2018 IQAP Review of Undergraduate Program in Chemical Engineering
Final Assessment Report and Implementation Plan
Per the Royal Military College of Canada (RMC) Institutional Quality Assurance Process (IQAP), this Final Assessment Report (FAR) provides a synthesis of the external evaluation and internal response and assessments of the undergraduate programs offered by the Faculty of Engineering for BEng in Chemical Engineering. This report identifies the significant strengths of the programs, along with opportunities for improvement and enhancement, and sets out and prioritizes the recommendations selected for implementation.
This report includes an Implementation Plan that identifies who will be responsible for approving the recommendations set out in the Final Assessment Report, who will be responsible for providing any resources entailed by those recommendations, any changes in organization, policy or governance that will be necessary to meet the recommendations and who will be responsible for acting on those recommendations; and timelines for acting on and monitoring the implementation of those recommendations.
Overview of Program Review Process
The Department completed the Program Self-Study Report on or about 25 April 2023. For the program under review, BEng in Chemical Engineering contained the degree level expectations for these programs, an analytical assessment of the programs, course outlines, program-related data, survey data from the Office of Quality Assurance and appendices with sample examinations and CVs of faculty members. Two arm's-length external reviewers (Dr. Lesley James, PhD, Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University of New Brunswick and Dr. Bruno Gaillet, PhD, Department of Chemical Engineering, Université de Laval) were selected from a list of possible reviewers and approved by the Deans of Science and Engineering. An internal reviewer, Dr. Mike Hennessey, PhD, from the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities (History), was also selected for participation in the ERC. They reviewed the self-study documentation and conducted an on-site visit to RMC from 9 to 10 May 2023.
During the site visit, the External Review Committee (ERC) met with the VP of Academics, the VP of Research, the Director of Quality Assurance, the Dean of Engineering, the Head of the Chemistry and Chemical Engineering department, both the military and civil faculty members as groups, laboratory technicians, alums, students registered in the program under study and the Chief Librarian.
The reviewers submitted their report on 03 September 2024. In their report, the ERC stated that the Program provides excellent education and training for Chemical Engineering Students.
Significant Strengths and Areas of Concern of the Program:
The ERC identified several strengths of the program in Chemical Engineering:
- Deep passion and commitment of the faculty and department in delivering quality level programs;
- Innovative delivery of the program enhances the quality of the program; and
- The programs are similar to other chemical engineering programs across the country.
The ERC identified some areas of improvement for the program in Chemical Engineering:
- Further mapping of graduate attributes to DLEs with learning objectives is required;
- More linkages to military aspects of the program would benefit the program; and
- Collaboration between library and departments would benefit the quality of the program.
The Program Chair consulted with the program's faculty and staff and submitted a response to the ERC Report on 09 September 2024. The Dean of Engineering prepared this Final Assessment Report on 14 January 2025. Specific recommendations are discussed, followed-up actions and timelines are provided.
Summary of the Reviewers’ Recommendations with Dean’s Responses
The ERC identified several areas for improvements or issues that require attention. Discussions on the issues are in the order in which they appear in the ERC Report:
Recommendation 1
Very motivated and competent Faculty members but additional resources would be beneficial (courses in French and English) especially to address the ability to offer alternate technical electives.
Departmental Response:
The issues of technical electives is a common concern for external reviewers. The presence of the common core is part of what makes RMC unique, with the unintended side effect of limiting the number of electives that can be offered. As a result, the Department of Chemistry & Chemical Engineering offered only one elective in their undergraduate Chemical Engineering degree program, during the winter of fourth year. Even with this, often only one course (CCE474-Molecular Mechanisms of Chemical and Biological Warfare Defence) was offered, although in recent years, an alternate course choice (CCE409-Combustion and Explosives Engineering) was also offered. This is a result of the recent expert hires for the delivery of the Masters of Engineering in the field of Ammunition Engineering, which allowed for the additional course. Since the IQAP visit in April 2023, RMC has instituted a hiring freeze in conjunction with budget cuts that have reduced sessional and term hires. This has resulted in the cessation of discussions around new technical electives. It is unclear when this situation will change.
Dean Response:
The Dean endorses this response and encourages the department to continue to use alternating offerings tailored to available instructors to increase the variety of electives without resource implications.
Recommendation 2
Possible further streamlining could occur. The third and fourth years of the program are very demanding. Suggest a better repartition of the courses. Students, alumni, and faculty would like to have more electives. Further streamlining of courses could help this or by bringing in industrial case studies and/or a Special Topics elective.
Departmental Response:
The streamlining of the Chem Eng program as suggested by the ERC is taken in consideration, although the 48.5 credits programme has already been the subject of streamlining leading to the current distribution of credits from First year to Fourth year of 12/13/12/11.5 credits respectively. RMC is a unique institution given the common core as well as the other three pillars (athletics/language/military). This means that there is little free time in the cadets’ schedule and any ability to free up time for their benefit. At this time, the department is slated for CEAB accreditation in Academic Year 2025/26, and no further changes will be undertaken prior to this accreditation process. During the CEAB visit (Fall 2025), the department will raise this issue of reducing the course load while maintaining the standard for accreditation. This suggestion will be investigated after the upcoming CEAB accreditation cycle.
Dean Response:
The Dean endorses this response. It is possible that the discussion with the accreditation board will reveal a pathway forward that balances RMC’s mission to produce well-rounded leaders for the CAF that includes having the common core degree requirements along with the requirements of an accredited Canadian engineering undergraduate degree. These degrees require a minimum number of accreditation units (defined in hours) which were reduced in 2019/2020.
Recommendation 3
Further mapping of graduate attributes / DLEs with learning objectives and learning levels may help.
Departmental Response:
This is another good suggestion that will be discussed in the future, but as we are entering another CEAB accreditation cycle in the upcoming year, it would be wise to wait in 2025-2026 until after the CEAB visit.
Dean Response:
The Dean endorses this response and notes that this is a known issue that should be addressed as soon as practicable.
Recommendation 4
More examples related to military aspects could be included in the courses. Pressure vessels and ballistics are great examples. Having case studies that may follow through the curriculum or building the labs into a more open-ended experience may help.
Departmental Response:
The use of military examples is another common suggestion from reviewers likely based on comments from cadets. It is an excellent point and as the reviewers point out, we continue to attempt to add military examples and map out the examples for each of the chemical engineering courses. A preliminary discussion has been held between Dr. Zeman and Capt. Young about mapping the design projects for the engineering courses and identifying military topics for as many as possible. To be discussed at the next Chemical Engineering Committee meeting.
Dean Response:
One of the recommendations of the Special Staff Assistance Visit to RMC (2017) was to ensure to ensure that both military and academic aspects were balanced which included incorporation of practical CAF military experiences into academic pursuits. The Dean supports and advocates for the Department to seek out ways to facilitate this.
Recommendation 5
While the Undergraduate Chemical Engineering Institutional Quality Assurance Programme Self-Study Report (April 25, 2023) [UG ChE IQAP SSR 2023] introduces the Chemical Engineering program, changes to the program, surveys, and a summary of faculty and staff, it would be very helpful to have an organization chart of all the documentation pertaining to the IQAP review and specifically a table with comments on all the required sections of this review noting the status of whether or not they were reviewed, any changes, and relevant documentation pertaining to the IQAP review requirements. This would 1) ensure due diligence on the department covering all aspects, and 2) communicate the documentation organisation, hierarchy, and history (versions).
Departmental Response:
This is a good bit of clarification that may be useful for the CEAB documentation. This has already been identified and needing improvement in the Institutional self-study report which will be audited in February 2025. The Quality Assurance section at RMC is aware of the need to establish best practices for articulating CEAB and IQAP documents for optimizing clarity and efficiency.
Dean Response:
The Dean endorses this response and will work with the Department Head to recommend best practices to the RMC Quality Assurance group and implement processes for both CEAB and IQAP documentation.
Implementation Plan
| Ser | Recommendation | Proposed Follow-up | Responsibility for Leading Follow-up | Timeline for Addressing Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Additional resources would be beneficial to address the ability to offer alternate technical electives | The program will continually explore options to include technical electives | Dept Head | Reviewed annually each June |
| 2 | Further streamlining is recommended to increase amount of elective courses available | Review accreditation during CEAB visit. | Dept OPI | Winter 2026 |
| 3 | Further mapping of graduate attributes | Mapping will be reviewed. | Dept OPIs | 2025-2026 after CEAB |
| 4 | Increased emphasis on including examples related to military aspects in courses | Milfac will be tasked with identifying examples. | Dept OPIs | Fall 2024 |
| 5 | Provide an organization chart to outline the documentation pertaining to the IQAP review | An organizational chart will be included in the next IQAP review. | Dean of Eng/Dept Head | June 2025 |
Conclusion:
The ERC Report provided positive feedback on the outcomes of the ungraduate program in Chemical Engineering. It confirmed that the RMC is delivering programs consistent with other comparable institutions in Ontario. However, the ERC identified areas with room for improvement, and RMC has already taken steps to address some of the issues raised. RMC will continue to work toward program enhancement and improve student success in the undergraduate program in Chemical Engineering.
The Dean of Engineering, the Vice-Principal of Academics, Vice-Principal of Research, the Chief Librarian, the Program Chair and the Head of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, are responsible for monitoring the Implementation Plan.