As presented to the Examining Board of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of

As presented to the Examining Board of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of

Newfoundland and LabradorSept 19 2007

Ross Peters P.Eng.with great input from Deborah Wolfe P.Eng.CEAB & Chris Watts P.Eng. (CEAB member)

Engineering Accreditation in Canada &

Proposed Changes

Where we are headed ….

BackgroundCurrent Accreditation Criteria, Policies and ProceduresInternational ActivitiesOutcomes AssessmentProposed Changes to the Accreditation Criteria

Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board

Created by Engineers Canada in 1965

Membership:» 15 volunteers, all ing./P.Eng.» Range of disciplines and backgrounds from across Canada» Rely on specialist volunteers during program evaluation visits

Main Responsibilities» Identify programs whose graduates are prepared to enter the

profession of engineering » Develop accreditation criteria, processes, procedures» Quality assurance » Continuous improvement

Background

Accreditation: Results

Over 250 accredited programs» 40 post-secondary institutions

» Over 70 fields of study

» 55,000 students

» 10,500 graduates per year

Background

Accreditation

Undertaken only upon invitation by the university

Undergraduate engineering programs only

Programs are accredited, not departments or faculties

Current Accreditation, Criteria, Policies and Procedures

Two Components of Evaluation

– A. Qualitative evaluation of the program environment

– B. Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the curriculum


A. Accreditation Criteriafor the Program Environment

- designed to identify programs that: Develop an ability to use knowledge and information to effectively analyze, interpret and design in the practice of engineering Provide sufficient freedom to foster innovation and prevent over-specialization in programs


Accreditation Criteria for the Program Environment, cont’d

Reflect the need for engineers to be adaptive, creative, resourceful and responsiveEnsure that graduates understand the role and responsibilities of professional engineers to societyReflect the need for the professional engineer to function as an effective member of a team and to communicate effectively


Qualitative EvaluationStudentsTeaching staffProgram and Faculty senior administrationTechnical and office supportLaboratory, library, workshop and computing facilitiesFundingOpportunities for the professional development of faculty members


B. Accreditation Criteria for the Curriculum

Accredited engineering programs must contain adequate mathematics, science and engineering, and …must enable development of communication skills and an understanding of the environmental, cultural, economic and social impacts of engineering on society and of the concept of sustainable development.


Qualitative Evaluation – Curriculum Considerations

Curriculum must include the application of computers and appropriate laboratory experience and safety proceduresStudents must be exposed to material dealing with professionalism, ethics, equity, public and worker safety and health considerations, concepts of sustainable development, environmental stewardship.Curriculum must prepare students to learn independently and to work as an effective member of a team


Quantitative Evaluation

Absolute measurement of curriculum content in terms of Accreditation Units

– One hour (50 minutes) lecture = 1 AU– One hour of tutorial or laboratory = 0.5 AU– Alternative proportionate measurement, especially

for capstone design courses


Category / Catégorie Minimum

AU / UA Maths + Sciences 420 Maths (195) Sciences (basic/fondamentales) (195) Complementary Studies / Études complémentaires 225 Engineering Science (ES) + Engineering Design (ED) / Sciences du génie + Conception en ingénierie

900

Engineering Science (ES) / Sciences du génie (225) Engineering Design (ED) / Conception en ingénierie (225) Minimum 1800

Quantitative Requirements

Minimums are purposely kept low to allow innovation and creativity


Licensure

Dean, Department Chair, Program coordinators and faculty teaching courses which are primarily engineering science and engineering design are expected to be licensed professional engineers in Canada.Curriculum development and control should be in the hands of licensed professional engineersWhere applicable, all faculty should be licensed professional engineers in Canada


Accreditation VisitsUndertaken at the request of the institutionCarried out by a team of senior professional engineers (all volunteers)Visit lasts 2½ days [but the accreditation cycle lasts 18 months]Detailed questionnaire is completed by the institution and reviewed by the teamInvolves extensive communication with the institution being visited, the visiting team chair, and the visitors


Accreditation Decisions

Accredited - 6 years followed by a visit (6V)Reduced term requiring a satisfactory report addressing noted concerns e.g. 3 years (3R)Reduced term requiring a revisit e.g. 3 years (3V)Reduced term requiring a revisit, focus only on shortcomings e.g. 3 years (3FV)Program on a notice of termination (T)


Significant Issues identified at this year’s June Decision Meeting

Number of facultyNumber of faculty registered as professional engineersProportion of registered faculty teaching ES & EDStability … low student numbers / faculty soon to retireTeaching loadsProfessional aspectsLaboratory experience – amount / safety….Exposure to worker health and safetyPlans for renewal of equipmentTeaching assistants


CEAB International Activities

Mobility for engineers and quality assurance for international engineering graduates

– Washington Accord

– Substantial Equivalency Evaluations

– Mutual Recognition Agreements

Washington AccordFull Members:– Australia– Canada– Hong Kong (1995)– Ireland– Japan (2005)– New Zealand– Singapore (2006)– South Africa (1999)– South Korea (2007)– Taiwan (2007)– United Kingdom– United States

Provisional members:– Germany– India– Malaysia– Russia– Sri Lanka

www.washingtonaccord.org

International Activities

Background to criteria revisions

Current criteria:– Prescriptive?– Restricts innovation, continuous improvement?– Not competency-based?

The move to “Outcome Based Assessment”ABET (EC2000)International

Outcomes Assessment

Many accreditation systems started to move to outcomes assessment in the 1990’sABET led the movement with Engineering Criteria 2000 (EC2000)Washington Accord developed model attributes in 2004-2005CEAB will be monitored by the Washington Accord in 2008-2009

What is ‘Outcomes Assessment’?

Outcomes: Statements that describe what students are expected to know and be able to do by the time of graduationAssessment: Processes that identify, collect, analyze, and report data that can be used to evaluate achievementProgram Objective: (ABET and others) Broad statements which describe what is expected of graduates a couple of years after graduation

Outcomes Assessment

OBA philosophy

Create a set of desired graduate attributesInstitution sets objectives in consultation with constituenciesEnsure competent faculty, facilities, etcMeasure outcomes Require feedback to objectives and educational processEnsure feedback loop is operational

Washington Accord Attributes

Completion of an accredited program of study typified by four years or more of post-secondary study.Apply knowledge of mathematics, science, engineering fundamentals and an engineering specialization to the conceptualization of engineering models. Identify, formulate, research literature and solve complex engineering problems reaching substantiated conclusions using first principles of mathematics and engineering sciences.

Washington Accord Attributes, cont’d

Design solutions for complex engineering problems and design systems, components or processes that meet specified needs with appropriate consideration for public health and safety, cultural, societal, and environmental considerations.Conduct investigations of complex problems including design of experiments, analysis and interpretation of data, and synthesis of information to provide valid conclusions.


Create, select and apply appropriate techniques, resources, and modern engineering tools, including prediction and modelling, to complex engineering activities, with an understanding of the limitations. Function effectively as an individual, and as a member or leader in diverse teams and in multi-disciplinary settings.


Communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with the engineering community and with society at large, such as being able to comprehend and write effective reports and design documentation, make effective presentations, and give and receive clear instructions. Demonstrate understanding of the societal, health, safety, legal and cultural issues and the consequent responsibilities relevant to engineering practice.


Understand and commit to professional ethics and responsibilities and norms of engineering practice. Understand the impact of engineering solutions in a societal context and demonstrate knowledge of and need for sustainable development.Demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of management and business practices, such as risk and change management, and understand their limitations.


Recognize the need for, and have the ability to engage in independent and life-long learning.

Observations on Outcomes Assessment

OA has theoretical appeal - especially if quality assurance is the objectiveIf each institution sets its own objectives, can it provide a “standard”?Most of the evidence I have seen used is really input rather than output-relatedA lot of institutional work is required to develop potentialThis can and probably will improve with useThere is a lot of subjective (if expert) judgment requiredOA is flexible

Outcomes Assessment

Changes to the Accreditation Criteria

Current criteria are published annually by CEABIn the recent past, there have been only small incremental changesThe current proposal for change– involves relatively little change in the technical criteria (a

few additions and clarifications)– BUT involves a significant change in the way the criteria

are expressed

CEAB Revision Process

CEAB has been working with stakeholders for several years to revise the criteriaRecognized need to improve the synchronization of criteria, questionnaire and decision lettersThe goal is to be ready for Washington Accord monitoring in 2008-2009 – our International review

Proposed Changes to the Accreditation Criteria

CEAB Draft Criteria

Draft criteria start with attributes that align with Washington Accord modelReformatted to promote greater precision in decision lettersStrengthened licensing criteria at the request of the Constituent Members


CEAB Proposed Graduate Attributes

1. Knowledge Base for Engineering

2. Problem Analysis3. Investigation4. Design5. Use of Resources6. Use of Engineering Tools7. Individual and Teamwork

8. Communication9. Professionalism10. Impact on Society and the

Environment11. Ethics and Equity12. Engineering Economics

and Project Management13. Life Long Learning


Proposed ChangesQuantitative Requirements

Category / Catégorie Minimum

AU / UA

Maths + Sciences 420

Maths (195)

Sciences (basic/fondamentales) (Natural/fundamental )

(195)

Complementary Studies / Études complémentaires 225

Engineering Science (ES) + Engineering Design (ED) / Sciences du génie + Conception en ingénierie

900

Engineering Science (ES) / Sciences du génie (225)

Engineering Design (ED)

/ Conception en ingénierie (225)

Minimum 1950

Note change to total AUs from 1800 to 1950.


Proposed Changes – Licensing (1)

Criteria on faculty have more references to industrial experience, design practice and involvement in engineering publications and societiesNew criteria require evidence among students and teaching faculty : – of their appreciation of the role and importance of the self-

regulating engineering profession, – and of positive attitudes towards professional licensure

and involvement in professional affairs.



Licensing is to be ‘preferably in the jurisdiction in which the institution is located. In those jurisdictions where the teaching of engineering is the practice of engineering, they are expected to be licensed in that jurisdiction.’Approval of a new Statement of Interpretation of Licensure Requirements and Expectations



Statement of Interpretation– At least 225 AU of Engineering Design (this is 100% of the

minimum requirement) must be taught by professional engineers licensed in Canada (and kind of license acceptable)

– At least 600 AU of Engineering Science and Engineering Design (this is 66% of the minimum requirement) must be taught by professional engineers licensed in Canada or those actively seeking licensure

– 5-year window from date of appointment for new faculty to become licensed



New Criteria are:– Reasonable

• allow for 33% of minimum combined engineering science and engineering design requirement to be taught by geoscientists, computer scientists, physicists etc

• allows 5-year “grace period” for new faculty to register

– Objective• subjective interpretation of “enough engineers” for compliance

is eliminated

– Quantitative• specific AU totals to be taught by licensed engineers are

mandated


Proposed Changes - Other

Requirement for an articulated mission statement and strategic plan‘Basic Science’ changed to ‘Natural Science’Removed reference to a Bachelors degree (for international compatibility)Added explicit references for the requirement for documentation on authority for program and admissionsClarified definition of options and other degree variations


Proposed Changes - Addition

The CEAB reserves the right to alter the accreditation status at any institution if it is discovered that an institution has breached any of CEAB’s accreditation criteria and regulationsThis expands the ability of the CEAB to react to issues that come to light between visits


Next Task

Development of Outcome Assessment Tools– ABET has invested a lot here– Most other countries less advanced– Keep in mind that measuring learning outcomes is

only a part of the accreditation process

Proposed Changes - Future

Further additions to ‘purpose section’ around authority and liability

Stricter definition and delineation of the responsibilities of the CEAB and the institution


Criteria Consultation ProcessMajor workshop in September 2006Criteria revised and approved by CEAB for consultation (February 2007)Formal consultation with regulators, Deans and others (Spring – Fall 2007)Approval by CEAB (February 2008)Approval by Engineers Canada (May 2008)Publication (Fall 2008)Implementation (Fall 2009 visits)

[email protected]

http://www.engineerscanada.ca/

mailto:[email protected]

As presented to the Examining Board of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of

Documents

Transcript of As presented to the Examining Board of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of