Geography - Brock University...Geography Undergraduate and Graduate Review Year 2 (2015) - FAR Implementation Report (reviewed 2012/13 ) Note: The final three recommendations (#31,32,33)

Geography Undergraduate and Graduate Review

Year 2 (2015) - FAR Implementation Report (reviewed 2012/13)

Note: The final three recommendations (#31,32,33) are confidential. As per the IQAP Section II J. 6. f) regarding confidential recommendations “relating to personnel issues or other matters involving specific individuals” found in the Reviewers’ Report, these recommendations “will only be released to the Dean(s), the academic unit and ARC.” Recommendation #1 The Department should ensure that undergraduate courses and programs find ways of providing better support for the learning outcomes of recognizing the limits of knowledge, working effectively with others, and speaking clearly and effectively. Implementation Plan (First Priority) Responsible for approving: Department Responsible for resources: Department Responsible for implementation: Department Timeline: September 2014 Actions On Target (T), On Hold (H), Delayed (D), Complete (C)

Resp

onsi

bilit

y

Year

One

Year

Tw

o

Year

Thr

ee

Action #1 Resolved through departmental meeting.

Department C

Comments: Because of the critical nature of human geography, and scientific nature of physical geography, acknowledging the limits of knowledge is necessarily part of what we do. In terms of learning outcomes and effective speaking for students, professors have begun to build these goals into their syllabi, if they aren’t already there. Recommendation #2 If activities that support the learning outcomes of learning to work effectively with others, speaking clearly and effectively, and applying problem solving skills are not present in MA courses, faculty delivering these courses should find ways of adding them. If they are present, faculty may need to connect these activities more explicitly to specific learning outcomes for students.

GEOG (INT)-2 Year Report

2

Implementation Plan (First Priority) Responsible for approving: Department Responsible for resources: Department Responsible for implementation: Department Timeline: September 2014 Actions On Target (T), On Hold (H), Delayed (D), Complete (C)

Resp

onsi

bilit

y

Year

One

Year

Tw

o

Year

Thr

ee

Action #1 Resolved through departmental meeting

Department C

Comments: See recommendation 1. Recommendation #3 The Department should ensure that only courses that have a reasonable chance of being offered should be listed in the calendar and those that are not offered in any three year period be removed from the calendar. Implementation Plan (First Priority) Responsible for approving: Department Responsible for resources: Department Responsible for implementation: Department Timeline: December 2013 Actions On Target (T), On Hold (H), Delayed (D), Complete (C)

Resp

onsi

bilit

y

Year

One

Year

Tw

o

Year

Thr

ee

Action #1 Resolved through 2013-14 UPC corrections.

Department C

Comments:


3

Recommendation #4 The Department should require teaching assistants to take a relevant course at the Centre for Pedagogical Innovation. Faculty must also ensure that they provide TAs with the appropriate types of support to effectively deliver seminars. The Department should also monitor whether this step is sufficient to change undergraduate student evaluation of teaching assistants and, if it is not, investigate additional measures. Implementation Plan (Second Priority) Responsible for approving: Department Responsible for resources: Department Responsible for implementation: Department Timeline: September 2015 Actions On Target (T), On Hold (H), Delayed (D), Complete (C)

Resp

onsi

bilit

y

Year

One

Year

Tw

o

Year

Thr

ee

Action #1 Resolution in progress, including faculty-offered TA instruction seminars first week of D2.

Department T C

Comments March 2015: This is a well-meaning recommendation but it creates CUPE issues. While TAs complain about meetings they are not paid to attend and which are not required in their collective agreement, we have been holding annual TA meetings with new Grad students suggesting it’s in their best interest to attend—and they do. The professional TAs have taken upgrading courses. Furthermore, for instructors to require it, they must build “all” TA upgrading into their “allocation of hours forms.” Additionally, more professors are using TA course packages now, but this is not something the chair as a BUFA member can mandate. TA attendance at CPI workshops, while desirable, is not feasible in the current budget context since they would need to paid for the hours. The Faculty has responded to budget reductions for many years by reducing the part-time budget since it is one of the few areas where it is possible to make cuts. There is no money for professional development for TAs. Recommendation #5 The Department should pursue ways to expand the use of technology to support learning outside of formal classroom setting. Implementation Plan (Second Priority) Responsible for approving: Department Responsible for resources: Department, Centre for Pedagogical Innovation Responsible for implementation: Department, Centre for Pedagogical Innovation


4

Timeline: September 2015 Actions On Target (T), On Hold (H), Delayed (D), Complete (C)

Resp

onsi

bilit

y

Year

One

Year

Tw

o

Year

Thr

ee

Action #1 Ongoing individual faculty efforts.

Department T T

Comments: Two faculty members awarded funding from MTCU to offer online delivery of GEOG 1F90 Introduction to Human Geography. Comments March 2015: Geog IF90 online version has been developed and offered for the first time FW 2014/15 and is now part of GEOG’s SP/SUM offerings. All faculty members are now using SAKAI for course materials in first-, second-, and third-year courses; Sakai is underutilized in fourth-year seminars (presumably because professors can’t imagine how to use it in a non-lecture, non-examination context. In terms of hybridity, a few professors use Sakai for certain course components: for example, chat participation and online assignments which require the use of YouTube viewing in place of a seminar. Most professors incorporate the internet directly into teaching, if not specifically hybridizing their courses, which will in time lead to more out-of-class uses of technology. Recommendation #6 The Department should continue to examine its course and program revisions so that Physical Geographers can increase their teaching in areas other than Geomatics. Implementation Plan (First Priority) Responsible for approving: Department Responsible for resources: Department Responsible for implementation: Department Timeline: Dean of Social Sciences to report by end of academic year 2013/14 Actions On Target (T), On Hold (H), Delayed (D), Complete (C)

Resp

onsi

bilit

y

Year

One

Year

Tw

o

Year

Thr

ee

Action #1 Department C


5

Ongoing reevaluation Comments: There are six required Geomatics courses and only two Geomatics professors, one of whom is teaching GEOG 2P12, Introduction to Quantitative Methods. Comments March 2015: Geography has reduced the number of Geomatics courses from seven to five (the articulation agreement with Niagara college requires five). Recommendation #7 As it considers future paths, the Department should give careful consideration to ensuring that its own majors, as well as students in other programs, continue to have reasonable access to courses that serve their priority needs, specifically environmental resource management and GIS courses. Implementation Plan (Third Priority) Responsible for approving: Department Responsible for resources: Department Responsible for implementation: Department Timeline: Dean of Social Sciences to report by end of academic year 2015/16 Actions On Target (T), On Hold (H), Delayed (D), Complete (C)

Resp

onsi

bilit

y

Year

One

Year

Tw

o

Year

Thr

ee

Action #1 On-going reevaluation.

Department T T

Comments: Environmental resource management courses may be discontinued for budgetary reasons; we have no full-time instructor to teach them. We have six GIS courses which adequately meet student needs and meet the requirements of the Niagara College articulation agreement. This agreement renews in 2014 and these six courses may reduce further, depending on the stipulations of the agreement, and our GIS professors’ interests and needs. Comments March 2015: The department has completed a thorough curriculum review and revisions to its degree programs so that all the needs of students can be achieved with the existing faculty complement. The proposal for the revised program will be submitted to ARC in D3 of 2015. One uncertainty is the potential cross-appointment with Geography of a member of another department, whose potential teaching contribution will enhance Geography’s ability to offer Environment courses.


6

Recommendation #8 The Department should review the job description of the cartographer and technician with the objective of involving them in some class and lab material delivery, supporting pedagogy and student contact. Implementation Plan (Second Priority) Responsible for approving: Department, Dean of Social Sciences Responsible for resources: Department, Dean of Social Sciences Responsible for implementation: Department, Human Resources Timeline: Dean of Social Sciences to report by end of academic year 2014/15 Actions On Target (T), On Hold (H), Delayed (D), Complete (C)

Resp

onsi

bilit

y

Year

One

Year

Tw

o

Year

Thr

ee

Action #1 Department reviewed the job description of the cartographer. Action # 2 Department reviewed the job description of the technician

Department Dean FOSS Department Dean FOSS

C T

C

Comments: The department deemed it to be undesirable to involve the cartographer in class and lab material delivery. The department is currently working towards finalizing the review of the technician’s job description. Comments March 2015: As a consequence of reviewing the Geography Technician job description, as part of the Programme Review and Prioritization exercise, the department has become better familiarized with its stipulations, allowing for wider deployment of the Technician’s talents. We have increased his “daily contact” with faculty, and placed more emphasis on the “educating faculty” and “problem solving” components of the job description, especially as these relate to in-class applications. Thus, the Technician has become an important resource for all Geography faculty (although he is indispensible for Geomatics faculty), as a result of the recommendation. Recommendation #9 The Department should review its agreement with Niagara College and evaluate the tradeoffs involved in offering a large number of Geomatics courses (which appear to be popular with students because of their applied nature), meeting the needs for Physical


7

Geography courses, and freeing up Physical Geographers to teach in their area of substantive research interest. Implementation Plan (Third Priority) Responsible for approving: Department Responsible for resources: Department Responsible for implementation: Department Timeline: Dean of Social Sciences to report by end of academic year 2015/16 Actions On Target (T), On Hold (H), Delayed (D), Complete (C)

Resp

onsi

bilit

y

Year

One

Year

Tw

o

Year

Thr

ee

Action #1 The Department reviews its agreement with Niagara College on an on-going basis.

Department T T

Comments: The Niagara College Articulation agreement is up for renewal this year. The Geomatics committee will review it at the time. Comments March 2015: The Articulation agreement with Niagara College was extended for one year in 2014. Negotiations are underway to renew it in June 2015. At this writing, the curriculum review is being finalized so that the changes can be considered during the negotiations. At the Brock University-Niagara College Summit of May 4th both parties expressed their interest in renewing the agreement. The new curriculum will not affect the articulation agreement. It still offers all the requisite courses. Recommendation #10 The Dean of Mathematics & Science and the Dean of Social Sciences should take the lead on negotiating cooperation in undergraduate teaching between Geography and Earth Sciences. Implementation Plan (Second Priority) Responsible for approving: Departments of Geography and Earth Sciences,

Deans of Social Science and Math and Science Responsible for resources: Departments of Geography and Earth Sciences,

Deans of Social Science and Math and Science Responsible for implementation: Departments of Geography and Earth Sciences,

Deans of Social Science and Math and Science Timeline: Dean of Social Sciences to report by end of academic year 2014/15


8

Actions On Target (T), On Hold (H), Delayed (D), Complete (C)

Resp

onsi

bilit

y

Year

One

Year

Tw

o

Year

Thr

ee

Action #1 Deans and Chairs will meet in June 2014.

Departments and Deans

H T

Comments: This will be paramount for Geography to implement its new curriculum, since we will require ERSC to provide at least 3-4 cross-listed ERSC/GEOG courses each year—unless Geography can procure another Physical Geographer, which seems unlikely at the moment. Comments March 2015: The meeting did take place and communication between the two units has improved. [name withheld], the newest appointment in Geography, is cross-appointed with Earth Sciences. This will be an ongoing effort. Recommendation #11 The negotiations between Geography and Earth Sciences led by the Dean of Mathematics & Science and the Dean of Social Sciences should also take account of the shortage of appropriate teaching classrooms. Implementation Plan Recommendation NOT accepted Comments: ARC considers this recommendation to be not accepted as it lies outside of the Committee’s jurisdiction. Recommendation #12 The Provost should follow up on the discussions between Geography and Earth Sciences to ensure appropriate progress and reasonable decisions are made. Implementation Plan (Second Priority) Responsible for approving: Provost, Deans of Social Science and Math and

Science and Graduate Studies Responsible for resources: Provost, Deans of Social Science and Math and

Science and Graduate Studies Responsible for implementation: Provost, Deans of Social Science and Math and

Science and Graduate Studies Timeline: Dean of Social Sciences to report by end of academic year 2014/15


9


Resp

onsi

bilit

y

Year

One

Year

Tw

o

Year

Thr

ee

Action #1 Deans and Chairs will meet in June 2014. The Provost will be notified of outcomes.

Provost and Deans

H C

Comments: Comments March 2015: These meetings are slowly ameliorating tensions between the two departments, if only because they force openness between the two departments. For example, a potential problem was averted in 2014-15: ERSC eliminated a course from its course bank that geography majors take but, knowing that Geography would be inconvenienced, added a new course in its place. Equally germane is the cross-appointment of two physical geographers ([names withheld]) with ERSC. Recommendation #13 The Geography Department should come to a clear understanding of trends in majors, course enrollments and FTE enrollment data. Implementation Plan (First Priority) Responsible for approving: Department Responsible for resources: Department, Dean of Social Sciences, Institutional

Analysis, Registrar’s Office Responsible for implementation: Department, Dean of Social Sciences, Institutional

Analysis, Registrar’s Office Timeline: Dean of Social Sciences to report by end of academic year 2013/14 Actions On Target (T), On Hold (H), Delayed (D), Complete (C)

Resp

onsi

bilit

y

Year

One

Year

Tw

o

Year

Thr

ee

Action #1 The Department has been consulting with the Registrar’s Office to obtain up-to-date information about enrolments, including credit given for concurrent Education students.

Department, Dean FOSS, Institutional

T C


10

Analysis, Registrar’s Office

Comments: This is being monitored on an on-going basis. Comments March 2015: The Department and the Dean are conscious of the fact that, in addition to the Fall Major Headcount report and the spring FTE reports produced by Institutional Analysis, the Department needs to maintain an understanding of the number of concurrent education Integrated Studies students who need Geography courses because they wish to have Geography as a teachable subject. Recommendation #14 The Geography Department should implement the steps it identified in the Self-Study document to address declining enrollments and monitor their effects, changing strategies if enrollments continue to decline. Implementation Plan (Second Priority) Responsible for approving: Department Responsible for resources: Department Responsible for implementation: Department Timeline: Dean of Social Sciences to report by end of academic year 2014/15 Actions On Target (T), On Hold (H), Delayed (D), Complete (C)

Resp

onsi

bilit

y

Year

One

Year

Tw

o

Year

Thr

ee

Action #1 The department is developing a marketing strategy

Department T T

Comments: The details of this strategy will be elaborated by the end of 2014/15 as it is ‘in development”, but it now includes a stronger presences on the department website. Professors already use their personal websites, to varying degrees, to engage prospective students: there is departmental ‘encouragement’ for faculty to maintain their websites. The problem of enrolments is, however, disciplinary –wide, especially in Ontario. Comments March 2015: This will be an ongoing project. The revised curriculum will be submitted to ARC in D3. With regard specifically to marketing in addition to the changes at the Departmental level, the Dean's Office now has a position that is 60 percent dedicated to Communications. The individual in that position is working on a complete


11

revision to the Faculty website and establishing a faculty social media presence that will disseminate information and celebrate the achievements of all programs in the Faculty. The Geography Strategic Planning Committee is working on ways to reimagine the Department and its approach to teaching geography. It will present its work, in part, at the retreat in May. Recommendation #15 Geography should explore, or exploit further, synergies between the Geography MA (with its strengths in Critical Geography) and the MA programs in SJES and Critical Sociology. Implementation Plan (Second Priority) Responsible for approving: Department, Deans of Social Sciences and Graduate

Studies Responsible for resources: Department, Deans of Social Sciences and Graduate

Studies Responsible for implementation: Department, Deans of Social Sciences and Graduate

Studies Timeline: Dean of Social Sciences to report by end of academic year 2014/15 Actions On Target (T), On Hold (H), Delayed (D), Complete (C)

Resp

onsi

bilit

y

Year

One

Year

Tw

o

Year

Thr

ee

Action #1 Department has considered this recommendation

DepartmentDean of FOSS and FGS

H C

Comments: Some members of the Geography Department are affiliated with these other MA Programs. Expanding on these affiliations involves Faculty-wide discussion on graduate program capacity, and the University’s plans regarding the future development graduate studies. From the perspective of the department, this recommendation is currently undesirable and unfeasible. Comments March 2015: This recommendation is complete in that the Department has explored this and decided that that capacity has been reached. Geography faculty members are associated with a number of other programs including the MA in Social Justice and Equity Studies, the Masters of Sustainability and Society, the Interdisciplinary MA in Popular Culture and the Joint (Brock/U Buffalo) MA in Canadian-American Studies.


12

Recommendation #16 In cooperation with other graduate programs in critical studies and the Dean of Graduate Studies, the Department should develop a marketing strategy (at Grad Studies level) to cross-promote these three programs. Implementation Plan (Second Priority) Responsible for approving: Department, Deans of Social Sciences and Graduate

Studies Responsible for resources: Department, Deans of Social Sciences and Graduate

Studies Responsible for implementation: Department, Deans of Social Sciences and Graduate

Studies Timeline: Dean of Social Sciences to report by end of academic year 2014/15 Actions On Target (T), On Hold (H), Delayed (D), Complete (C)

Resp

onsi

bilit

y

Year

One

Year

Tw

o

Year

Thr

ee

Action #1 Considering merits of the recommendation

Department Dean of FOSS and FGS

H C

Comments: This links to recommendation #15. Comment March 2015: This is complete in the sense that it is bound up with the answers and actions to Recommendations 14 and 15. Recommendation #17 Since it is recognized that not all members of the Department can be actively and/or regularly engaged in the MA Program in Geography, the Department should actively pursue co-operation with other Departments and research centres (e.g. Earth Sciences, Biological Sciences, Environmental Sustainability Research Centre) to create an MSc program which will provide an opportunity for physical geographers to recruit, teach and supervise graduate students and to compete for Tri-Council funding. Implementation Plan (Second Priority) Responsible for approving: Department of Geography Responsible for resources: Departments of Geography and Earth Sciences,

Environmental Sustainability Research Centre, Deans


13

of Social Science and Math and Science and Graduate Studies

Responsible for implementation: Departments of Geography and Earth Sciences, Environmental Sustainability Research Centre, Deans of Social Science and Math and Science and Graduate Studies

Timeline: Dean of Social Sciences to report by end of academic year 2014/15 Actions On Target (T), On Hold (H), Delayed (D), Complete (C)

Resp

onsi

bilit

y

Year

One

Year

Tw

o

Year

Thr

ee

Action #1 This is unfolding. [name withheld] is affiliated with ESRC, [name withheld] with BIOL. Action # 2 An MSc exploration committee was struck last Fall

DepartmentCentre Deans of FOSS and FGS Department

T T

C C

Comments: As a result of the SMA, the University has developed definitive plans regarding the future development of graduate programs for the next three years. Comments March 2015: Re Action #1,[name withheld] now affiliated with ESRC, [names withheld] are cross-appointed with Earth Sciences and [name withheld] is ESRC’s in-coming GPD. Re Action #2, Geography struck an MSc subcommittee in 2013 to explore the possibility of Geography offering its own MSc. The committee determined 1) the greatest obstacle to an MSc would be the availability of grad-level physical geography courses. Currently we have only two - quantitative methods and geomatics - and maybe two environmental. 2) An MSc program would need more courses and to offer them consistently for students to accumulate the required credits. 3) The enrollment in the MSc stream would likely be low and Physical Geography instruction would be unscheduled until the numbers improved. 4) An MSc would deplete the pool of physical geography instructors available to teach in the UG program, and increase the use of stipend instructors, which would undermine Geography’s attempt to offer its UG program with the its current complement of professors. Geography has met with ERSC to discuss the possibility of a joint MSc, but these discussions have produced nothing concrete. Recommendation #18


14

Given potential synergies with cognate programs, such as Social Justice (SJES) and Critical Sociology, or, given the research interests of some of its members, with Communication, Popular Culture & Film, the Geography Department should consider the development of a joint, or inter-(trans-) disciplinary PhD program. In pursuing these discussions, the Department must ensure that it obtains adequate additional resources and/or makes necessary trade-offs with current undergraduate or graduate commitments. Implementation Plan (Second Priority) Responsible for approving: Department Responsible for resources: Department Responsible for implementation: Department Timeline: Dean of Social Sciences to report by end of academic year 2014/15 Actions On Target (T), On Hold (H), Delayed (D), Complete (C)

Resp

onsi

bilit

y

Year

One

Year

Tw

o

Year

Thr

ee

Action #1 The Department discussed this.

Department H C

Comments: The Department considers this recommendation currently undesirable and unfeasible. Recommendation #19 The Department’s current evaluation of the number of courses that can be supported by existing faculty should also consider course offerings at the graduate level in order to address course availability for timely MA completion. Implementation Plan (First Priority) Responsible for approving: Department Responsible for resources: Department Responsible for implementation: Department Timeline: Dean of Social Sciences to report by end of academic year 2013/14


15


Resp

onsi

bilit

y

Year

One

Year

Tw

o

Year

Thr

ee

Action #1 Resolved through curriculum committee discussions

Department C

Comments: Recommendation #20 The Graduate Program Director should implement the measures proposed in the Self-Study document to reduce MA time to completion. Implementation Plan (First Priority) Responsible for approving: Department Responsible for resources: Department Responsible for implementation: Department Timeline: Dean of Social Sciences to report by end of academic year 2013/14 Actions On Target (T), On Hold (H), Delayed (D), Complete (C)

Resp

onsi

bilit

y

Year

One

Year

Tw

o

Year

Thr

ee

Action #1 GPD has implemented more stringent progress reporting

Department C

Comments: Recommendation #21 The Graduate Program Director should seek out best practices for reducing time to completion from cognate Departments and programs. Implementation Plan (First Priority) Responsible for approving: Department Responsible for resources: Department Responsible for implementation: Department Timeline: Dean of Social Sciences to report by end of academic year 2013/14


16


Resp

onsi

bilit

y

Year

One

Year

Tw

o

Year

Thr

ee

Action #1 GPD continuing a practice started in 2012

Department C

Comments: This recommendation did not make sense to the GPD, as the point was made to the reviewers that these practices have already been reviewed and are being implemented. Recommendation #22 22. The Graduate Program Director should report progress in reducing time-to-completion for MA students to the Department and to the Dean of Graduate Studies annually, and consider whether additional measures are needed if these times do not fall. Implementation Plan (First Priority) Responsible for approving: Department Responsible for resources: Department, Dean of Graduate Studies Responsible for implementation: Department, Dean of Graduate Studies Timeline: Dean of Social Sciences to report by end of academic year 2013/14 Actions On Target (T), On Hold (H), Delayed (D), Complete (C)

Resp

onsi

bilit

y

Year

One

Year

Tw

o

Year

Thr

ee

Action #1 GPD reports times to completion

Department Dean FGS

C

Comments: Information items such as this are shared with Grad Studies at the time of the various Program meetings with Grad Studies in January of each year. Recommendation #23 The proposed rationalization of courses and programs at the undergraduate level should allow for faculty not currently involved in MA teaching to participate in the development of cross- or trans-disciplinary MSc programs.


17

Implementation Plan (Second Priority) Responsible for approving: Department Responsible for resources: Department Responsible for implementation: Department Timeline: Dean of Social Sciences to report by end of academic year 2014/15 Actions On Target (T), On Hold (H), Delayed (D), Complete (C)

Resp

onsi

bilit

y

Year

One

Year

Tw

o

Year

Thr

ee

Action #1 Curriculum committee has built this into its new proposed model

Department T T

Comments March 2015: The proposed revised curriculum and degree offerings assume this. Recommendation #24 The Geography Department should participate in the development of one or two new transdisciplinary MSc programs in collaboration with Earth Sciences, Biology, and/or the Environmental Sustainability Research Centre. Implementation Plan (Second Priority) Responsible for approving: Department Responsible for resources: Department Responsible for implementation: Department Timeline: Dean of Social Sciences to report by end of academic year 2014/15 Actions On Target (T), On Hold (H), Delayed (D), Complete (C)

Resp

onsi

bilit

y

Year

One

Year

Tw

o

Year

Thr

ee

Action #1 An MSc exploration committee was struck last fall

Department T C

Comments: As a result of the SMA, the University has developed definitive plans regarding the future development of graduate program for the next three years.


18

Comments March 2015: As above, and faculty members are involved with other trans-disciplinary initiatives. Recommendation #25 The recommended leadership of the Dean of Mathematics and Science and the Dean of Social Sciences in bringing together the Departments of Earth Sciences and Geography for the purpose of ensuring cooperation on undergraduate courses should also address the creation of a joint MSc program. Implementation Plan (Second Priority) Responsible for approving: Department, Deans of Social Science and Math and

Science and Graduate Studies Responsible for resources: Department, Deans of Social Science and Math and

Science and Graduate Studies Responsible for implementation: Department, Deans of Social Science and Math and

Science and Graduate Studies Timeline: Dean of Social Sciences to report by end of academic year 2014/15 Actions On Target (T), On Hold (H), Delayed (D), Complete (C)

Resp

onsi

bilit

y

Year

One

Year

Tw

o

Year

Thr

ee

Action #1 Preliminary discussions on MSc cooperation have taken place and UG cooperation is under negotiation in June 2014

DepartmentDeans FOSS,MATH, FGS

T C

Comments: See comment to recommendation #10. As a result of the SMA, the University has developed definitive plans regarding the future development graduate program for the next three years. Comments March 2015: The meeting did take place in June 2014. See the immediate preceding comment (Rec #24). See, also, response to Recommendation #12. Recommendation #26 In order to allow faculty members in Geomatics and Physical Geography to contribute to Brock’s pursuit of transdisciplinary initiatives and comprehensive status, the senior administration should consider allocating an additional tenure stream appointment to the Department in specialty areas that support transdisciplinarity.


19

Implementation Plan Recommendation NOT accepted Comments: ARC considers this recommendation to be worthy of consideration but outside of the Committee’s jurisdiction. Recommendation #27 The Department should produce a 3-5 year Strategic Plan showing how it will match its capacity to support undergraduate and graduate programs with its available resources. The Strategic Plan should also address the need to support faculty research, the balance between departmental and disciplinary needs, and software support. This document would address many of the recommendations contained in this report. Implementation Plan (First Priority) Responsible for approving: Department Responsible for resources: Department Responsible for implementation: Department Timeline: Dean of Social Sciences to report by end of academic year 2013/14 Actions On Target (T), On Hold (H), Delayed (D), Complete (C)

Resp

onsi

bilit

y

Year

One

Year

Tw

o

Year

Thr

ee

Action #1 The department struck a strategic plan committee last fall

Department T T

Comments: Progress has been slowed by the uncertainty surrounding the Brock University Program Review. Comments March 2015: Geography’s newly revised curriculum responds to much of this recommendation, although not all. The department has struck a Strategic Planning Committee that will report on progress during the Geography Retreat in May. Recommendation #28 All Geography Faculty should be strongly encouraged to integrate library skills into curriculum planning, including application of GIS, and that this integration should be


20

systematically coordinated throughout the curriculum – undergraduate programs, Years 1 to 4, and Graduate Program. Implementation Plan (First Priority) Responsible for approving: Department Responsible for resources: Department Responsible for implementation: Department Timeline: Dean of Social Sciences to report by end of academic year 2013/14 Actions On Target (T), On Hold (H), Delayed (D), Complete (C)

Resp

onsi

bilit

y

Year

One

Year

Tw

o

Year

Thr

ee

Action #1 Discussed in Department Retreat in 2013

Department C

Comments: The 1F90 and 1F91 introductory courses are acquiring GIS components. Where it makes sense to integrate GIS, instructors have considered and implemented the suggestion, even if it is to criticize and re-evaluate the wide use of GIS. The GIS concentration continues apace, while a GIS MA course is offered in rotation at the grad level. There is, however, no plan to make Geography’s curriculum structurally dependent on GIS. A library skills component, however, broadly or narrowly interpreted, is no being built into syllabi, if not there already. Recommendation #29 The ITS, the Map Library and the Department should assess the need for additional software support for GIS and RS and, if appropriate, redefine a current job description or develop a new*gap*position within the Department, ITS or Map Library to serve this need. Implementation Plan Recommendation NOT accepted Comments: ARC considers this recommendation to be worthy of consideration but to be not accepted as it lies outside of the Committee’s jurisdiction. Recommendation #30 The Department should address space issues in its Strategic Plan. Implementation Plan (First Priority) Responsible for approving: Department Responsible for resources: Department


21

Responsible for implementation: Department Timeline: Dean of Social Sciences to report by end of academic year 2013/14 Actions On Target (T), On Hold (H), Delayed (D), Complete (C)

Resp

onsi

bilit

y

Year

One

Year

Tw

o

Year

Thr

ee

Action #1 Department has made its space needs known to the newly formed FOSS advisory space committee

Department C

Comments: A Faculty-wide Committee on space has been established to advise the Dean on space needs. Geography is represented on this committee. CONFIDENTIAL Recommendations: Recommendation #31 Confidential Recommendation As per the IQAP Section II J. 6. f) regarding confidential recommendations “relating to personnel issues or other matters involving specific individuals” found in the Reviewers’ Report, these recommendations “will only be released to the Dean(s), the academic unit and ARC.” Recommendation #32 Confidential Recommendation As per the IQAP Section II J. 6. f) regarding confidential recommendations “relating to personnel issues or other matters involving specific individuals” found in the Reviewers’ Report, these recommendations “will only be released to the Dean(s), the academic unit and ARC.” Recommendation #33 Confidential Recommendation


22

As per the IQAP Section II J. 6. f) regarding confidential recommendations “relating to personnel issues or other matters involving specific individuals” found in the Reviewers’ Report, these recommendations “will only be released to the Dean(s), the academic unit and ARC.”

Documents

Geography - Brock University...Geography Undergraduate and Graduate Review Year 2 (2015) - FAR Implementation Report (reviewed 2012/13 ) Note: The final three recommendations (#31,32,33)