Accreditation
of Undergraduate Chemistry Programs
in Canadian Universities
1.
The Purpose of Accreditation
2. Procedures
3. Guidelines
4.
The
Report
5.
CSC Board Action
|
|
1.
|
The Purpose of Accreditation
|
|
1.1 |
Accreditation ensures that educational programs have the
potential to prepare graduates to practise their profession in a competent
scientific manner. It also helps to maintain national standards of
education by providing an external audit service for programs, and by
promoting the portability of the qualifications of graduates from such
programs.
|
|
1.2 |
Accreditation should provide a broad basis for the
recognition of acceptable degree programs while allowing differing details
and breadth in curriculum development. Thus accreditation identifies to the
constituent members of the Canadian Society for Chemistry (hereinafter
referred to as CSC), and to other interested parties, those undergraduate
degree programs which satisfy the criteria for qualification for membership
in the CSC.
|
|
1.3 |
Accreditation also fosters cooperation between
educational institutions, and provides a medium for the interchange of ideas
between universities and industry.
|
|
1.4 |
Accreditation will apply to individual degree
programs leading to Bachelor’s degrees, rather than to the Institution or
Faculty. This is based on the premise that degree programs of different
characteristics are to be found within the same institution.
|
| |
|
|
2. |
Procedures
|
|
2.1 |
The evaluation of a program is to be undertaken
only at the invitation of a particular institution, and will normally be
initiated by a letter, to the CSC Director responsible for Accreditation,
care of the CSC national office, requesting such an evaluation from the
Department Chair or Head. This, or a subsequent letter, must confirm the
institution’s willingness to provide the appropriate information, to host
the Site Visit Team (hereafter referred to as SVT), and to pay the
appropriate fee, currently $600.00 per team member (usually an SVT of two is
adequate, but some larger departments may require three).
|
|
2.2 |
The areas to be assessed by the SVT will
include:
|
| |
(i) |
the physical facilities of the department;
|
| |
(ii) |
the adequacy of the financial
support from the university;
|
| |
(iii) |
the appropriateness of the student:
teacher ratios in terms of meeting
the stated objectives of the program;
|
| |
(iv) |
the general and professional education of
the faculty, their teaching
loads and administrative responsibilities;
|
| |
(v) |
evidence of an appropriate commitment to
research activity by the
university and its faculty members;
|
| |
(vi) |
the curriculum of the department;
|
| |
(vii) |
an effective and valid assessment system
of student performance;
|
| |
(viii) |
the library, whether separate or within the
department, its convenience
and accessibility to students, and the appropriateness of the library
holdings in the subject as indicated in the document ”Priority and
Recommended Library Resources”.
|
|
2.3 |
Much of the information listed above
should be supplied to the SVT before it arrives on campus, so that the
members can come equipped with a general picture of the department, its aims
and its achievements as these pertain to undergraduate education. The
committee does not wish to constrain a department in any way in terms of the
information that it wishes to submit, but the information supplied should
include:
|
| |
(i) |
calendars and other official program descriptions;
|
| |
(ii) |
lists of faculty members with their curricula vitae
including information on teaching, research and professional activities;
|
| |
(iii) |
a complete list of the course requirements,
separate for each program under consideration;
|
| |
(iv) |
for each required course, the actual number
of class hours, textbook(s) used, copies of past examinations and summary
statistics of examination results;
|
| |
(v) |
(v) a description of procedures for
introducing and implementing curriculum changes;
|
| |
(vi) |
a list of actual student laboratory hours for each
course involving laboratory instruction;
|
| |
(vii) |
a list of instrumentation used by students
completing the program under consideration;
|
| |
(viii)
|
descriptions of any unique features which the
institution thinks appropriate.
|
|
2.4 |
During the visit, there should be opportunities for
face-to-face interviews with administrative officers such as the Dean and/or
Academic Vice-President, the Department Head or Chair, the library
representative, groups of, or individual, faculty members, and groups of, or
individual, senior students, etc. There should also be conducted impromptu
tours of the physical facilities such as laboratories, libraries, computing
facilities, etc.
|
|
2.5 |
A visit will normally take one to two days
to complete and will provide an opportunity for the team to assess
collectively those factors that cannot be documented in written form.
|
| |
|
|
3. |
Guidelines
|
|
3.1 |
General. A program to be considered for
accreditation shall extend over four years, or three in the Province of
Quebec for students who have completed two full years of a CEGEP program;
each year to consist of the traditional two terms, or the equivalent if the
institution operates on a “trimester” or “quarter” system. The program
shall lead to a baccalaureate degree at a Canadian educational institution.
|
|
3.2 |
Considerations. In considering a program, the
primary concern of the Committee shall be the quality of the undergraduate
education offered. The curriculum is to be regarded as an important, but by
no means the sole component of this. The SVT shall take into account the
number and credentials of the members of the faculty who teach in the
program and their research or other scholarly interest, and the equipment
and facilities available to the students, including library, computer, and
other resources. The SVT may also make general enquiries about the success
of recent graduates in employment and in graduate schools.
|
|
3.3 |
Limitations. The SVT or the Accreditation
Committee shall neither prescribe a detailed curriculum nor require
uniformity among programs. It shall, however, encourage improvements and
examine the breadth and depth of program requirements, and the opportunities
for some specialization.
|
|
3,4 |
Requirements. The core
program beyond the first year level shall include the
equivalent of a one-year course (also known as a “full course”) in at least
three of the five sub-disciplines of analytical chemistry, biochemistry,
inorganic, organic and physical chemistry, but with a minimum of a
one-semester course (also known as a “half course”) in each* of these
sub-disciplines. In addition, there should be a selection of advanced
offerings in the core disciplines and in other subjects such as for
instance theoretical chemistry, solid state chemistry, natural products,
polymers, advanced instrumentation, research thesis, etc. to bring the total
number of hours of instruction to that described in section 3.6.
*Departments
will have until 2005 to comply with the requirement to include at least one
half course in biochemistry in the core program.
|
|
3.5 |
Non-chemistry courses. The
Committee shall expect a program to include at least one full course (two
semesters) in mathematics (calculus), at least one additional half course
(one-semester) in mathematics, statistics or computer science, and at least
one full course (two semesters) in calculus-based physics. The inclusion of
other cognate science subjects as well as some liberal arts requirements is
to be encouraged.
|
|
3.6 |
Hours of instruction. The Committee shall expect
a program to involve a total of about 1000 hours of laboratory and classroom
work in chemistry, with the minimum hours of each being about 400. In this
context, classroom work includes lectures, tutorials, and seminars. In view
of the need to provide a broad educational experience to students in
accredited chemistry programs, it should not be necessary to exceed this
requirement of 1000 hours of chemistry instruction to an unreasonable
degree.
|
|
3.7 |
Joint and Interdisciplinary Programs. The
Committee shall evaluate the entire program to ensure that the
chemistry content is a major part of the program. When the total hours of
instruction are equivalent to those specified in item 3.6, and all other
items of these guidelines apply, such programs can be awarded full
accreditation.
|
|
3.8 |
Integrated Courses. Lecture and laboratory
hours in integrated courses, i.e., courses involving some combination of the
core subjects (listed in item 3.4), will be proportioned among the core
subjects for the purpose of determining whether or not the program includes
the equivalent of one full course in each.
|
|
3.9 |
Laboratory work shall include hands-on training on
equipment currently used in industry and government laboratories, e.g., IR,
NMR, chromatography. Experience in the acquisition and treatment of
experimental data using computer techniques is encouraged.
|
|
3.10 |
Communications/Teamwork/Ethics. The
Department shall explain to the SVT, with appropriate supporting
documentation, how students’ communication skills, including the writing of
technical reports, are developed and evaluated in that program and they
shall be invited to report to the Site Visit Committee on any aspects of the
program that (i) address questions of ethical professional behaviour and
(ii) are intended to demonstrate a capacity for teamwork among the students.
|
| |
|
|
4. |
The
Report
|
|
4.1 |
At the end of the visit, the Site Visit Team will meet to
discuss their preliminary opinion on the basis of which the chair of the
team will prepare a written report of the program being assessed,
underlining both strengths and weaknesses. A draft copy of the report will
then be sent to each member of the team within two weeks of the site visit.
After a consensus has been reached, the Chair of the Site Visit Team will
send the draft to the Chair/Head of the Department in order to ensure
factual accuracy. After correction of any factual errors, the final report
is submitted to the Chair of the Accreditation Committee. The Accreditation
Committee will then review the final report, and will submit its
recommendations to the CSC Board.
|
|
4.2 |
The site visit report must include the following
components:
|
| |
(i) |
an introductory statement recording the dates of previous
surveys and the names of the current visiting team members; a list of the
previous visiting team’s recommendations and accreditation decision should
be appended;
|
| |
(ii) |
a description of the curriculum, teaching and
research facilities and any observations as to how curriculum changes are
effected within the department;
|
| |
(iii) |
a statement describing the faculty and their
qualifications, and other relevant information;
|
| |
(iv) |
a statement regarding student achievement
standards, as reflected in the data provided by the institution, and as
determined by the team based on direct observation;
|
| |
(v) |
a statement describing library facilities, and
observations on those by students and faculty.
|
| |
(vi) |
a statement of the RECOMMENDATIONS and
SUGGESTIONS, the former referring to areas of critical deficiencies and the
latter to non-critical deficiencies.
|
| |
|
5. |
CSC
Board Action
|
|
5.1 |
The CSC Accreditation Committee shall
consider the recommendations made by the Site Visit Team and will decide
upon one of the following classifications for the program in question.
Preliminary Approval. On the basis
of an institutionally prepared prospectus, a new program is granted year by
year Preliminary Approval if it appears to meet the minimum requirements for
approval as established by the Board, and until such time as students are
enrolled in the final year and/or the program has been recommended for Full
Approval after a site visit..
Provisional Approval. This
classification is granted to a program which has been found to have
deficiencies or weaknesses in one or more specific areas, and signifies the
seriousness of the deficiencies or weaknesses, which are considered to be of
such magnitude that, if not corrected, withdrawal of the program’s
accreditation status will result. Evidence of significant progress must be
demonstrated within one year.
Full Approval. This classification
indicates that the program achieves or exceeds the minimum requirements for
approval, and specifies that the program has no serious deficiencies or
weaknesses, although recommendations or suggestions relating to program
enhancement will generally be included in the evaluation report.
The Accreditation Committee reserves the right to place term- or other
conditions upon any category of accreditation status.
The CSC Board of Directors shall review the recommendations of the
Accreditation Committee and ratify its decision.
|
| 5.2 |
The Board will normally announce the decision
after one of its meetings.
|
| |
Approved by CSC Board, November 18, 2000 |
