2025 Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering Cyclical Program Review Implementation Plan Update of Cycle 2

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.
  1. 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.
  2. Every instructor updated their course syllabus template and chose appropriate indicators for their course. Every course now has a clear link between graduate attributes, course learning outcomes, indicators, and assessment method.
  1. Dean of Engineering 

  2. Head of the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
  1. July 2023-January 2024.

  2. Completed Sept 2024 – July 2025
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 none developed.
  1. 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.
  2. An in-depth review of the assessment method for every indicator at each level (I-D-A) was completed.
  1. Dean of Engineering

  2. Head of the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
  1. July 2023-May 2024.

  2. Completed Sept 2024 – July 2025

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.
  1. 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.
  2.  CEAB, Curriculum, and Stakeholder committees have been created, with members being cross-appointed between committees
  3.  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.
  1. Dean of Engineering 

  2. Head of the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
  1. September 2023-and ongoing.

  2. Completed Sept 2024 – July 2025
CEAB Mechanical Finding 1. It is not possible to conclude whether graduates do/do not possess the attribute based on the collected data.

Indicators are now being assessed at the I-D-A levels as the students progress through the program. This allows continuous monitoring of their competency. Every indicator is evaluated at the Applied level which shows whether a graduate will possess the indicator and the corresponding attribute.

 Head of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering GA data collection and analysis in progress
Date modified: