SFU

S.12-7

OFFICE OF Tin-: VICK-PRKSIDKNT, ACADHMIC AND PROVOS'I

University Drive, Burnaby, BC

TEL: 778.782.3925

vpacad@sfu.ca

Canada V5A1S6

FAX: 778.782.5876

www.sfu.ca/vpacademic

MEMORANDUM

ATTENTION

Senate

DATE

December 14,2011

FROM

Bill Krane, Acting Vice-President, Academic

PAGES 1/1

and Provost, and Acting Chair, SCUP

"E:

Faculty of Science: External Review Report of the Department of Biomedical Physiolog)' and

Kinesiology (SCUP 11-52)

At its November 23, 2011 meeting SCUP reviewed and approved the Action Plan for the Department of

Biomedical Physiology and Kinesiology that resulted from its External Review.

Motion:

That Senate approve the Action Plan for the Department of Biomedical Physiology and Kinesiology that

resulted from its External Review.

Encl.

c: G. Tibbits

C. Cupples

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

thinking of the world

SCUP 11-52

SFU

OFFICE OF THE ASSOCIATE VICE-PRESIDENT, ACADEMIC AND ASSOCIATE PROVOST

8888 University Drive, Burnaby,BC

TEL: 778.782.4636

avpcio@sfu.ca

Canada V5A 1S6

FAX: 778.782.5876

www.sru.ca/vpacademic

MEMORANDUM

ATTENTION

Jon Driver, Chair, SCUP

DATE

November 10, 2011

FROM

Bill Krane, Associate Vice-President, Academic

PAGES

1/1

and Associate Provost

RE:

External Review of the Department of Biomedical Physiology and Kinesiology

/*'

£./£

Attached are the External Review Report on the External Review ofthe Department of Biomedical

Physiology and Kinesiology and the Action Plan endorsed by the Department and the Dean.

Motion:

That SCUP approve and recommend to Senate the Action Plan for the Department

of Biomedical Physiology and Kinesiology that resulted from its External Review.

Following the site visit, the Report of the External Review Team* for the Department of Biomedical

Physiology and Kinesiology was submitted in April 2011.

After the Report was received, a meeting was held with the Dean, Faculty of Science, Department

Chair, and the Director of Academic Planning and Budgeting (VPA) to consider the

recommendations. The Department then prepared an Action Plan based on the Report and these

discussions. The Action plan was then submitted to the Dean and the Dean endorsed this Action

Plan.

The Reviewers stated that;

'itis notable that the general sense of the environment that was conveyed, integrating across all of

our interactions, is that BPK enjoys a harmonious, efficient, happy, and engaged atmosphere in

which academic and scholarly productivity is very high, and morale is very good.'

SCUP recommends to Senate that Department of Biomedical Physiology and Kinesiology be advised

to pursue the Action Plan.

Attachments:

1. External Review Report - April, 2011

2. Department of Biomedical Physiology and Kinesiology - Action Plan

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

THINKING OF THE WORLD

* External Review Team:

Dr. James Rush (Chair), University of Waterloo

Dr. Heather Durham, McGill University

Dr. Tessa Gordon, University of Alberta

Dr. Tony Williams (Internal), Simon Fraser University

Claire Cupples, Dean, Faculty of Science

Glen Tibbits, Chair, Department of Biomedical Physiology and Kinesiology

Department of Biomedical Physiology and Kinesiology

Simon Fraser University

External Review Committee Report

March 30-April 1,2011

Preamble/Overview

The site visit associated with external review of the Department of Biomedical

Physiology and Kinesiology (BPK) at Simon Fraser University (SFU) occurred over

the period March 30-April 1,2010. The external review team (Drs. Rush, Durham,

and Gordon) was joined for most of its meetings bythe internal reviewer, Dr. Tony

Williams of SFU. The review team was given the opportunity to meet individually

and in groups with senior administrators, with all major sectors/stakeholders in the

Department (Faculty, staff, graduate students, undergraduate students) as well as

with individuals from service units that interact with the Department. In addition,

we were given extensive tours ofthe main Departmental physical plant on the

Burnaby campus, as well as the Department'sHarbour Centre and Surrey campus

facilities. Discussions were frank and open, and the reviewers are satisfied that we

were provided with high quality objective information as well as opinion necessary

to perform the taskwith which we were charged. In addition, it is notable that the

general sense of the environment that was conveyed, integrating across all ofour

interactions, is that BPK enjoys a harmonious, efficient, happy, and engaged

atmosphere in which academic and scholarly productivity is very high, and morale

is very good.

The external review team has authored this report. We firstly and especiallywould

like to thank Dr. Tony Williams who was an invaluable source of insight and

perspective with respect to the SFU and Faculty of Science culture and norms. His

wisdom, candor, and professionalism are all appreciated. He was an enormous asset

to the review team, as he is undoubtedlyan enormous asset to the Faculty of Science

and SFU in general.

Executive summary

For convenience, we have itemized a number of important issues thatwere

identified in the review under the categories of strengths, weaknesses,

opportunities and related challenges. These issues have been highlighted

because they involve or impact on multiple factors; they are expanded on in

the body of this report, along with other findings.

Strengths

1. Undergraduate program: strategies employed to optimize teaching demands

in light of resource limitations (teaching/research faculty balance, distance

education)

2. Quality and quantity ofresearch

3. Cohesivenessoftheunit

4. Enthusiastic and committed faculty at all ranks

5. Engagement at all three SFUcampuses;

6. Central

role of the Department in the ongoing strategic mission of SFU

7. Excellent alignment ofdepartmental and institutional priorities

Weaknesses

1. Number ofcourses taught by research faculty

2. Ability to attract a sufficient number of high quality and quantity of graduate

students

3. Relationship/bridge between undergraduate and graduate/research

programs

4. Limited level of exercise and nutrition expertise/research and teaching

activity among research faculty

5. Limited level of faculty complement compared to program offerings and

activities compared to other Science units

Opportunities

1. Implementing the exercise, nutrition and chronic disease initiative

2. Balancing the expertise in BPKfor delivery ofundergraduate and

graduate/research programs, including expansion into that new initiative

3. Taking leadership in SFU'sintegrative health initiative with respect

particularly to biomedical aspects of health research and program

development

Related challenges

1. Articulating BPK'sideas and abilities to and through the Faculty of Science to

have impact at other planning/decision levels of SFU

2. Obtaining support for BPKinitiatives in light of competition for limited

resources

3. Aligning of BPKideas/initiatives with those of the Faculty of Health Sciences in

achieving SFU's strategic initiatives in health sciences

Structure of the report

Three sets of guidelines were provided to the review committee regarding the

issues to be covered in the review:

1. The Senate guidelines for the review, asking for assurances under four categories

(A-D)

2. Alist of six identified issues by the University and/or the Department for the

review team to consider

3. Alist of five additional areas of the Department to be considered bythe review

team

No rigid guidelines were provided concerning the structure of our committee's

report. We have opted to structure our written report using the Senate guideline

categories (A-D) as the main organizational guideline. Using this format, most of the

issues raised in the other two lists are also covered under the various categories.

As articulated in the Senate guidelines, the purpose of the external review

process is to provide the University with assurances that:

A) The quality of the Unif s teaching programs is high and there are measures

in place to ensure their evaluation and revision

B) The quality of faculty research is high and faculty collaboration and

interaction provides a stimulating academic environment and to identify new

or emerging areas that should be pursued

C) The Department members participate in the administration of the unit and

take an active role in the dissemination of knowledge

D) The environment is conducive to the attainment of the objectives of the

Department

A) Addressing the Senate guideline related to assurance that

The quality of the

Units teaching programs is high and there are measures in place to ensure

their evaluation and revision

Course/Instructor evaluations and the feedback received from undergraduate and

graduate students suggest a generally high level of satisfaction with the courses and

programs that the Department offers. Responses for undergraduate and graduate

programs are provided under separate sections. We have highlighted the main

strengths, weaknesses and opportunities identified during the review, and have

made specific recommendations.

Undergraduate Program:

The design of the undergraduate program provides a number of choices for students

with a variety of interests: Kinesiology and Biomedical Physiology majors as well as

number of specializations. Information that we received indicated that there is an

appropriate and ongoing process of review of programs and courses to ensure

adequate attention to revision and ongoing evaluation ofthe undergraduate

program. The undergraduate program committee is well constituted with teaching

and research faculty, staff, and students. This committee is very enthusiastic,

engaged, and responsive to student concerns. There is a palpable sense ofconcern

for providing a very high quality of 'student experience'. The openness of the

undergraduate program committee and of the entire department to suggestion for

improvement at all levels suggests a very positive environment, appropriately

focused on providing the best quality experience to its students within the resource

constraints ofthe Department and Institution.

The fact that the Department provides opportunities for new faculty to develop

specialty undergraduate courses is a strong positive ofthe BPK undergraduate

program, as this provides one ofthe highest quality student-engagement

experiences, and is critical in making links for the undergraduate students between

theoretical material relevant to their program of study, and its application in 'real-

life'situations. These links are extremely important to BPKundergraduate students

with respect to career planning, research exposure, etc. The review team believes

that it is very important to preserve the capacityfor research faculty to teach this

type of course. This is one specific example of a vehicle through which the links

between the undergraduate program and the graduate program/research interests

of the faculty can be strengthened, and through which the scholarly development of

the undergraduate students can be enhanced to epitomize the symbiosis of the

teaching-centered and research-driven guiding principles of SFU.

Balance between resources available and teaching demands of the

undergraduate program

BPKexemplifies the general SFUethos to be teaching centered, research driven and

community engaged. One profound way that the BPKunit demonstrates this

commitment is via delivering programming at all ofthe campuses (Burnaby,

Harbour Centre, Surrey). At the undergraduate program level, this multi-centre

approach puts a large burden on the teaching resources of the Department, which

BPKhas accommodated by making a strategic decision to invest in a number of

permanent teaching faculty. The distance education system is another component

of the current mechanism of undergraduate program delivery that helps offset the

burden of the multi-centre delivery. Distance education provides flexibility to both

the students and to the Department'sfaculty and staffinvolved in offering courses.

Indeed, this is the

raison d'etre

of distance education programs. Student satisfaction

with BPKofferings is high, and many positive assessments ofthe role of distance

education were articulated by students and faculty. Within BPK, there is a good

level ofinvolvement in distance education, and the support framework for offering

courses through this system is well established.

Thus, the review team recommends that the BPKundergraduate program continue to

utilize the distance education system

at current or expanded levels in order to continue

to effectively and resource-efficiently deliver the undergraduate programs through

available resources.

Indeed, the current level of utilization ofdistance education

opportunities is probably one of the main reasons why BPKhas been able to

maintain its high level ofstudent service within the counterbalancing constraints of

its total undergraduate student enrollment compared to its current faculty

complement and resources.

Additional sources ofstress on the teaching resources of BPKoriginate from both

the number of teaching 'buyout'arrangements associated with major research

awards obtained by research faculty, and the assumption of senior University

administrative roles by two senior members of the research faculty (Parkhouse and

Ruben). These factors are, of course, extremely positive, reflecting both the

excellent research success ofthe BPK research faculty, and the willingness ofthe

research faculty to contribute to governance of the Faculty of Science and SFU.

However,

taking on these responsibilities creates a collateral situation of reduced

involvement ofthe research faculty in delivering the teaching undergraduate

programs. These factors should place BPKin a favourable position within the

Faculty of Science and SFU with respect to priority for hiring ofresearch faculty.

Otherwise, important elements of program delivery and student experience will be

compromised.

Opportunities to hire up to the regularfaculty complement and to

create additional positions in support ofBPK's contribution to SFU's initiatives in the

health sciences should be vigorously pursued at the Department and Faculty levels

With

respect to the latter point, many similar Departments/Universities employ a

model for bridging loss of teaching resources by creating additional faculty positions

using the resources provided by the source of the teaching buyout (i.e., CRCs and

other major salary awards). BPK would be a very appropriate target for allocation

of such bridging resources. It should be recognized

that the SFU institutional

reputation benefits greatly from the research success and profile of the BPK

research faculty and that in order to continue to provide quality teaching and

student experience at the same time as enjoying the benefits of exponential growth

in high quality research, an investment in research faculty positions should be made

by the University/Faculty. It also requires on the part of the research faculty a

continued commitment to excellence in research productivity and to enhancing the

trainingof students (and other high quality personnel HB.

Currently the ratio of teaching faculty to research faculty is higher in BPK than it is

in other units within the Faculty of Science. However, it is the understanding of the

review team that the ratios of research dollars-to-research faculty members, the

percentage of research faculty with substantial salary awards, and the teaching load

per faculty member are all higher within BPK than in other units in the Faculty of

Science. The Department, Faculty and University have obviously collectively

endorsed the model of pushing and rewarding research excellence in BPKas the

success of these individual researchers has been endorsed at all levels by consenting

to the teaching buyout arrangements that contributed to the opportunity to hire the

current complement of teaching faculty in order to help meet the teaching demands

on the Department'sacademic programs.

Teaching faculty

The teaching faculty conveyed that collectively they are very happy with their roles

in BPK. They have extensive involvement in the undergraduate program committee,

are treated equitably to research faculty with respect to full participation in the

Department, and are very much respected by other members of the Department.

They

were universally positive about the distribution of teaching assignments and

other tasks.

It is notable that the teaching faculty in BPK,unlike in other Science units, have

minimal technical support (i.e. the teaching faculty themselves do a lot of

equipment/apparatus set-up and maintenance). The teaching faculty indicated that

the positive aspect that it allows them to control quality and consistency of the

apparatus providing the students with the best possible experiences in the

laboratories.

Students appreciate the quality of the teaching by the teaching professors, as is

evident in the formal evaluations and in the comments provided by students during

our interviews. The model of utilising teaching faculty is sufficient to help meet the

teaching demands of the core and early components of the program, as well as some

ofthe upper year elective courses. With the unique demands ofthe SFU trimester

system, three campuses and teaching relieffor a number ofthe research faculty, it

would be impossible to deliver the BPKacademic programs without the number of

teaching faculty currently in the Department.

The model of balance between teaching and research faculty is not without some

drawbacks, however. Limited exposure to Research Faculty in the undergraduate

curriculum was articulated as a concern by undergraduate students. Research

faculty members on reduced teaching loads teach at least one course per year. In

many cases this is a senior undergraduate course or a split undergraduate/graduate

course. The quality of these offerings is regarded as high and well-aligned with both

faculty and student interests, as indicated by enrollments and course ratings.

However, undergraduate students, graduate students, and teaching and research

professors all expressed the opinion that more interaction of research faculty with

senior undergraduate students is desirable and important (1) to provide the highest

quality undergraduate student experience; (2) to expose students to the full

spectrum of departmental activities, research and career opportunities, and (3) to

aid in recruitment of the most talented students to the research laboratories,

thereby helping to address the perceived limitation in both the quantity and quality

of available students for graduate studies (see below-graduate studies section).

The review team recommends that a systematic attempt be made to address the issue

of exposure of undergraduate students to teaching and interaction with research

faculty, while also respecting the demands on research faculty and the various

arrangementsfor teaching relief

This might include modifying delivery to include

more split courses, team-taught courses, and seminars. For instance, if research

faculty

were to distribute their teaching hours over multiple courses, rather than in

one course, there would be increased exposure of research faculty to undergraduate

students without increasing the overall teaching workload drastically (although

some courses might notbe amenable to this style of delivery). Another strategy is to

offer topics/issues courses, whose content and faculty participation could be flexible

according to

interest of students and availability of faculty.

It is further suggested that

existing courses incorporate more information on

research, knowledge translation, and career opportunities

to give the students the

perspective to develop skills with an appreciation for the spectrum of career and

professional goals available to them. For instance, some similar programs at other

universities use a first year required course to give an overview of the program and

include introductions to a variety of applications and career paths related to the

program of study (these might require some customization to students in the

Kinesiology vs Biomedical Sciences Majors).

The upper year program requirements need to be optimally aligned with both the

educational goals of the program and the practical ability to deliver the program

with available teaching resources. It is recognized that one factor that can impact

the quality of delivery of courses at the senior undergraduate level is the class size

(the number of students that can be enrolled in any one section of a course).

However, a common complaint from undergraduate students was limited

availability and ease of enrolment in certain upper level courses, both the terms in

which the courses are offered and long wait lists for those that are. Recognizing that

a finite number of courses can be offered by a finite number of faculty, perhaps

other

underlyingfactors need to be seriously considered in order to find solutions to mitigate

these complaints and to improve the undergraduate student experience.

This could

involve changing the format etc. of the courses themselves in order to facilitate

increasing

the upper limit of enrollment, within the constraints of room size and

availability/scheduling conflicts, lecture vs laboratory course, and other

physical/financial resources required for effective course delivery. Perhaps

expanded distance education offerings may contribute to solving this problem.

The problems with delivery of the undergraduate program are in part symptomatic

of the larger issues being faced by BMK and their mitigation should be part of an

overall plan

(teaching/research faculty ratio, lack of undergraduate student contact

with research faculty, bridging the undergraduate to the graduate program, new

program implementation), in a manner respecting the totality of the SFUvision

regarding teaching, research and community engagement.

Comments on other specific aspects of the undergraduate program

Ergonomics

The ergonomics specialization is under-enrolled (12 students) as a

program of study

perse,

whereas a number of courses in ergonomics are offered

because these courses intersect with the core and elective components ofother

program paths within BPK. Notably, no current permanent faculty members

identify with the ergonomics area, and thus delivery of the necessary ergonomics

courses relies on a sessional instructor. Thus, the area of ergonomics presents a

dichotomyfor the Department in being a valued part of the overall program for

breadth, but without any real commitment to maintaining research expertise or

depth in this area.

The Review Team recommends that the Departmentmake a

strategic decision regarding the extent to which they wish to support the ergonomics

component of the undergraduate program as part of their overall medium-term

resource planning.

Elimination of the formal stream/specialization as it currently

exists (as a conduit toward preparing students to meet professional standards) was

articulated by BMKstaff during our visit and seems inevitable without a major

commitment of resources. Incorporation of a limited number of ergonomics courses

focused on occupational and rehabilitation into the active health and rehabilitation

area ofconcentration is a reasonable approach given the current availability of

resources and the waning level ofcommitment of the Department to the area of

ergonomics. The Department should systematically determine what direction it

wishes to take with respect to ergonomics and adjust resources accordingly. The

ultimate decision will have to be balanced against the ability to pursue other

initiatives that require resource investments, so there should be a clear plan ofhow

to balance current programming versus new and emerging areas of opportunity.

Nutrition

The review team is also under the impression that the offerings in the

area of nutrition and the Certificate in Applied Human Nutrition are mostly

dependent on sessional instructors and distance education offerings with little

leadership in this area by permanent research faculty. This has been brought to our

attention as being problematic when courses (such as 111, 212) come up for

revision and evaluation. It seems

critical that the Department utilize its hiring

priority to recruit research faculty in the area of nutrition who also fit the overall

mission of the Department and aspirations for development

The difference from

problems with the ergonomics stream is that a long term investment in nutrition

will not only support the excellence of the current program, but will be required for

offering the pending exercise nutrition and chronic diseases program.

The Co-op program

in BPKis strong with respect to the variety and quantity of

placements made available

and the interest level amongst BPKstudents in utilizing

co-op opportunities at some point during their undergraduate degree program.

This program provides opportunities for students to see other views of professional

development, gain experience in workplace, and help make career decisions.

Participation in co-op by BPKstudents is high compared to other science units and a

large fraction of BPK students gain at least some coop experience, even if they do

not complete the specialization in co-op. The co-op program exemplifies knowledge

translation in action. Thus, even for students who do not complete the required

number ofwork terms to receive the co-op degree designation, any co-op

experience gained contributes to development of practical knowledge translation

skills. Thus, the high participation rate in co-op in the BPK Department represents a

tangible way in which BPK undergraduate students are enjoying the benefits of a

value-added program compared to peers in other units at SFU and at other

universities. Notably, co-op opportunities for research exposure, honours thesis

and research projects reinforce contact with research professors.

The BPKco-op program director is enthusiastic, dynamic and proactive. Her office

is a major point of contact with the undergraduate student population. This turns

out to be a fortuitous arrangement because one of the undergraduate students'

complaints is that there is no designated student lounge or dedicated centralized

space for them to get information, announcements, etc. and to interact. The review

team has no specific recommendation regarding this issue, other than to bring it to

the attention ofthe Department as a source of frustration on the part of the

undergraduate students.

For these reasons, the review team believes that it is a distinct advantage that the

co-op officer has a presence right in the Department (not the central co-op office).

Not only is this a valuable venue for conveying information, but her interactions

with the students provide a 'home1 within the unit for students to bring their

questions and concerns.

IT-

Link between the undergraduate and graduate/research programs

A'disconnect' between the undergraduate program and the graduate program/

research faculty was articulated at several times and in several contexts during the

site visit. Oneway to help rectify this would be to hire more research faculty with

disciplinary expertise in exercise and nutrition (which are traditional areas of

emphasis in Kinesiology programs) to fill out the current program. Ideally, these

faculty members would also have cross-over interests in one of the traditional areas

of strength in the BPKDepartment (cardiovascular physiology,

neuromechanics/neuroscience, chronic disease), thereby increasing opportunities

for research collaboration, while adding breadth at the graduate and research levels

areas of interest that would clearly bridge with the instructional needs of the

undergraduate program.

Thereview team does not wish to be prescriptive about this

issue, but it seems to make imminent objective sense to proceed in this direction not

only to improve delivery of undergraduate and graduate programs and their

confluence, but also to provide a foundation from which the Department could

implement the exercise, nutrition, and chronic diseases program when the full

resourcing becomes available.

Graduate Program:

Information that we received indicated that there is an appropriate and ongoing

process of review ofprograms and courses to ensure adequate attention to revision

and evaluation ofthe graduate program. The graduate program committee is well

constituted with teaching and research faculty, staff, and students with broad

representation across interest areas. The graduate program committee and its chair

are enthusiastic and actively engaged in both the administrative and the planning

aspects of the graduate program. The committee has recently been active in

revising the format ofthe PhD comprehensive examination to reduce its complexity,

emphasizing milestones to meet degree requirements, and in revising course

requirements to bring these into line with other similar units. These issues had

previously been raised in feedback received from students and others as sources of

dissatisfaction and recruitment difficulties. Thus, the current graduate program

committee has taken some very positive steps to improve the graduate program.

The graduate program director is enthusiastic and has already initiated action on a

number of issues that need improvement.

The revision of graduate student support materials, websites, graduate handbook,

etc is recognized as an ongoing process.

Thereview committee encourages the

Department to arrange for the appropriate resources to be channeled to these efforts

and the graduate program committee to continue to evaluate and update these

resources on both a regular basis and when changes are implemented.

The website

needs to be attractive to prospective students, informative about policies,

procedures and activities, and to reflect the high quality of the programs and the

research. It is particularly important to have a detailed and up-to-date student

\3>

handbook to serve as a resource for both students and faculty supervisors regarding

policies, procedures and resource commitments, etc. related to graduate studies.

Compared to the many other indices of research and teaching quality and quantity

in which BPKexcels, there is an enigmatically low average level of graduate student

supervision or graduate student/research faculty ratio. It should be noted that

there is wide variability among the faculty with respect to this parameter, however,

and that there are very high quality graduate students in the program. Research

faculty interviewed suggest that there is collectively both a willingness and a desire

to take in more graduate students, but that there are problems recruiting additional

high quality individuals.

The remainder of the comments in this section on the

graduate program are meant to provide recommendations both for improving the

experience of current graduate students and their supervisors, and to improving

recruitment of graduate students to BPKin the future.

The review team became aware of some confusion/differing opinions regarding

funding guarantees, funds available and funding obligations among supervisors,

graduate students, and administrators.

It is imperative that a clear and consistent

departmental policy on studentfunding should be implemented and conveyedfrom the

chair and graduate program committee to supervisors and students.

Letters of offer to

applicants should be of a standard format and must be clear about guarantees of

funding from the Department and the supervisor. These should include the total

funding for the year and length of program (time limitations, full-time/part-time

status), when the funding will be provided in terms of anticipated study duration

and from what source(s), and what contingencies are in place for events that alter

funding availability/need (such as external scholarships obtained, and the

possibility that a supervisor fails to obtain grant funds on application for renewal).

The understanding of the review team is that other units in the Faculty of Science

provide such explicit funding information with their offer letters. These templates

should be consulted to construct a BPK version.

Thus, the review team recommends

that a standard offer letter, with a clearguarantee of funding including the above

listed information should be implemented.

The review team became aware that some faculty believe that the course load

demands for the MSc degree are a disincentive to supervisors to take on MSc

students; i.e., they are remunerating students to take either too many or too time-

consuming courses.

Thegraduate program committee should determine how

widespread this sentiment is, how requirements compare to other similar programs,

and how balance could be achieved on this issue.

Resolving this issue could remove

one of the perceived barriers to expanding graduate student enrollment.

Othersuggestions to improve recruitment and retention of graduate students include:

1. Diverting some Departmental funding designated for graduate student

support to recruitment-related scholarships in order to capture good

students that are deserving, but not yet in receipt of external award.

2. Allowing direct entry into the PhDprogram for highly qualified students with

high GPA and research experience.

3. Producing and including in the graduate handbook clear guidelines and

procedures for fast-tracking from MSc to PhD

4. Integrating the path to graduate studies with the undergraduate curriculum

by, for example: making strategic use of split courses

(undergraduate/graduate), optimizing contact of research faculty with

undergraduates, developing a combined BSc/MSc degree program, providing

incentives to faculty to utilize

the co-op system as a potential source of

undergraduate research assistants.

5. Organizing an event well before the autumn of every year to showcase

research and graduate studies as a career option, and to identify extramural

scholarship and award opportunities that have deadlines in autumn. This

could

be combined with an expanded career opportunities session in which it

could be made clear to students that graduate studies is not just for those

with an interest in careers in academia.

The review team was made aware that there has been a notable retention problem

with later stage PhD students in certain cohorts over the past several years (16

withdrawals in the period 2006-2010; 12 ofwhom were PhD students). It is

suggested that a

systematic way to track students through their program milestones

would be a positive step toward improving retention, and identifying students who are

not succeeding as early as possible.

Such a system would either provide assistance to

struggling

students sufficiently early to help them succeed, or to precipitate

withdrawal from the program at an earlystage. This is in the best interests of all

parties involved: student, supervisor, and Department.

A need for 'softskills'training of graduate students was articulated. Specifically, a

need was expressed for training/professional development opportunities for

graduate students related to writing, presentation skills, communicating science,

etc. that would be beneficial for those graduate students considering any of the

career paths open to them.

Investigation of whether these programs exist or could be

possible with central

graduate studies office support and/or support through the

library learning commons should be explored by the

graduate program committee.

12T

Coursework masters program

This program is unsustainable in its present form. The program is not regarded by

the review committee as a Departmental priority, especially considering other

pressing Departmental priorities that could impact the graduate program. It should

not be engaged in without a clear market analysis and business plan.

The review team encourages the Department and the graduate program committee to

consider not only the proposed undergraduate program in exercise, nutrition and

chronic disease, but to develop a complementary opportunity at the graduate studies

level.

The review team believes that this initiative has excellent possibilities for

expanding BPK'spresence in the health care sector and that there is a window of

opportunity given the expansion at the Surrey site. The current resources of BPK

are not sufficient to launch the undergraduate program.

Thus, a visionfor hiring

research faculty with relevant research interests would serve multiple purposes:

delivery ofthe proposed undergraduate program, extending opportunities to recruit

highly qualified graduate students, and maximizing the opportunities for interaction

with the Health Authority at the Surreycampus. It is recognized that there is an

existing 'chronicdisease stream1 in the graduate program and that could serve as

the immediate interface between this new undergraduate program and the graduate

program, but that the streams within the graduate program would evolve to

optimize program options and delivery.

Theaddition of research faculty with

exercise and nutrition disciplinary expertise and with cross-over expertise in existing

areas of departmental strength is quite possibly the critical strategic step for BPK to

take in order to:

1. Balance the scholarly expertise in BPKto enable the Department to better

offer its current program using permanent/continuing resources

2. Provide better linkages between the already existing undergraduate and

graduate/research programs in BPK

3. Facilitate

program expansion and provide the resources and expertise to

offer the proposed exercise, nutrition and chronic disease undergraduate

program and a complementary graduate level program

4. Increase awareness of how BPKis an integral and leading element in the

future of health-centered programmatic activities at SFU

Further energization of BPKas a Department, and of BPKteaching and research

faculty, and an enhanced appreciation oftheir value will all result from this

initiative.

13r

B) Addressing Senate guideline related to assurance that

The quality of faculty

research is high and faculty collaboration and interaction provides a

stimulating academic environment and to identify new or emerging areas that

should be pursued

The opinion ofthe review team is that the quality of the faculty research is very

high. There is excellent tangible evidence of very healthy grant funding and

publication records across most of the research faculty. This places the research

strength of the unit overall as extremely strong in and of itself. In addition,

compared to similar Departments at other North American universities, BPKsurely

ranks among the best on this metric. Compared to other units in the Facultyof

Science at SFU, BPKis extremely strong based on traditional metrics of scholarship

and research intensity.

Direct interactions with the faculty revealed their enthusiasm and excitement for

their work and for their collaborative efforts locally and abroad. There was a sense

ofengagement within the Department at the level of research. Importantly, there

were many examples of junior-senior faculty collaboration/mentorship

arrangements, and many examples of community-based research and

collaborations.

No concerns were heard related to any perceived limitations in the stimulatory

nature ofthe academic environment in BPK.

Since community-centered research and teaching initiatives are one way in which

BPK exemplifies the SFU mission,

the review committee suggests that perhaps a

common clinical infrastructure with Departmental support could facilitate best use

the Harbour centre and Surrey campuses for research subject evaluations.

For

example, Dr. Lear has successfully established a very functional and efficient

operation at the Harbour Centre campus. It would be ideal ifthis sort of approach

could be used as a model for the Faculty/Department to invest in the infrastructure

necessary to establish a similar facility in a portion ofthe BPK space at the Surrey

location in order to engage community participants/research subjects at that site as

well in an efficient manner. This facility could be a shared facility among any faculty

members who have community-based research in the Surrey area. Ideally, some

regular/permanent research faculty presence at the Surrey site would help to seed

the potentially comprehensive initiatives at this site with respect to

research/graduate studies, delivery of the current BPKprograms, and to build

toward the potential initiative in exercise, nutrition and chronic disease.

Regarding new and emerging areas of opportunity.

Adding researchfaculty with

expertise in exercise and nutrition is an important strategic step for the Department

This will allow BPKto balance the expertise of the Department in terms of its

current mission and undergraduate program. Furthermore, it will allow for the

development of graduate and research programs that will balance the Departments

J^T

offerings and create better bridges between undergraduate and graduate programs

(which is identified as one of the major programmatic weaknesses). It will also

provide some of the expertise necessary to implement the proposed undergraduate

program in exercise, nutrition and chronic disease.

Taking advantage of the potential opportunity at the Surrey campus is vital to this

initiative and will allow BPK to be ready to better collaborate with partners in the

Faculty of Health Sciences and in other health related units on campus in order to

strategize the best plan for implementation of the Health -related programming at

the Surrey campus. When positions become available this is clearly the highest

priority

area for the Department'sdevelopment and growth. Ideally systems

researchers associated with exercise nutrition and chronic disease areas will

provide the needed expertise to advance the Department'scurrent mission and

proposed initiatives. Care should be taken in selecting the new faculty such that

they also integrate well with existing research strengths in the Department

(cardiovascular, neuromechanics/neuroscience, chronic disease).

Exercise, Nutrition, and Chronic Disease Program proposal.

Given the uncertainty regarding government funding, even with full support of the

University, it is important for the Department to build a clear and dynamic vision of

what the exercise, nutrition and chronic diseases program could become and to

champion BPKas the natural core of the program, but with an integrated vision that

includes input from the Faculty of Science and Faculty of Health Sciences in order to

improve the chances of making real progress on this initiative and making it a

University-level priority. Doubtless

this will require a Department-based champion

for the program (perhaps the next Chair of BPK, or Dr. Ruben in his new role as

Associate Dean),

but that will not be enough. The vision and the advocacy must

extend to the level of the higher administration, including the Dean of Science and

the relevant Vice-Presidents.

Theinitiatives and goals of BPKneed to be presented in

the context of an overall University initiative.

BPKis in a unique position to

contribute by making initial programmatic investments and by having a clear

Departmental plan for undergraduate and graduate programming as well as

postdoctoral and faculty research, and by defining the complement ofnew hires that

are necessary to achieve the objective as well as improve the quality ofcurrent

programs.

Thoughts regarding this program, its importance to the Department, and

possible synergies with other Department initiatives:

•the program needs to be comprehensive (including undergraduate and

graduate programming as well as research activity)

1ST

(8r

•the program will help balance expertise and interests among research

faculty that a BPKDepartment should have and thus help build better links

between undergraduate and graduate programs

•is it possible to realize synergies between this program and the proposed

Burnaby Mountain Sports Medicine initiative ?

•Is there a possible synergy with the Environmental chamber facilities and

the environmental physiology group? During the review we were made

aware of the initiatives to make the Environmental chamber for outside uses

via links to community and industry. One of these potential uses was

identified as as a potential site for hyperbaric oxygen therapy for diabetic

wound healing. This would certainly suggest a potential opportunity to fit

with the chronic disease program. This could be attractive/useful for

instance in recruiting a chronic diseases researcher with interests in diabetes

and diabetic therapies.

The collateral benefit of course is enhanced

utilization and increased collaborative opportunities in the environmental

chamber facilities. The profile of such an individual would fit very well with

that necessary to support the exercise, nutrition and chronic diseases

program.

>6r

C) Addressing Senate guideline related to assurance that

The Department

members participate in the administration of the unit and take an active role in

the dissemination of knowledge

Dissemination of knowledge in many formats is apparent in the publications,

presentations, patents, regular local, national, and international media attention to

research results, etc. for many projects and laboratories in BPK. Community

engagement is strong through research links utilizing members of the local

population as study subjects. There are many examples of knowledge translation

emanating from BPK.

There was general expression of harmonious administration of the unit, leadership,

and committee participation across faculty of all ranks, staff, and students.

Next Chair of BPK.

The recruitment of Dr. Ruben to another senior administrative

role in the Facultycreated a void that had to be filled at a most inopportune time. At

the time of our review, this was a major concern. We have been made aware that

this situation has been resolved through the appointment of Dr. Glen Tibbits as the

Chair. The review committee commends Dr. Tibbits for accepting this role, in

keeping with the history of senior BPKfaculty of stepping up to take on senior

administrative positions. Given the extensive involvement of senior research

faculty (including Dr. Tibbits) in diverse leadership and service activities including

large-scale collaborative research programs, clinical duties, and leadership roles in

other professional organizations it is certainly understandable that there was some

difficulty identifying an internal candidate that was willing and able to take on this

responsibility. In fact, during the site visit, the clear preference expressed by all

faculty interviewed (almost everyone) was to search for an external candidate for

this position.

During our interviews, the Dean of Science gave a clear message that the ability to

nominate an internal candidate for Chair would provide additional opportunities for

hiring ofnew research professors in BPK.Given the new situation, in which Dr.

Tibbits has taken on the responsibility,

the review committee therefore recommends

that BPKbe given priority

for resources necessary tofulfill their current mandate and

to take advantage

of the new opportunities to develop SFU'spresence in training and

research in healthcarefields.

BPK as it is currently staffed, and considering the

programs it delivers, the number of students it serves, etc., compares very favorably

with other Science units with respect to a need to expand its faculty complement. It

assuring therefore that the Dean supports this expansion and that a new chair is

in placeto proceed on this as soon as possible.

D) Addressing Senate guideline related to assurance that

The environment is

conducive to the attainment of the objectives of the Department

The mission of the Department is to improve human health by advancing the

understanding of physiology, movement, and human health through fundamental

and applied research, education, and service, by providing opportunities for

outstanding learning, world-class research, and active engagement with the

community. This is completely consistent with the academic mission and vision of

SFU, with the strategic research plan of the Institution, and with the President's

agenda: Building on Success—Looking to the Future. Particularly forward-looking

is the BPK program proposal in exercise, nutrition, and chronic disease.

There is a

needfor the senior administration to provide a framework to guide and coordinate the

development of the health sciences mission of the University so that individual

initiatives such as the proposalfor this program are recognized and coordinated to

increase opportunities and align thefuture direction with the strategic plan.

We see the possibility of an important role for Prof. Ruben, as the new Associate

Dean of Graduate Studies and Research for the Faculty of Science, to take a

leadership role in this coordination by continuing to promote the goals and

aspirations of BPK,working to integrate their initiatives with those ofother units in

the Faculty of Science, promoting integration with the activities of the Faculty of

Health Science, and playing a role in coordination of the health science mission

across the university. During our visit, the review committee was rather perplexed

about how this mission was being coordinated and advocated, and the level of

responsibility being placed upon BPKfor that initiative. During our visit to the

Surrey campus, we met Joanne Curry, the executive director for SFUSurrey who is

actively engaged in community and government outreach. However, others need to

be engaged and the University needs to devote the resources to take advantage of a

significant opportunity. In support of BPK,this includes continued lobbying of

government to champion funding ofthe new undergraduate program in exercise,

nutrition and chronic disease.

7~(

Other issues:

Departmental Handbook.

The Review Committee recommends assembling a

Department handbookfor faculty,

so that all new faculty are oriented to policies and

procedures as well as resources of the Department. Aformal mentoring program

might be helpful to new faculty for their transition to their roles and responsibilities.

This handbook might also help new faculty identify resources and opportunities

available to them, and help them to understand University policies and procedures

related to their career development. There was some concern expressed on related

issues by some, although not all, new faculty members

Support Staff.

The review committee interviewed and interacted with members of

BMK's support staff throughout the visit. Overall, the support staff is extremely

competent and enthusiastic, and sufficient for support of academic activities of the

Department, although the level of technical support for laboratories falls behind that

of other units (see above). The staffhave high morale and are happy, although

frustrated with certain systems—financial, student management, etc, that are not

'user-friendly'(consistent with experience at our institutions).

Library Services.

The review committee met with the Director of Libraries and was

impressed by the adaptation to new expectations of the research community in

services provided by Libraries to research and teaching, including electronic

resources. Inquiries to research faculty did not reveal significant concerns, nor did

the Director indicate that she had received complaints.

Animal Care Facility.

The review committee toured the animal care facility during

the visit. This is a new and impressive state-of-the-art facility, maintaining a clean

environment for animal housing and conducting surgical and other

experimentation. Maintaining a clean facility has costs in terms of inconvenience to

certain research faculty who must take their animal subjects out ofthe facility for

procedures at other institutions, and therefore are not able to return them to the

clean area ofthe facility. The group conducting research on pigs stated they had

come to terms with their situation, but another investigator working with

transgenic mice expressed concerns.

TheFacility is encouraged to make adequate

housing available for animals involved in such studies such that their experiments are

not compromised.

Environmental Chamber.

The review committee toured the Environmental

Physiology unit hosting the hyperbaric chamber and environmental chamber. The

existence and sustainability ofthese chambers relies on Faculty of Science funding

and income from contracts for clinical and industrial research activities. The facility

is unique and certified by Underwriters laboratories. The research faculty involved

are connected with their national peers, including the Defence Research

Establishment Toronto (formerly DCIEM). The climatic chamber is central to Dr.

White'sresearch. Plans for reconstruction ofthe chamber, and its value to

industrial partners were explained to the review committee. A main challenge is to

revitalize the graduate stream for this Environmental Physiology Group. Support

for the environmental chamber was stated as being the initial reason for bringing a

medical doctor into the Department.

The multitude of potential uses of this facility

and the possible overlap of this resource with other Department initiatives should be

considered as the Department plans to pursue new and emerging areas and initiatives

in order to identify synergies.

Electronic Course Calendar:

There appear to be issues regarding implementation

ofthe electronic course calendar at SFU,including listing of courses that are not

offered. These could be typical growing pains related to moving to an electronic

format, but care should be taken not to present students with opportunities that do

not exist.

2QT

Future Direction

There seems to be a reasonable amount of recognition by senior administration that

BPKis a major strength in the biomedical health research portfolio of SFU.

Furthermore, it was clearly articulated that the Faculty of Health Sciences does not

control or embody the spectrum ofthe health research profile of SFU and should not

be a barrier to recognizing BPK'simportance in health initiatives at SFU.

The senior

administration is encouraged to foster communication of BPK, other units in the

Faculty of Science and the Faculty of Health Science and find a way to integrate their

activities and the way they are presented by SFU.

The plans of BPKare appropriate and consistent with the strategic plan of SFU. The

support of senior management will be required to fulfill their aspirations,

particularly development of new programs to be delivered at the SFU campus, and

maximizing the opportunity for leadership in the health sector.

Ifthe appropriate resource commitments are made to BPK, the demonstrated

excellence of this Department will continue. The Department has a forward looking

plan for new and emerging areas in which it can thrive and continue to increase the

profile of SFUas a teaching centered, research driven and community engaged

university.

Respectfully submitted,

Dr. James Rush, University of Waterloo

Dr. Heather Durham, McGill University

Dr. Tessa Gordon, University of Alberta

-2T

EXTERNAL REVIEW - ACTION PLAN

Section 1 -To be completed by the Responsible Unit Person e.g. Chair or Director

Unit under review

Biomedical Physiology and Kinesiology

Date of Review Site visit

March 30/April 12011

Responsible Unit person,

GlenTibbits

Faculty Dean

Claire Cupples

Note: Itis

not

expected that every recommendation made by the Review Team be covered by this Action Plan. The

major thrusts of the Report should be identified and some consolidation of the recommendations may be possible while

other recommendations of lesser importance may be excluded.

Should an additional response be warranted it should be

attached as a separate document.

1. PROGRAMMING

a. Action/s (description what is going to be done):

1.1.1

Undergraduate:

• Increase number of research faculty involved in UG core courses (ER)

We have already begun an implementation of team teaching in our core courses. This semester we introduced it into Kin205 and it is part

of a revamping of our entire core curriculum. A committee has been struck which is being led by Mr. Craig Asmundson to re-examine our

core offering in terms of content, instructors (sessionals vs. instructors vs. research faculty), continuity, integration and development of

ideas. This committee isvery active, has their own website and very enthusiastic and broad participation from the faculty. We are also

evaluating the role of research faculty in core courses (Mr. Stephen Brown has been asked to analyze this on a semester basis) and are

setting targets for the involvement of research faculty in core cores. In addition, we are investigating our role in the Biomedical

Engineering program which uses several of our research faculty, limiting their capacity to teach within our own unit and how to better

integrate it into our own curriculum.

• Better match between UG program and research faculty interests (ER)

This is a real challenge to resolve and is deeply rooted in the politics and history of our department. However, the undergraduate program

committee (UPC) has been asked to earmark undersubscribed courses and programs for possible elimination. The ER suggested that we

hire faculty in nutrition to help resolve this issue but this has already been done with limited success. We are currently entertaining the

possibility of this being part of the expertise of the next faculty recruit. The Ergonomics stream has now been reduced to a certificate

program allowing us to reduce our course offerings in this area by three courses.

• More expertise in exercise, nutrition (Surrey Initiative)

This has not been a goal of our program in Burnaby. However, it isa major focus ofthe Surrey Initiative. Unfortunately, the ENHD

program is highly dependent on provincial funding for which there are no guarantees. If the plan is implemented as articulated then this

will more than adequately address this concern. However, in the interim we are forging ahead with a scaled down Surrey initiative. Ihave

asked Dr. Diane Finegood to head up the Surrey Initiative. The Dean of Science has been asked for a faculty replacement in this area that is

based on our limited faculty roster relative to our FTEs. This new faculty member will be recruited under the umbrella of Chronic Diseases

(one of 3 major research thrusts of BPK) and we believe that this individual will become an integral member of the Surrey Initiative. Drs.

Lear

and Finegood are also proposing to develop an Institute (which will be before Senate shortly) which will partially allay this concern.

•

Limited number of faculty relative to load (reduced faculty complement) (ER)

The Dean is well aware that we are "understaffed" relative to other departments within the Faculty of Science (including Biosciences and

MBB) and the number of FTEs that we teach. We hope that this willbe rectified bygrowth of the department over the next few years.

1.1.2

Graduate:

• Increase quality and quantity of graduate applicants to our program (ER).

The top graduate students in BPK are excellent; we have 2 Vanier award recipients. Furthermore, the BPK Graduate Program has grown since the

external review, from 47 students in 2009/10 academic year to 57 (60 including qualifying students) in Sept. 2011. This may in part reflect the

departmental name change and the faculty association which was one of the intentions of these recent changes. There isstill a need, however, to

increase

the average quality of the applicants so that BPK faculty can be more selective about which students they accept. To accomplish this, we plan

the following actions:

a. The BPK website is currently being redesigned and updated to attract more HQstudents [grad students in particular but also HQ

undergraduates

(UGs)]. Features under consideration include the use of videos of labs, faculty and graduate students to convey the high

quality and innovative research done in BPK and the learning opportunities here.

b. The number of courses for the M.Sc. has been reduced from 6 to 4 (now approved bySenate) to facilitate progress through the

course component of this degree program and allow the student to spend more time on their thesis research.

c. Forthe Fall of 2012, the department has agreed to provide three 'Chair'sResearch Assistantships'valued at $3,000 each to attract new HQ

grad students who are not yet in receipt of an external award. Future allocations will depend on availability of funds.

d. The GPCwill review and discuss direct entry into the PhD program for highly qualified students with high GPA and research

experience

e. The GPC willclarify, and provide within the graduate handbook clearer guidelines and procedures for fast-tracking from MScto PhD.

f. The GPC willsystematically track student progress through the graduate program. In 2011 the GPChas improved the graduate

student annual report form, which now contains all information necessary to check graduate student progress. In 2012, we will

convert this to a more user-friendly online format so that data can be uploaded and databased for efficient review by GPC members.

g. Recently, the requirements for the PhD including changes to the comprehensive exam, have been streamlined and are now more in

line with those in Biosciences and MBB facilitating progress through the degree while maintaining stringent criteria for the program.

2. Bridge

more effectively between the UG and grad programs by increasing exposure to and interactions with research faculty for undergraduates.

We have recently made progress by requiring UG participation in BPK's 3rd Annual Research Day. Students in KIN 305 (a physiology course required for

KIN majors) and KIN 304 were asked to attend Research Dayinstead of their class that day, and to vote for and make a group choice of the best poster.

In consultation with the UPC, we will explore operationalizing the following ER Team suggestions:

a. Incorporate more guest lectures by research faculty into undergraduate courses

b. Consider more split courses, team-taught courses and seminars; spreading the teaching hours of research faculty over multiple courses

c. Offer flexible' topics and issues' courses reflecting research faculty strengths

d. Incorporate more research, knowledge translation and career pathways information into UG courses, highlighting that a graduate degree

can lead to many different career paths within and outside of academia. Consider a first year 'overview' course that encompasses thismaterial.

z(*

-»>.

Diversify BPK Careers Day, an existing yearly event for UG students, to represent more non-academic careers.

e. Increase upper level UG class sizes where needed (eliminating wait lists) to maximize the pool of high level UGsin BPK

f. Increase interaction of high level UGswith Grad students by seeking a venue and event in which they can mix.

•

Several

perceived problems with the course based Master's Degree (ER).

This program has been abolished. There is a committee of two led by Ms. AK Arnold which is looking into the possibility of a highly

focused, profession-oriented course based Master's in Rehabilitation Medicine. A presentation has been made to the Graduate Program

Committee which has asked for further information and

subsequent presentations will be made to the GPC and the department as a

whole.

Resource implications ((if any):

Increased number of research faculty. We have also asked for IT support for at least one year to facilitate the processing of admissions,

recruitment and general administrative functions.

i. Expected completion date/s:

June 2013.