| 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.
- Faculty members in Electrical Engineering were instructed to use the standardized course syllabus template starting in the Fall of 2023
|
Dean of Engineering |
Implemented |
| 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.
- A Graduate Attribute (GA) assessment system redesign has been undertaken for the Electrical and Computer Engineering programs to better align the data collected with the GAs to ensure that graduates meet the required attributes.This restructuring allows for the evaluation of student development at different stages—introduced, developed, and applied—providing a clearer view of students’ ongoing progress in acquiring the targeted attributes.
- The new data set is cross-referenced with historical data to support longitudinal analysis. This analysis is incorporated into the annual program evaluation report, which includes faculty input and the identification and correction of areas of concern, thereby contributing directly to the programs’ continuous improvement processes.
|
Dean of Engineering |
Implemented |
|
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.
- An advisory board specific to the Computer Engineering program is now in place.
|
Dean of Engineering
|
Implemented
|
| CEAB Electrical Finding 1. It is not possible to conclude whether graduates do/do not possess the attribute based on the collected data. |
- A Graduate Attribute (GA) assessment system redesign has been undertaken for the Electrical and Computer Engineering programs to better align the data collected with the GAs to ensure that graduates meet the required attributes. The previous system gathered approximately 84 measures; the revised framework expands this to 115.
- Additionally, several assessment points previously concentrated in the final design project have been redistributed across various courses throughout the programs.
|
ECE Department Head |
Implemented. Will be re-assessed by CEAB visit in 2025 |
|
ERC Recommendation
1. Ensuring the professional licensing of the military faculty |
Completed in previous cycles. |
ECE Department Head |
Complete |