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

1. Engineering Accreditation in Canada & Proposed Changes As presented to the Examining Board of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Newfoundland and Labrador Sept 19 2007 Ross Peters P.Eng. with great input from Deborah Wolfe P.Eng.CEAB & Chris Watts P.Eng. (CEAB member)

2. Where we are headed …. • Background • Current Accreditation Criteria, Policies and Procedures • International Activities • Outcomes Assessment • Proposed Changes to the Accreditation Criteria

3. Background 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

4. Background Accreditation: Results • Over 250 accredited programs • 40 post-secondary institutions • Over 70 fields of study • 55,000 students • 10,500 graduates per year

5. Current Accreditation, Criteria, Policies and Procedures Accreditation • Undertaken only upon invitation by the university • Undergraduate engineering programs only • Programs are accredited, not departments or faculties

6. Two Components of Evaluation Current Accreditation, Criteria, Policies and Procedures • A. Qualitative evaluation of the program environment • B. Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the curriculum

7. Current Accreditation, Criteria, Policies and Procedures 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

8. Accreditation Criteria for the Program Environment, cont’d Current Accreditation, Criteria, Policies and Procedures • Reflect the need for engineers to be adaptive, creative, resourceful and responsive • Ensure that graduates understand the role and responsibilities of professional engineers to society • Reflect the need for the professional engineer to function as an effective member of a team and to communicate effectively

9. Current Accreditation, Criteria, Policies and Procedures Qualitative Evaluation • Students • Teaching staff • Program and Faculty senior administration • Technical and office support • Laboratory, library, workshop and computing facilities • Funding • Opportunities for the professional development of faculty members

10. Current Accreditation, Criteria, Policies and Procedures 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.

11. Current Accreditation, Criteria, Policies and Procedures Qualitative Evaluation – Curriculum Considerations • Curriculum must include the application of computers and appropriate laboratory experience and safety procedures • Students 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

12. Quantitative Evaluation Current Accreditation, Criteria, Policies and Procedures 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

13. Quantitative Requirements Current Accreditation, Criteria, Policies and Procedures Minimums are purposely kept low to allow innovation and creativity

14. Current Accreditation, Criteria, Policies and Procedures 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 engineers • Where applicable, all faculty should be licensed professional engineers in Canada

15. Current Accreditation, Criteria, Policies and Procedures Accreditation Visits • Undertaken at the request of the institution • Carried 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 team • Involves extensive communication with the institution being visited, the visiting team chair, and the visitors

16. Current Accreditation, Criteria, Policies and Procedures 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)

17. Current Accreditation, Criteria, Policies and Procedures Significant Issues identified at this year’s June Decision Meeting • Number of faculty • Number of faculty registered as professional engineers • Proportion of registered faculty teaching ES & ED • Stability … low student numbers / faculty soon to retire • Teaching loads • Professional aspects • Laboratory experience – amount / safety…. • Exposure to worker health and safety • Plans for renewal of equipment • Teaching assistants

18. CEAB International Activities • Mobility for engineers and quality assurance for international engineering graduates • Washington Accord • Substantial Equivalency Evaluations • Mutual Recognition Agreements

19. Washington Accord Full 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 International Activities www.washingtonaccord.org

20. Background to criteria revisions • Current criteria: • Prescriptive? • Restricts innovation, continuous improvement? • Not competency-based? • The move to “Outcome Based Assessment” • ABET (EC2000) • International

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

22. Outcomes Assessment What is ‘Outcomes Assessment’? • Outcomes: Statements that describe what students are expected to know and be able to do by the time of graduation • Assessment: Processes that identify, collect, analyze, and report data that can be used to evaluate achievement • Program Objective: (ABET and others) Broad statements which describe what is expected of graduates a couple of years after graduation

23. OBA philosophy • Create a set of desired graduate attributes • Institution sets objectives in consultation with constituencies • Ensure competent faculty, facilities, etc • Measure outcomes • Require feedback to objectives and educational process • Ensure feedback loop is operational

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. Washington Accord Attributes, cont’d • 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.

27. Washington Accord Attributes, cont’d • 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.

28. Washington Accord Attributes, cont’d • 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.

29. Washington Accord Attributes, cont’d • Recognize the need for, and have the ability to engage in independent and life-long learning.

30. Outcomes Assessment Observations on Outcomes Assessment • OA has theoretical appeal - especially if quality assurance is the objective • If 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-related • A lot of institutional work is required to develop potential • This can and probably will improve with use • There is a lot of subjective (if expert) judgment required • OA is flexible

31. Changes to the Accreditation Criteria • Current criteria are published annually by CEAB • In the recent past, there have been only small incremental changes • The 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

32. Proposed Changes to the Accreditation Criteria CEAB Revision Process • CEAB has been working with stakeholders for several years to revise the criteria • Recognized need to improve the synchronization of criteria, questionnaire and decision letters • The goal is to be ready for Washington Accord monitoring in 2008-2009 – our International review

33. CEAB Draft Criteria Proposed Changes to the Accreditation Criteria • Draft criteria start with attributes that align with Washington Accord model • Reformatted to promote greater precision in decision letters • Strengthened licensing criteria at the request of the Constituent Members

34. Proposed Changes to the Accreditation Criteria CEAB Proposed Graduate Attributes • Knowledge Base for Engineering • Problem Analysis • Investigation • Design • Use of Resources • Use of Engineering Tools • Individual and Teamwork • Communication • Professionalism • Impact on Society and the Environment • Ethics and Equity • Engineering Economics and Project Management • Life Long Learning

35. Proposed Changes to the Accreditation Criteria Proposed ChangesQuantitative Requirements Note change to total AUs from 1800 to 1950.

36. Proposed Changes to the Accreditation Criteria Proposed Changes – Licensing (1) • Criteria on faculty have more references to industrial experience, design practice and involvement in engineering publications and societies • New 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.

37. Proposed Changes – Licensing (2) Proposed Changes to the Accreditation Criteria • 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

38. Proposed Changes – Licensing (3) Proposed Changes to the Accreditation Criteria • 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

39. Proposed Changes to the Accreditation Criteria Proposed Changes – Licensing (4) • 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

40. Proposed Changes - Other Proposed Changes to the Accreditation Criteria • 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 admissions • Clarified definition of options and other degree variations

41. Proposed Changes to the Accreditation Criteria 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 regulations • This expands the ability of the CEAB to react to issues that come to light between visits

42. 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

43. Proposed Changes to the Accreditation Criteria 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

44. Criteria Consultation Process • Major workshop in September 2006 • Criteria 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)

45. www.engineerscanada.ca ceab@engineerscanada.ca