Implementation Plan
| Recommendation | Proposed follow-up and resource implications | Responsibility for leading follow-up | Timeline for addressing recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|
| CEAB Common Finding 1. Learning outcomes and graduate attribute indicators used interchangeably. There appeared to be some confusion between the differences between the two. |
A faculty-wide course syllabus template was created. The template provides a clear distinction between graduate attributes and learning outcomes. A faculty-wide policy explains the difference between graduate attributes, learning outcomes and evaluation activities. The department completed the syllabus templates for all courses. Learning outcomes and graduate attribute indicators have been differentiated. |
Dean of Engineering and Head of the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering |
July 2023-January 2024. |
| CEAB Common Finding 2. Insufficient indicators were used. In some cases, there was only a single measurement for an indicator or there was reliance on a single course and/or the indicator. For some graduate attributes not all indicators were used. Often, Introduced and Applied were identified, but no Developed. |
Graduate attribute tracking spreadsheets were modified to include at least three indicators spread throughout the curriculum (I,D,A). Direction was provided to Department Heads and department representatives on how to modify curriculum maps accordingly. Initial iteration of graduate attribute tracking spreadsheets has been completed. Further iterations will follow |
Dean of Engineering and Head of the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering |
July 2023-May 2024. |
|
CEAB Common Finding 3. Stakeholder engagement is limited mostly to internal representation. A broader set of external stakeholders including alumni (still in military and ex-military) should be engaged. Also, stakeholder roles in the improvement process is inadequately demonstrated. |
Advisory boards were created for each Engineering program. Composition of each advisory board includes: active military members outside or RMC, industry members, students, curriculum committee members, and engineering faculty outside RMC. Furthermore, the Dean of Engineering will now sit in the Canadian Forces’ Annual Military Occupation Review for those military occupations directly related to our engineering programs. CEAB, Curriculum, and Stakeholder committees have been created, with members being cross-appointed between committees A military member has been identified and invited to join the stakeholder committee in order to broaden stakeholder representation to serving and ex-military personnel. |
Dean of Engineering and Head of the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering |
September 2023-and ongoing. |
| CEAB Aeronautical Finding 1. There was an insufficient breadth of data collected from year to year to be able to show progression of indicator performance through program and demonstrate remedial action. |
Measurements of the indicators at each level (I, D, and A) have been added to allow the progression of a cohort of students to be tracked. The existing indicators have been collected and analyzed. The GA mapping has been under general review. |
Head of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering | September 2023-and ongoing. |