Troisième rapport du Conseil des visiteurs du CFC
Conseil des visiteurs du Collège des Forces canadiennes
Ce rapport est présenté dans la langue de soumission.
Ref: Meeting of the BoV, Toronto, 28-29 April 2004
The fourth meeting of the Board of Visitors was held in Toronto on 28-29 April 2004. All members of the Board, except Dr Sokolsky, on sabbatical leave, were present at this meeting.[1]
The following comments and suggestions follow on the fourth meeting of the Canadian Forces College Board of Visitors, and constitute our Third Report. They are focused mainly on the MDS programme. We understand that a number of changes are already being considered for the MDS. In general, we think these changes are well advised although we are uncertain about the details of some of them.
MDS Research Project. The BoV set itself the task of reviewing the academic standards of the students’ principal written output. Copies of a sample of research papers were provided before the meeting and these were reviewed. In general, the judgement is that these have the potential to test the capacity of the students’ skills of analysis, conceptualization, argument and persuasion. The Board looks to the Research Project to meet the standards expected of such an exercise in any internationally recognized staff course and to conform with those of the best professional degrees.
Our reading of the papers confirms the view that many of them are largely descriptive and based mostly on secondary sources. In a pre-appraisal review, completed for RMC, Professor H.W. Arthurs made the point that even the better papers are ‘not informed by theory, do not systematically survey the literature, and do not attempt to locate their conclusions in a broader context’.[2] We agree with Professor Arthurs in this and are particularly heartened that a proper literature survey is to become a mandatory component of the Research Project, and that other related changes have been put in train.
On the other hand, partly because of our reaction to the papers — generally well-written and often very interesting though they are — we are not persuaded that current plans to make them longer in the future are necessarily well-advised. We recognize that some topics are more susceptible to economical treatment than others and that some measure of flexibility is required. As a general practice, however, we think it might be better to maintain the current parameters, while insisting, through appropriate supervision, on enhancing the analytical depth of the substantive content.
Supervision and Grading of the Research Project. With reference to supervision, the Board recognizes that the role of supervisors is under review and the grading system already subject to useful change. These are entirely welcome developments. The Board makes the following observations designed to reinforce these developments and to encourage an even longer-term view:
- External academics have been important contributors to the supervisory process. However they are no substitute for proper "on-site" supervision. Experience suggests that they find face-to-face meetings with students hard to arrange.[3] This can lead to inequities in supervision and support, and uncertainty about the comparability of marking standards. External supervisors will be needed for the next few years to provide expertise broader than the in-house faculty can offer until it has been expanded to its full, planned level. The Board suggests that, where an external supervisor has to be used — and the need for francophone supervisory provision is a clear example of this — a CFC academic should be appointed joint supervisor.
- The Report to RMC by Maj. Gen. R.R. Ivany[4] outlines a fuller, more rigorous supervisory system using graduate seminars as part of the process that produces the final Research Project. The proposed introduction of research techniques sessions, better timetabling of tutor-student sessions, proper literature surveys and peer-to-peer graduate seminars is good news. We welcome the introduction of a full grading system, rather than a simple pass-fail. However, the Board also wishes to note that, until the academic faculty is increased in number and subject range, the real benefits of these changes will not be fully realized. This suggests the Department of Defence Studies needs to be expanded sooner rather than later.
- Two proposals in the Ivany Report now apparently under consideration, seem to warrant further reflection. First, even when the faculty is expanded in number, the Board feels that the notion of a formal academic defence of each paper will be difficult to meet for all students, given the MDS enrollment. Secondly, and as noted above, rather than emphasizing a longer finished paper, the Board feels that better topic choice and improved supervision are the means by which greater academic rigour can be achieved by students.
Electives. The Board has been advised that a decision has been made to abandon some of the existing elements in the CSC curriculum, so that time can be released from the schedule for the teaching of elective components. We strongly endorse this as a move in the right direction. We recommend that electives be classed as full credits, and that the resulting programme credit be listed as a separate category on Table 1.1 in the draft OCGS submission.
The Library. The Board received a short report on developments related to the Library. We continue to be impressed by the Library, and regard it as an invaluable resource which is extremely well managed. We think it vital that it maintain its core collections in "military and naval science", not only for the benefit of CFC students doing research reports and electives, but also as a vital component, more generally, of the Canadian defence library community.
OCGS Submission. The Board took the opportunity of its visit to CFC to review the draft report on the MDS to OCGS. While we appreciate the enormous effort that has gone into the preparation of the document, we are somewhat concerned by the lack of clarity and the appearance of contradictions in the text. The following examples are illustrative:
- Annex B lays out the grading standards of the Research Project indicating that originality and creativity are the defining features of an A Grade;
- Annex C, on the other hand, makes it equally clear that ‘there are no requirements for students to engage in original research or produce original results’.
- Para 1.1.3 of the draft submission mentions that ‘the acceptable standard for successful completion of all written work has been raised to graduate level requirements’, but there is little in the documentation, so far, to substantiate this.
The document, moreover, seems to reveal some confusion over the purpose and evaluation standards of the Research Project. These kinds of issues in the draft are problematic and should be resolved before the document goes forward.
The Board is aware that the exigencies of the OCGS timetable required its work, thus far, to be dominated by the MDS aspects of CFC activities. Future meetings will begin to review other dimensions of CFC’s contributions to professional military education.
Members of the Board wishes to thank most warmly the Commandant, BGen Robin Gagnon, for creating the Board of Visitors in the first place and for being so strongly supportive of its work throughout.
Dr Albert Legault
Chair of the Board of Visitors
29 April 2004
- Date de modification :