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. |
The Dean of Engineering convened a committee with representatives from all programmes. The committee’s recommendations were provided as a Faculty-wide directive on revisited GA mapping; inclusing the identification of the GAs-vs.-Indictors-vs.-Learning -Outcomes. A report addressing new GA mapping has been provided in July 2020. Such a report addressed the refinement of the Indicator vs. Learning Outcome connection. Learning Outcomes (LOs) have identified for each course. These lists with their links to the GAs have been checked twice with the instructors in the past. The link between the LOs and the indicators should be clearly mapped and documented. The instructor/lead of each course will be involved to validate or adjust the existing rough linkage between the LOs and indicators as currently identified. Process encountered some delay due to the pandemic and then the cyber-attack that struck RMC’s computer networks in July of 2020. |
Dean of Engineering and Head of the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering |
Fall 2023 |
| 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. |
The Dean of Engineering convened a committee with representatives from all programmes. The committee’s recommendations were provided as a Faculty-wide directive on revisited GA mapping. A report addressing new GA mapping has been provided in July 2020. Such a report addressed the refinement of the Indicator vs. Learning Outcome connection. Implementation of the changes will impose significant additional work on all Engineering Departments as well as the Dean’s office, both during the transition and on an ongoing basis. It may be appropriate to re-create the position of Associate Dean (Accreditation and Programme) on an ongoing basis to provide oversight and support. Process encountered some delay due to the pandemic and then the cyber-attack that struck RMC’s computer networks in July of 2020. In 2020-2021, the assessment of the existing indicators has been led using different courses and levels. Some relevant information have been highlighted to improve the assessment of such indicators by allowing wider range of courses dealing with these indicators. Also, this variety of courses would allow the assessment of the indicators at different levels (I, D or A). In 2020-2021 GA data collection, the assessment of the same indicator was addressed in different courses and different levels (I, D and A). The instructors were requested to provide the results whenever the indicators apply in their courses. There were new courses added to the original list, but more work still need to be done in order to identify more courses responding the assessment of the indicators in the three levels. |
Dean of Engineering and Head of the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering |
Fall 2023 |
|
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. |
The Dean of Engineering convened a committee with representatives from all programmes. The committee’s recommendations were provided as a Faculty-wide directive on the implantation of a rigourous continuous improvement process (CIP). A mechanism to identify multiple and different stakeholders (internal and external ones) was put in place in early 2020. The participation of these groups and partners (including members of CAFs from different units, alumini, students and staff) in series of meetings was pending due to COVID and then the IT incident that happened since March 2020. The work of settling an advisory board including the partners cited above has to be resumed promptly and meetings needs to be scheduled (twice at least in 2023-2024). |
Dean of Engineering and Head of the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering |
Directive on GA and CI supposed to be released June 2022. New processes to be implemented starting in September 2022. Review of process outcomes and revision of processes in June 2023. A program to implement a CIP has suspended since the pandemic. Such activity must be resumed soon. The whole process is pending. |
| 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. |
The departmental report 2018-2019 had identified the relative lack of breadth of indicators over the course curriculum of the program as well as the different levels of learning (I, D and A). The analysis of data collected over the last six years had indicated that the progression of many indicator performances cannot be efficiently adjusted if any counter-performance is observed. In many cases the indicators are assessed during a final year project (4th year and level A) rather than an earlier year of study and level (I and/or D). In 2020-2021, 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. A process to revisit the indicators (in terms of description, distribution over courses and years) has been started in 2020. |
Head of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering | Fall 2023 |
Additional Action (connected to Comment on Course outlines and syllabi): The Head of Department is intending to implement a new course syllabus format. This formal template for course syllabi and outlines would be effective in communicating course content, expectations, and outcomes and their relationship to indicators and CEAB Graduate Attributes.