I. Objectives

A system of academic program review improves programs and demonstrates accountability to the public and to current and prospective students. Within the university's commitment to the principle of academic freedom, reviews should be open, objective, critical, and constructive. Each review is designed:

• to review and evaluate the coherence of relevant degree-, program-, and course-level expectations, in addition to consistency of the program's standards, educational goals and learning objectives with the general objectives of the institution’s mission and academic goals
• to evaluate whether the program has been designed, structured and delivered so that graduates may demonstrate achievement, in ways appropriate to the values and ambitions of the institution and the Ontario Council of Academic Vice Presidents (OCAV) Guidelines for University Undergraduate Degree level Expectations (See Appendix 4)
• to evaluate the appropriateness of the curricular and pedagogical policies and practices of the program for its learning objectives, and when necessary to suggest improvements
• to evaluate the appropriateness of the admission requirements for the learning objectives of the program
• to evaluate the appropriateness of the modes of delivery (including where applicable, distance or on-line delivery) to meet the program's learning objectives
• to evaluate the appropriateness of the methods used for the evaluation of student progress
• to evaluate whether there is a sufficient number of faculty, including full-time appointments, with evidence of their quality and academic expertise in the area of the program
• to evaluate the administrative policies and practices of the unit administering the program, and the appropriateness of the utilization of existing human/physical/financial resources and when necessary to suggest improvements for effectiveness and efficiency
• to suggest solutions to existing or anticipated problems.

II. Procedures

The administration of undergraduate program reviews will be the responsibility of the vice-president: academic.

Optimally, each program will be reviewed every seven years, although a review may be administered sooner if that is requested by the chair, co-ordinator, dean, or vice-president: academic. Programs must be reviewed at least every ten years. For units with graduate programs, the undergraduate program review is to be co-ordinated with the OCGS periodic appraisal. A schedule for program reviews will be established in consultation with the Senate Academic Planning Committee and approved by Senate. Any modifications of the schedule must be subject to approval by the Senate Academic Planning Committee. The Senate Academic Planning Committee may approve a review schedule that allows multiple programs to be included in one review exercise.

Three-year general programs are not attached to any specific departments, hence their reviews are not amenable to the process set out below. Instead, the Registrar will produce a series of appropriate tables to monitor general degree programs, and the Vice-President: Academic will write a short analysis. This material will be discussed in those Faculties offering three-year general degrees and then brought to Senate Academic Planning and then to Senate in November, for information, along with other program reviews and departmental responses. The Vice-president: Academic shall work with the Faculties to implement any recommendations that arise from the Faculties or from Senate as to the operation of the three-year general degree programs.


By January 1 of each year, the vice-president: academic will notify the units whose programs will be reviewed in the following academic year. See appendix 1 for the schedule by which the phases of the review must be carried out.

Stage One A: Identification of the Review Committee

By October 1, the academic unit responsible for the program to be reviewed will submit to the vice-president: academic the names of those they wish to nominate as consultants, as specified here:

1. a list of at least four tenured associate or full professors at Laurier from outside the academic unit who are recognized as excellent teachers and scholars, and who are known for their objectivity and judgment; and
2. a list of at least eight associate or full professors from other North American universities who are within the discipline. Four of these must be from universities outside Ontario. These nominees also must be recognized as excellent teachers and scholars, and at least two of them must have academic administrative experience. These nominees must not have any past or current formal affiliation with the unit or with members of the unit (e.g., PhD supervisor, co-author). The nominees may be grouped into categories reflecting different areas within the discipline, with the request that at least one member from each category be selected.
3. if appropriate for the program being reviewed and with the prior approval of the vice-president: academic, a list of at least four representatives of industry, the professions, and practical training programs

The lists of nominees must be accompanied by a one-page résumé for each nominee. The unit is not to approach the nominees. See Appendix 2 for the form for résumés for those nominated.

From the lists of nominees submitted by the unit, the vice-president: academic, in consultation with the dean, will select one internal consultant from outside the academic unit and two external consultants, one of whom must be from outside Ontario, who will constitute the review committee. If the vice-president: academic is not satisfied with the appropriateness of the nominees or if those whose names are submitted are unable to serve, s/he will request additional names from the academic unit. Before issuing any invitations, the vice-president: academic shall submit the list of consultants to the Senate Academic Planning Committee for comment and approval.

If the Senate Academic Planning Committee has agreed to group multiple programs in a single review exercise, then the Review Committee will consist of one internal consultant from outside the relevant academic units, and one external consultant for each program. (For example, three external and one internal consultants would constitute a committee simultaneously reviewing three programs.) In such cases, the number of nominees for the external consultant position for each program may be reduced to four. No more than three programs may be grouped in a single review exercise and therefore the maximum number of consultants for any review exercise will be limited to four.

Wilfrid Laurier University is committed to equity and values diversity. Attention to diversity within the list of nominees, is therefore encouraged.

Stage One B: The Self-Study Report

The self-study report provides an opportunity for the unit to engage in serious self-reflection and analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of all aspects of the program it is offering and its delivery. As such, the report is intended to be contemplative and creative, not defensive or evasive. The opportunity should be grasped for a probing examination of the academic character of the unit, to explore imaginative alternatives to the program offered by the unit, and to the ways in which the program is delivered.

The unit preparing the self-study report must provide an opportunity for all faculty in the unit to participate in the self-appraisal process and to comment on the self-study document. Student involvement in the self-appraisal process should also be ensured.

In the event that the program is offered in conjunction with another institution, the unit preparing the self-study should consider how well the arrangement is serving the interests of the students in the program.

By October 15 the unit will submit two copies of the report to the vice-president: academic and four copies of the self-study report to the unit's dean. The report should include an objective description of past achievements, a statement of the educational goals and learning objectives for the program, a critical evaluation of present strengths and weaknesses, and a description of aspirations and plans for the future. Of particular importance is that those preparing the report utilize the information collected as the basis for reflection and analysis. The report can also include questions and concerns that the unit would like the review committee to address.

The following sections suggest the information to be presented in the four volumes of the self-study report. Information is requested for the past seven years. Where practical, “year” will refer to the September-August academic year of the university. Refer to the document "Guidelines for Undergraduate Program Reviews," available from the Office of the Vice-President, Academic, for further direction regarding, and interpretation of, this policy.

Volume I

A. Academic Programs

1. a brief history of the major academic achievements and milestones of the unit
2. the educational goals and learning objectives and mission of the unit, and recent or anticipated changes in these
3. the consistency of the university’s relevant undergraduate degree-, program-, and course-level expectations, in addition to the coherence or alignment of the program with the general objectives of the institution’s mission and academic plans, and with the standards, educational goals and learning objectives of the degree
4. the appropriateness of the program’s design, structure and delivery so that graduates may demonstrate achievement, in ways appropriate to the values and ambitions of the institution, and of the Ontario Council of Academic Vice Presidents (OCAV) Guidelines for University Undergraduate Degree Level Expectations
5. the appropriateness of the program's structure and curriculum to meet its learning objectives and specifically, whether all courses listed in the Calendar are necessary to meet curricular objectives, and whether any new courses are needed to reflect recent development in the discipline/profession
6. the reports of recent accreditation or professional reviews, if appropriate (If accreditation or professional reviews are being used in the preparation of the self study report and there are gaps between accreditation documentation and the requirements of this policy, then the requirements of this policy will take precedence.)
7. recent (past seven years) or anticipated (next seven years) curriculum changes that have been made, or will be made, to meet learning objectives along with strategies and a proposed schedule for implementing any future changes
8. the requirements for an honours thesis, and the number of students who have completed a thesis in each of the past seven years
9. the number of courses with tutorials or labs, by course level
10. innovative or unique teaching or learning programs or techniques
11. the amount of service teaching for other academic units and any advantages/disadvantages of this activity
12. evidence of the quality of teaching for the program
13. evidence of the quality of advising for the program
14. the curricular relation between undergraduate and graduate programs (if applicable)
15. evidence that the modes of delivery (including, where applicable, distance or on-line delivery) are appropriate in meeting the program’s learning objectives
16. the methods used for evaluation of student progress and, where possible, considerations of the effectiveness of the methods used
17. a strategic plan for future directions and aspirations for the program, including barriers to reaching these objectives
18. the quality and quantity of scholarly and creative activity within the unit, including involvement by undergraduate students where applicable
19. a summary of the unit’s reflection on and assessment of the above

B. Student Quality

1. the average OAC average of students entering from secondary school, and any other measure of preparation for the program
2. the appropriateness of the admission requirements, e.g., achievement and preparation, for the learning objectives of the institution and the program
3. the GPA required for continuing in the program
4. the percentage of each second-year class that graduated from the program within four more years
5. the percentage of graduating students who have completed the program within the normal number of years (e.g., four years for an honours program)
6. the level of achievement of students, as related to the educational goals for the program and the degree and institutional standards
7. the achievement of the program’s learning objectives as evidenced by indicators developed by the unit
8. employment options and career successes of honours graduates and an estimate of the numbers applying to graduate school and the rate of their success
9. a summary of the unit’s reflection on and assessment of the above

C. Enrolment

1. the average class size, by level of course (years 1 to 4), over the past seven years
2. the average number of honours and general students taught per year, by course level, over the past seven years - i.e., how many students were enrolled in each year of honours and general programs, and in diploma programs
3. any changes in unit enrolment patterns in the past seven years
4. the number of students graduating from the program each year
5. at the graduating level, the number of students in a research specialization stream/other stream, or the number writing a major research paper/course work only, as appropriate to the department
6. a summary of the unit’s reflection on and assessment of the above

D. Administration

1. the number of support staff, and their roles/responsibilities
2. a description of the administrative and decision-making structure/process within the unit (e.g., titles of all standing or ad hoc committees, how members are appointed/elected, the frequency of meetings) and an assessment of the effectiveness of the current structure and process
3. the degree of consensus within the unit about academic objectives and the administrative decision-making process
4. a summary of the unit’s reflection on and assessment of the above

E. Resources

1. the utilization of the existing human and financial resources and an assessment of their adequacy, appropriateness and effectiveness
2. the availability and use of physical resources for teaching and research, and an assessment of their adequacy, appropriateness and effectiveness
3. a copy of the Library Collection policy relevant to the program, a report from the Library on the relevant information resources to which the Library offers access, and an assessment of the adequacy of these

F. General Appraisal

1. the type and amount of professional service provided to the profession, discipline, or community
2. how and to what extent the unit contributes to, and fulfills, the mission, objectives and academic plans of the university
3. a summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the program
4. a summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the unit with respect to research and other scholarly activities and the extent of student involvement in these activities
5. the quality of service to students
6. any concerns or problems that the unit and university should address to enhance the quality or viability of the program
7. recommendations for action to improve the quality of the program or its administration
8. a summary of the unit’s reflection on and assessment of the above

G. Questions

1. Any advice or assistance sought from the review committee

Volume II
This volume includes the most recent course outline (including, where defined, learning objectives, topics, assigned texts and readings, and the evaluation procedures) for each course listed in the Undergraduate Calendar. To each course outline should be added the instructor' s name, the last term in which the course was taught, and the enrolment.

Volume III
This volume includes a current CV for each full-time faculty member teaching in the program, and for part-time faculty who have taught for at least two of the previous three years, using the CV format in appendix 3 whenever possible.

Volume IV
This volume includes letters from at least eight graduates of the program being appraised. With the first three volumes of the self-study report the unit should submit to the dean (or vice-president: academic, in the case of music) a list of names of alumni from whom these letters should be solicited, as follows:

Names of twenty-five graduates of the previous seven years, not including the current year: four from each of the first four years and three from each of the last three years of the relevant period, where possible.

The dean (or vice-president: academic, in the case of music) should request letters from the names on the list. Those from whom letters are requested should be told that their letters are being solicited to assist in the appraisal process, and that the letters will be confidential to the dean (or vice-president: academic, in the case of music) and that the copies of the letters given to the members of the review committee and those preparing the self-study will not contain their names.

The letters should include the respondent's name, program, year of graduation, and current occupation and respond to the following questions:

1. What were the most valuable aspects of your program?
2. What were the least valuable aspects of your program?
3. What would you suggest be done to improve your program?
4. Did you receive adequate academic advising?
5. Do you have other comments on your program at Laurier that would be helpful in the appraisal of the department (or faculty) and in developing its plans for the future?
6. Overall, in what respects did your time at Laurier give you a good education? Was anything important lacking?

Stage Two: The Review Committee

The members of the committee will review the self-study report and may request additional information. The committee will spend one to two days visiting the academic unit. During the on-campus visit, the committee will meet first, in camera, to choose its chair from among the external consultants, and to discuss procedures, concerns, questions, and additional information that may be needed. The committee must meet with the vice-president: academic; faculty, staff, and undergraduate and graduate students within the unit; the dean of the unit; the chair or co-ordinator of the unit; the director of university research; the university librarian; the chairs/directors of any cognate units (for interdepartmental programs); and any other members of the university community who can provide needed information (e.g., the executive director of Information Technology Services, the director of co-op and internship programs). An open session should be scheduled during which faculty, staff or students from the unit could drop in to talk to the appraisers. Before leaving campus, the committee will meet with the vice-president: academic for a debriefing session to provide preliminary feedback on their findings and an evaluation of the process. Also, before concluding the visit, the committee will meet to assist its chair in drafting their report. The chair will be responsible for submitting the report within six weeks following the site visit. Any member of the review committee may submit a minority report to the vice-president: academic.

In the written report, the review committee should comment on:

1. the consistency of the program with the general objectives of the institution's mission and academic plans and with the standards, educational goals and learning objectives of the degree
2. the appropriateness of the program’s design, structure and delivery so that graduates may demonstrate achievement, in ways appropriate to the values and ambitions of the institution, and of the Ontario Council of Academic Vice Presidents (OCAV) Guidelines for University Undergraduate Degree Level Expectations
3. the appropriateness of the admission requirements, e.g. achievement and preparation, for the learning objectives of the institution and the program
4. the appropriateness of the program's structure and curriculum to meet its learning objectives specifically, whether all courses listed in the Calendar are necessary to meet curricular objectives, and whether any new courses are needed to reflect recent development in the discipline/profession
5. the appropriateness and effectiveness of the modes of delivery (including, where applicable, distance or on-line delivery) to meet the program’s learning objectives
6. the appropriateness of the methods used for the evaluation of student progress and where possible, consideration of the effectiveness of the methods used
7. the level of achievement of students, consistent with the educational goals and learning objectives for the program and the degree, and institutional standards
8. the appropriateness, adequacy and effectiveness of utilization of human, physical, and financial resources to offer the program
9. the quality and quantity of scholarly and creative activity within the unit, including involvement by undergraduate students where applicable
10. the quality of service to students
11. the impact of service teaching on the unit
12. the degree of consensus within the unit about academic objectives and the administrative decision-making process
13. the strengths and weaknesses of the program
14. any concerns or problems that the unit and university should address to enhance the quality or viability of the program
15. recommendations for action to improve the quality of the program or its administration

The Review Committee will provide a summary of the Review Committee recommendations in its written report which will be made public.

Stage Three: Response of the Unit to the Report of the Review Committee

Upon receipt of the report of the review committee, the vice-president: academic will distribute copies of it to the dean and chairperson/co-ordinator of the academic unit. Within one month of receiving the report, the unit must submit a written response to the vice-president: academic. The response will include:

1. clarifications or corrections of statements in the report
2. whether and why the unit agrees or disagrees with the content of the report and each of the recommendations
3. for each recommendation with which the unit agrees, when and how it will be implemented, or why it cannot be implemented
4. a summary of the response of the unit to the Report of the Review Committee which will be made public.

Stage Four: University Response to the Report of the Review Committee and the Unit's Response

Upon receipt of the unit's response, the vice-president: academic, in consultation with the dean and the chair/co-ordinator of the unit, will prepare a report (excluding all personal information) for the Senate Academic Planning Committee summarizing the strengths, weaknesses, and proposals for change identified in the report of the review committee and the unit's response, and the action to be taken on the recommendations arising from the review. The university response may also comment or make recommendations with respect to issues identified in the self-study report that were not addressed in the report of the review committee. The University Response to the Report of the Review Committee and the Unit’s Response will be made public.

Stage Five: The Report of the Senate Academic Planning Committee to Senate and the Board of Governors

Annually, in October, the Senate Academic Planning Committee will report to Senate on the major findings of all reviews completed in the preceding twelve months, and on actions that have been taken, or that will be taken as a result of the reviews, along with any generic recommendations arising from the completed reviews to improve the review process and the quality of academic programs at Laurier. This report will be presented also to the Board of Governors. The deans of the undergraduate faculties and the vice-president: academic will be responsible for monitoring the progress of recommended actions that are reported to Senate and the Board of Governors.

III. Appendices

Appendix 1: Schedule by Which Each Phase of the Review Must Be Completed

Stage One The vice-president: academic notifies the academic unit of forthcoming review and due dates.	January 1
The academic unit submits the names of the proposed internal and external consultants to the vice-president: academic.	October 1
The academic unit submits volumes one, two and three of the self-study report to the vice-president: academic.	October 15
The Senate Academic Planning Committee selects the internal and external consultants, who are invited to serve by the vice-president: academic.	October 30
Stage Two The review committee visits and the chair submits a written report to the vice-president: academic within six weeks following the site visit.	November 1 - March 30
Stage Three The academic unit submits a response to the report to the vice-president: academic.	Within one month following receipt of the review committee report
Stage Four The vice-president: academic, in consultation with the dean and the chair/co-ordinator of the unit prepares and submits a university response for the Senate Academic Planning Committee.	Within one month following receipt of the response of the unit
Stage Five The Senate Academic Planning Committee submits an annual report to Senate on the process, on the reviews completed in the previous cycle (September - August), and on any recommendations to be considered in future planning and budgeting.	October or November Meeting of Senate

Appendix 2. Resume for Proposed Consultants

NOTE: The unit is requested not to approach consultants. The following information is to be supplied from personal knowledge or biographical sources.

PROGRAMME:

1. NAME OF PROPOSED CONSULTANT:
2. RANK:
3. INSTITUTION (including mailing address):
4. DEGREES UNIVERSITY DISCIPLINE DATE
5. AREA(S) OF SPECIALIZATION: (this should be related to those offered by the unit being reviewed)
6. Experience/expertise relevant to serving as a consultant (e.g., membership on editorial boards, administrative experience, academic recognition).
7. Recent scholarly activity (cite three to five recent publications giving title, date, publication, and publisher, if a book).
8. Previous affiliation with Laurier, if any (e.g., visiting professor - give dates, internal consultant, former employee, any supervisor/student relationships with faculty members).

Appendix 3. Standardized CV Format

NOTE: To be presented, in alphabetical order, ideally in the same (OCGS) format for all faculty listed. Each CV should include, where relevant, the following information, preferably organized in the following order:

1. NAME: with rank, status (tenured, contract, etc.)
2. DEGREES: designation, institution, department, year
3. EMPLOYMENT HISTORY: dates, rank/position, department, institution/firm
4. HONOURS: such as FRS., Governor General's Award, honorary degrees, etc.
5. SCHOLARLY and PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES: past seven years only (e.g. executive and editorial positions but not memberships)
6. GRADUATE SUPERVISIONS: career number - master's/doctoral; completed/in progress
7. UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE COURSES TAUGHT: past seven years, by year
8. RESEARCH FUNDING: past seven years only, by year, indicating source (major granting councils, industry, government, foundations, other); amount; purpose (research, travel, publication, etc.
9. PUBLICATIONS:
   • Life-time summary (count) according to the following categories:
     • books
     • chapters in books
     • papers in refereed journals
     • papers in refereed conference proceedings
     • technical reports
     • abstracts/posters and/or papers read at scholarly meetings
     • others (e.g. workshops presented)
   • Details for past seven years (same categories as above)

NOTE: for some faculty (e.g. in the "performing arts") it may be more appropriate to list exhibitions/performances by year (for the past seven years), indicating the nature of the exhibition/performance (e.g. juried; local/national/international; public/competition; prizes awarded; and so forth).

Appendix 4. Ontario Council of Academic Vice-Presidents (OCAV) Guidelines for University Undergraduate Degree Level Expectations

Ontario Council of Academic Vice Presidents (OCAV)

Guidelines for University Undergraduate Degree Level Expectations

Introduction

The globalization of higher education has led to the need to be able to compare and contrast the variety of qualifications granted by academic institutions for credit transfer, graduate study preparation and professional qualification. Similarly, jurisdictions with decentralized systems are looking for ways to measure academic equivalencies. In addition, in order to be able to evaluate and monitor the effectiveness of all aspects of instruction, institutions, accrediting authorities and funding bodies have begun to clarify the outcomes expected of graduates. In response to a national initiative to state degree expectations, the Executive heads of Ontario’s publicly assisted universities asked OCAV to prepare a framework, to reflect expectations of performance by the graduates of the Baccalaureate/Bachelors programs of Ontario’s publicly assisted universities. The document, “Guidelines for University Undergraduate Degree level Expectations,” developed by the Ontario Council of Academic Vice-Presidents was subsequently endorsed by the council of Ontario Universities on December 16, 2005.

The degree level expectations in OCAV’s “Guidelines” elaborate the intellectual and creative development of students and the acquisition of relevant skills that have been widely, yet implicitly, understood. Here they are explicitly stated. Ontario’s universities have agreed to use OCAV’s “Guidelines” as a threshold framework for the expression of their own degree level expectations, which will be consistent with this document -- or may indeed go beyond it. In articulating its statement of degree level expectations, each institution is free to use language that reflects its own mission, ethos, values and culture.

Ontario Council of Academic Vice Presidents (OCAV)

Guidelines for University Undergraduate Degree Level Expectations

		Baccalaureate/Bachelor’s Degree	Baccalaureate/Bachelor’s Degree: Honours
		This degree is awarded to students who have demonstrated:	This degree is awarded to students who have demonstrated:
	1. Depth and Breadth of Knowledge	a) a general knowledge and understanding of many key concepts, methodologies, theoretical approaches and assumptions in a discipline	a) a developed knowledge and critical understanding of the key concepts, methodologies, current advances, theoretical approaches and assumptions in a discipline overall, as well as in a specialized area of a discipline
		b) a broad understanding of some of the major fields in a discipline, including, where appropriate, from an interdisciplinary perspective, and how the fields may intersect with fields in related disciplines	b) a developed understanding of many of the major fields in a discipline, including, where appropriate, from an interdisciplinary perspective, and how the fields may intersect with fields in related disciplines
		c) an ability to gather, review, evaluate and interpret information relevant to one or more of the major fields in a discipline	c) a developed ability to: i) gather, review, evaluate and interpret information; and ii) compare the merits of alternate hypotheses or creative options, relevant to one or more of the major fields in a discipline
		d) some detailed knowledge in an area of the discipline	d) a developed, detailed knowledge of and experience in research in an area of the discipline
		e) critical thinking and analytical skills inside and outside the discipline	e) developed critical thinking and analytical skills inside and outside the discipline
		f) the ability to apply learning from one or more areas outside the discipline	f) the ability to apply learning from one or more areas outside the discipline
	2. Knowledge of Methodologies	… an understanding of methods of enquiry or creative activity, or both, in their primary area of study that enables the student to:	… an understanding of methods of enquiry or creative activity, or both, in their primary area of study that enables the student to:
		evaluate the appropriateness of different approaches to solving problems using well established ideas and techniques; and	evaluate the appropriateness of different approaches to solving problems using well established ideas and techniques;
		devise and sustain arguments or solve problems using these methods.	devise and sustain arguments or solve problems using these methods; and describe and comment upon particular aspects of current research or equivalent advanced scholarship.
	3. Application of Knowledge	a) the ability to review, present, and interpret quantitative and qualitative information to:	a) the ability to review, present and critically evaluate qualitative and quantitative information to:
		i) develop lines of argument;	i) develop lines of argument;
		ii) make sound judgements in accordance with the major theories, concepts and methods of the subject(s) of study; and	ii) make sound judgements in accordance with the major theories, concepts and methods of the subject(s) of study;
			iii) apply underlying concepts, principles, and techniques of analysis, both within and outside the discipline;
			iv) where appropriate use this knowledge in the creative process; and
		b) the ability to use a basic range of established techniques to:	b) the ability to use a range of established techniques to:
		i) analyse information;	i) initiate and undertake critical evaluation of arguments, assumptions, abstract concepts and information;
		ii) evaluate the appropriateness of different approaches to solving problems related to their area(s) of study;	ii) propose solutions;
		iii) propose solutions; and	iii) frame appropriate questions for the purpose of solving a problem;
			iv) solve a problem or create a new work; and
		c) the ability to make use of scholarly reviews and primary sources.	c) the ability to make critical use of scholarly reviews and primary sources.
	4. Communication Skills	... the ability to communicate accurately and reliably, orally and in writing to a range of audiences.	...the ability to communicate information, arguments, and analyses accurately and reliably, orally and in writing to a range of audiences.
	5. Awareness of Limits of Knowledge	...an understanding of the limits to their own knowledge and how this might influence their analyses and interpretations.	...an understanding of the limits to their own knowledge and ability, and an appreciation of the uncertainty, ambiguity and limits to knowledge and how this might influence analyses and interpretations.
	6. Autonomy and Professional Capacity	a) qualities and transferable skills necessary for further study, employment, community involvement and other activities requiring:	a) qualities and transferable skills necessary for further study, employment, community involvement and other activities requiring:
		the exercise of personal responsibility and decision-making;	the exercise of initiative, personal responsibility and accountability in both personal and group contexts;
		working effectively with others;	working effectively with others;
			decision-making in complex contexts;
		b) the ability to identify and address their own learning needs in changing circumstances and to select an appropriate program of further study; and,	b) the ability to manage their own learning in changing circumstances, both within and outside the discipline and to select an appropriate program of further study; and
		c) behaviour consistent with academic integrity and social responsibility.	c) behaviour consistent with academic integrity and social responsibility.