In accordance with the Royal Military College of Canada's (RMC) Institutional Quality Assurance Process (IQAP), this Final Assessment Report (FAR) presents a synthesis of the external evaluation and the internal responses and assessments of the Bachelor of Science General (BSc(Gen)) program. The report highlights the program’s key strengths, identifies opportunities for improvement, and outlines prioritized recommendations for enhancement.
Additionally, the report includes an Implementation Plan that details the responsibilities for approving, resourcing, and acting upon the recommendations. It specifies the necessary organizational, policy, or governance changes, along with the individuals accountable for each task. Timelines for both implementing and monitoring the progress of these recommendations are also provided.
Overview of Program Review Process
The Program Chair completed the Program Self-Study Report on 31 July 2024. This report included the degree-level expectations for the BSc(Gen), an analytical assessment of the program, course syllabi, examples of course work, program-related data, survey results from the Office of Quality Assurance, and appendices containing faculty CVs and reports from the library, writing centre and math centre.
Two external reviewers, Dr. Xu (Sunny) Wang, Professor of Mathematics and Deputy Director of MS2Discovery at Wilfrid Laurier University, and Dr. Olena Zenkina, Associate Professor in Chemistry and Materials at Ontario Tech University, were selected from an approved list and vetted by the Dean of Science. An internal reviewer, Dr. Ali Karime from the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, was also chosen to participate in the External Review Committee (ERC). The reviewers assessed the self-study documentation and conducted an on-site visit to RMC from 20-21 November 2024.
During their visit, the ERC met with the Vice Principal of Academics, the Vice Principal of Research, the Director of Quality Assurance, the Dean of Science, and faculty and staff from each of the three Science departments. They also held online meetings with alumni and current students enrolled in the program. Additionally, the reviewers met with representatives from the library, writing center, and math help center, and toured the physics, chemistry, and biology labs, the observatory, and the Slowpoke Nuclear Reactor.
The reviewers submitted their report on 31 December 2024. In their report, the ERC stated that the objectives of the BSc (General) program align well with RMC's mission and academic plans, and the program provides a robust educational experience that supports the goals of the institution.
Significant Strengths and Areas of Concern of the Program
The ERC identified several strengths of the BSc(Gen) Program:
- Its structure and requirements provide students with a strong foundation in science, with a particular focus on mathematics, computer science, physics, and chemistry;
- The program provides flexibility, diversity, and the option to pursue minors to students;
- There is a strong and positive relationships between students and instructors, and students appreciate the top-tier education delivered by the committed RMC instructors.
The ERC identified some priority actions to improve the program:
- Address the lack of upper-year core science courses specified within the program requirements;
- Provide a clear rationale for the program and the program variations to ensure students understand the purpose and equivalency of the course options;
- Fully inform students about the specific military occupations that align with a BSc(Gen) degree.
The Program Chair and Dean of Science prepared this Final Assessment Report on 29 May 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
Add upper-year science courses as core requirements for greater academic depth.
Departmental Response:
Historical data indicates that approximately 70% of the unique science credits earned by students to graduate with a BSc(Gen) are upper-year credits and, while we could establish a regulation requiring a minimum number of senior-level courses for the program, we believe the reviewers would prefer specific courses to be identified that align with the program’s Degree Level Expectations (DLE) curriculum mapping. One possible approach would be to identify a set of the most commonly taken courses (possibly grouped into scientific disciplines) and specify that a certain number of credits must come from this group. This would maintain the program’s flexibility and support student retention, while also addressing the intent of the recommendation. The Dean of Science Office should initiate an evaluation of these options to determine the best path forward.
Dean’s Response:
As mentioned in the Dept. response, it would be difficult to implement specific common senior-level courses due to the circumstances by which students enroll in the programme. However, as suggested, it would be possible to introduce requirements to take a certain number of courses among those identified as most popular.
Recommendation 2
Clarify or provide rationales for course equivalencies (e.g., HIE271, HIE275, HIE475) in the academic calendar.
Departmental Response:
We agree that this is a valuable recommendation. Clarifying or providing rationales for course equivalencies in the academic calendar will help ensure greater transparency and understanding for both students and faculty. By offering clear justifications for these equivalencies, we can enhance the program’s integrity and improve the overall clarity of program requirements. This task should be initiated by the Dean of Science Office.
Dean’s Response:
I concur with the Departmental Response. Navigating through course equivalencies is not necessarily intuitive at the moment.
Recommendation 3
Revise Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) to include advanced courses and ensure curriculum mapping reflects senior-level courses.
Departmental Response:
Implementing Recommendation 3 would naturally follow from the successful implementation of Recommendation 1, and the two tasks should be approached in a coordinated manner. Identified senior-level courses would be added to the DLE/PLO curriculum map.
Dean’s Response:
I concur with the Departmental Response. First and foremost, senior-level science course requirements have to be created before the PLOs can be implemented.
Recommendation 4
Update PLOs to address diverse learner needs and promote inclusivity and accessibility.
Departmental Response:
We believe the reviewers are asking for inclusivity and accessibility to be explicitly reflected in the program outcomes such that they have measurable outcomes that demonstrate a student’s ability to engage with diverse perspectives or solve problems in an inclusive way.Achieving this goal may be done by expanding on the program’s PLOs by including an objective such as:
Students will demonstrate the ability to apply scientific knowledge in ways that are inclusive and sensitive to diverse social, cultural, and ethical perspectives.
and then demonstrating how that objective is met within the DLE/PLO curriculum map.
The delivery of RMC’s BSc(Gen) degree courses is intentionally designed to support and accommodate a wide range of diverse learning needs. All courses, including those with experiential components like labs, are conducted on-site and in-person, ensuring a robust learning experience. To enhance the program’s flexibility, select courses are also available through the RMC Online learning platform, enabling students to fulfill degree requirements remotely, particularly during summer military training.
The implementation of this Recommendation would benefit from being included with the work done for Recommendations 1 and 3.
Dean’s Response:
We will update the PLOs to reflect the fact that the curriculum uses multiple and diversified approaches to learning. Note that OCdts overall tend to have learning needs that are slightly different from those of Civilian students in part because of the additional requirements imposed by the military side of their education, e.g. their need to be bilingual in both Official Languages, physical fitness requirements, etc. As a result, curriculum development is designed with the unique learning needs of the OCdts in mind, and as a result, is quite flexible in that regard.
VPA Response:
It is recommended that the Faculty of Science work with the RMC Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Officer, Anna Androsik, to achieve this recommendation.
Recommendation 5
Expand the program to include more senior-level courses to better prepare graduates for advanced studies or professional development.
Departmental Response:
This program has a well-defined 30-credit structure that works well to meet the needs of students seeking to graduate with a bachelor’s degree within the 4-year fully subsidized period and changing the number of credits is not desirable. There are ways to address the recommendation without adding more courses such as: identifying senior-level courses that add depth and advanced content or reworking the balance of junior- and senior-level required courses. Solutions could be sought and discussed at the next cyclical program review initiated by the Dean of Science.
Dean’s Response:
This harkens back to recommendations 1 and 3. A full programme review will be needed to rebalance junior and senior level courses, but the existing Science programmes will also be undergoing extensive review in the next few years. The BSc(Gen) programme may benefit collaterally from this process.
Recommendation 6
Incorporate a lab component in first-year mathematics courses, utilizing software like Maple, R, and Python to enhance computational skills.
Departmental Response:
CSE101 (INF101) is part of the core science requirements for the BSc(Gen) degree. It is “Introduction to Algorithms and Computing” which is a 4-month programming course that currently uses the Python programming language for instruction. We regret that this aspect of the program was not fully highlighted to the reviewers during their visit and believe it satisfies their recommendation.
Dean’s Response:
As mentioned, there already exists CSE101 that tackles giving students introductory computational skills. The idea of introducing the use of software to solve mathematical problems does have some value, it might be possible to introduce some tutorials on the use of such software, and assignments could be designed for students to learn to use them, without a complete overhaul of the overall course material itself. Deciding if this is appropriate or not though will have to be determined by the first-year math instructors themselves.
Recommendation 7
Provide a list of preferred military occupations for BSc(Gen) graduates.
Departmental Response:
We agree that this is a valuable recommendation. To build this list, the Dean of Science can engage with the Director Personnel Generation Requirements (DPGR) to obtain the military occupation descriptions relevant to the Faculty of Science found in the Canadian Forces Manual of Military Occupational Structure - Occupational Specification manual.
Dean’s Response:
The trend in recent years have shifted towards having a list of acceptable degrees rather than preferred degrees for military occupations, thereby invalidating the recommendation. Note that if this new directive were to be reversed, DPGR would need to update the respective Deans with this info whenever changes are made.
Recommendation 8
Implement a standardized template for course syllabi with common requirements for key sections to promote cohesive course planning and enhance program integration.
Departmental Response:
We agree that this is a valuable recommendation. A policy mandating standardized course syllabi would have far-reaching implications that extend beyond the Faculty of Science (due to the nature of the core curriculum) and impact other faculties across the university. Therefore, implementing such a policy would have to be initiated and approved at a higher institutional level.
Dean Response:
Attempts to introduce common course syllabi templates have already been made, but they remain optional to this day, and Faculty remain free to use them or not. As the adoption of common course syllabi raises questions pertaining about Academic Freedom, this should be part of a larger RMC-wide discussion.
VPA response:
The RMC Writing Centre provided in the last year a template for standardized course syllabi to all faculty members. The use of this template will always remain optional to protect the academic freedom of faculty members.
Recommendation 9
Reduce faculty teaching loads and hire additional faculty to allow for course content updates, better student support, and a stronger program overall. Focus future hiring on biology and health sciences fields.
Departmental Response:
While we recognize the importance of reducing faculty teaching loads and enhancing course content updates, these recommendations are constrained by budgetary limitations and are outside the authority of the Faculty of Science. Faculty hiring decisions and financial allocations are determined at a higher institutional level. We are committed to exploring alternative solutions to improve program delivery within current resources which would include careful consideration of science sub-disciplines including biology. In the discussions for Recommendation 1, it may be possible to find appropriate senior-level courses that can be offered in alternate years which would support the program while also potentially reducing teaching loads.
Dean Response:
Teaching loads and hiring are outside of the authority of the Faculty of Science. There is nothing that the Faculty can do to implement this recommendation.
The Department of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering offers a Minor in Life Sciences, and the Chemistry programme itself contains four core biology/biochemistry courses along with three additional elective courses that are part of the Life Sciences stream.
VPA response:
The subject of teaching loads and faculty renewal are managerial functions that are outside the scope of the programme CPR.
Recommendation 10
Establish research-related course releases to help alleviate faculty workload challenges.
Departmental Response:
While the intent behind research-related course releases is understood, this approach may simply shift the workload to other faculty, rather than addressing the core issue. Such redistribution could lead to further strain and may affect faculty well-being and engagement. A more sustainable solution would require a broader review of workload management and resource allocation at an institutional level.
Dean Response:
Research-related courses are mainly offered to fourth year Honours Science students, meaning that not even every Science student in the more specialized programmes will take one. However, some of the second- and third-year laboratory courses do introduce some independent project experiments where the students have more latitude in their choice of reagents, experimental conditions, etc. Those experiments still require a heavy Faculty and Technical Staff involvement, so it is unclear how these will alleviate faculty workload. As a result, this recommendation does not apply to the BSc(Gen) programme.
VPA response:
Faculty members with a heavy research load are able to apply for course relief through their Dean, for the VPA’s approval. Regardless, the subject of teaching loads is a managerial function that falls outside the scope of the programme CPR.
Implementation Plan
| Recommendation | Proposed Follow-up | Responsibility for Leading Follow-up | Timeline for Addressing Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Add upper-year science course requirements. | Identify potential courses or establish a minimum number of senior-level courses. |
Dean of Science |
Reviewed annually (implementation updates due June). |
| 2. Clarify or provide rationales for course equivalencies in the academic calendar. | Provide rationales and have program description updated in the calendar. | Dean of Science |
Fall 2025 |
| 3. Revise PLOs to include advanced courses. | Review curriculum mapping following outcome of Recommendation 1. | Dean of Science | Reviewed annually (implementation updates due June). |
| 4. Update PLOs to address diverse learner needs and promote inclusivity and accessibility. | Expand the PLOs as suggested in concert with work done for Recommendation 3. | Dean of Science | Reviewed annually (implementation updates due June). |
| 5. Expand the program to include more senior-level courses to better prepare graduates for advanced studies or professional development. | Review these options: identify potential senior-level courses or adjust the balance of required junior vs senior courses. | Dean of Science | Reviewed annually (implementation updates due June). |
| 6. Incorporate a lab component in first-year mathematics courses, utilizing software like Maple, R, and Python to enhance computational skills. | Recommendation is already addressed through the existing course offering (CSE/INF101). | Dean of Science | Completed |
| 7. Provide a list of preferred military occupations for BSc (Gen) graduates. | There are currently no more preferred degrees for military occupations. | Dean of Science | To be reviewed if there are any changes to the policy. |
| 8. Implement a standardized template for course syllabi. | This is an institutional level decision. | Academic Wing Leadership | N/A |
| 9. Reduce faculty teaching loads. | This is an institutional level decision. The program will continually explore options to improve delivery within current resources. |
Academic Wing Leadership. Dean of Science |
Outside of scope. |
| 10. Establish research-related course releases. | This is an institutional level decision. The program will continually explore options to improve delivery within current resources. |
Academic Wing Leadership. Dean of Science |
Outside of scope. |
Conclusion:
The ERC Report provided positive feedback on the BSc(Gen) program noting that the objectives of the program closely align with RMC's mission and academic vision, and the program offers a comprehensive educational experience that reinforces the institution's goals of student success and retention in the CAF. The ERC identified specific changes it would like to see that focussed on senior level course requirements, the explicit accounting of advanced knowledge and skills in the program, and recommended improvements to the DLE/PLO curriculum map. The Office of the Dean of Science is committed to reviewing and implementing solutions that address these recommendations as described in the table above.