e.

FROM SCHOOn Danard ‐ Schouncil membrofessional panvironmentaechnology, onommunicatioolvers who arRU reputatioBanister – Schouncil is stabocal, national ppointment onvironmentaES programs RU is less knoest can the uLarkin – Schoouncil is activ

Members are eopes to includevelopment n

H COUNCIL

an Cahoon (Chsekopf, Peterry Bernard, mren Kesteloo, ayne Strandluen Banister – san Danard – ly Larkin – Scrgot Bracewe

L ADVISORY C

cil: role and fu

the School Adis is the first t, he highlightand provide

OL ADVISORYhool of Commbership was rearticipants. l scan: the conline platformon leaders arere able to resen is strong anool of Envirole with a mix and internatof a new schol scan: many need to definown in Albertniversity tap ool of Businesve and comprenthusiastic ade First Nationeed to be co

hair), Anna Bir Meekison matthew heinDebora Linehnd School of EnvSchool of Comhool of Businell (recording

COUNCIL CHA

unction

dvisory Counctime such an ed the imporlabour marke

Y COUNCIL CHmunication anecently refres

mmunicationms and digital e looking for cearch, analyznd growing innment and Suof new and lional perspecool director anopportunitiesne (and broada – but in reainto this resos rises governmand creative ‐ons representonsidered.

MEETING OF

iolik, Phil Cad

z, Pedro Márhan

vironment anmmunicationess secretary)

AIRS

cils Chairs to tevent has bertant role of Set insights to

HAIRSnd Culture shed and inclu

ns industry is media is shacritical thinkee and story te the industryustainabilityonger servingctives from acnd creation os in emergingden) their maality there areource?

ment, private ‐ looking to mtation; their c

TUESDAY 17 S

dy, Patrick Cor

rquez

nd Sustainabin and Culture

the meeting oeen scheduledSchool Advisokeep RRU pro

udes a divers

a rapidly chaping how busers who can aell. .

g members recross the induof the first SESg markets rkets and diffe graduates w

sector, academake new conconcerns rega

SEPTEMBER 201

rrigan, Steve

lity

of the Prograd. In additionory Councils inograms releva

e mix of med

nging environsiness is doneadapt to techn

epresenting austry. CouncilS 5‐year plan.

ferentiate beworking acros

emia and busnnections witarding sustain

A

MEETI13 – 11:00 AM

Grundy, Char

m and Resean to outlining n helping RRUant, current a

dia, business a

nment: new e. nology; probl

a broad spectl is bolstered .

tween progras the provinc

iness membehin industry.nable econom

Attachment 7

1

ING NOTES M IN HC 315

rles

rch the

U stay and

and

em

rum of by the

ams ce. How

ers. Council

mic

of 2

ii) Environmental scan: There is an opportunity for specialized programming in emerging markets to support the government jobs growth mandate.

iii) Programs support business needs and continue to provide growth opportunities for students. The flexible delivery model is appealing and graduate laddering programs are attractive.

iv) RRU reputation: Word of mouth marketing is very powerful and alumni speak highly of the programs and RRU. Engage with alumni.

3. DIALOGUE ON COMMUNITY AND INDUSTRY NEEDS FOR PROGRAM DELIVERY

A robust exchange of suggestions and ideas were discussed: I) Develop sector specific programs e.g.: energy sector II) Individualize program content with courses from across schools and Faculties – stitch together relevant

programming to create greater interdisciplinary opportunities III) Establish shared learning outcomes and common themes e.g. communications, leadership, environment IV) Increase the level (and awareness) of cross‐school collaboration and connection V) Create opportunities for Advisory Councils to interact with each other VI) Review the concept of mentorships with alumni, associate faculty, and industry leaders, to help students

create a learning roadmap VII) Involve Advisory Council members in campus events, info sessions, etc. VIII) Align Advisory Council meetings with on‐campus residencies, student presentations, etc.

4. CLOSING COMMENTS CAHOON The Chair thanked Advisory Council Chairs for their important contribution to the university and for joining the PRC meeting today. The university will look for other opportunities to engage with them in the future.

5. MEETING ADJOURNED 12:30PM

AGENDA OPEN SESSION...AGENDA – OPEN SESSION 8:30 a.m. – 8:40 a.m. Call to Order and welcome 8:41...

Documents

Transcript of AGENDA OPEN SESSION...AGENDA – OPEN SESSION 8:30 a.m. – 8:40 a.m. Call to Order and welcome 8:41...