Accreditation Visit to <name of HEI> <date range>

1. Accreditation Visit to<name of HEI><date range> Name Title The road to a P.ENG. begins with the right education P. ENG. *

2. Welcome! • Outline of this presentation • Background • General notes on accreditation • Goals of the CEAB • Objectives of the visit • Team’s responsibilities • Tasks and tools • Visit schedule • Accreditation criteria highlights • NEW! Graduate attribute criteria • Potential issues • Post-Visit Activities • Visit-Specific Issues

3. Background • History and current situation • <when HEI opened> • <current student complement> • <any major contextual factors> • Purpose of this visit • <list programs being visited> • <indicate when these programs were most recently visited and what the CEAB decisions was>

4. General notes about accreditation • Accreditation applies only to programs, not to departments or faculties • Undertaken only at the invitation of the HEI and with the consent of the appropriate regulator • Accreditation constitutes: • Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the curriculum • Qualitative evaluation of the program environment • Accreditation is granted for a period of time up to and normally not exceeding six years

5. Goals of the CEAB • Engineering programs offered by Canadian institutions will meet or exceed minimum educational standards acceptable for professional engineering licensure in Canada • The quality and relevance of engineering education will continuously improve • The Engineers Canada Board of Directors will be provided with advice and recommendations on international matters relating to engineering accreditation and education

6. Objectives of the visiting team • Conduct fact-finding on behalf of the Accreditation Board • Review, validate and/or add to the information provided by the host institution • Review of materials, meetings, and facility tours to corroborate program strengths and weaknesses and bring forward issues to the CEAB • Describe progress toward use of graduate attributes in program assessment and improvement • Collaborate in preparing a report of the team’s findings • The visiting team or its members do not make any recommendations ~ accreditation decisions are made by the CEAB

7. Team’s responsibilities • Thoroughly read the institution’s completed questionnaire • Identify issues for investigation during the visit • Attend the visit • Participate in team discussions • Complete your report (before the exit meeting!) • Be available to answer questions after the visit and before the CEAB’s decision meeting

8. Team’s responsibilities ~ cont’d. • The confidential nature of the process • Check everything you question with the program coordinator or other responsible person ~ don’t assume! • Be sure to get the names of all the people that you interview. Circulate an attendance list. • Visitors should not get into giving suggestions • All issues that are to appear in the final report must be brought up in the exit meeting ~ i.e. there must not be any surprises in the final report. • We must agree on all issues to be raised and I must have a clear understanding of them. • Do not use the terms “concern”, “weakness” or “deficiency”. In the accreditation process, these terms have very specific meanings (accreditation jargon!).

9. Tasks and tools • Interviews with appropriate senior administrative officers, including the president, the dean of engineering and the chairs of the departments responsible for the programs • Interviews with individuals and groups of faculty members to evaluate: • professional attitudes • motivations • morale • the balance of opinions concerning theoretical and practical elements of the curriculum • Interviews with individuals and groups of students. Ask open-ended questions to get them talking • Examine compliance with graduate attribute criteria

10. Tasks and tools ~ cont’d. • Tours of physical facilities such as laboratories, libraries, and computing facilities, to evaluate their effectiveness • Note that the Accreditation Board does not require any Faculty to spend money - the question is whether the equipment, supplies, etc. are adequate • A review of recent examination papers, laboratory instruction sheets, student transcripts, student reports and theses, models or equipment constructed by students and other evidence of student performance • Are performance expectations and grading standards appropriate?

11. Tasks and tools ~ cont’d. • Attendance form ~ for meetings and interviews • AU re-allocation form • Sample questions for faculty and staff • Sample questions for students • Interpretive Statements and Regulations • Interpretive statement on natural sciences • Interpretive statement on licensure expectations and requirements • Regulations for granting transfer credits (effective January 2012)

12. Visit Schedule Pre-visit Activities • All team members review the written material submitted by the host institution, and spend time reviewing graduate attributes • Team members prepare a list of potential issues and a preliminary draft of their contribution to the report. • Initial team meeting • A detailed schedule for Sunday to Tuesday has been prepared for each team member

13. Visit Schedule ~ cont’d. Visit – Day 1 (Sunday)‏ • Lunch with institution officials • In the afternoon, the team visits the institution to review course materials including consideration of graduate attribute compliance • Team dines together • Team meets in the evening ~ agenda includes discussion of: • observations and findings of the day • potential issues and how to investigate further • previous decision issues and areas to be re-examined

14. Visit Schedule ~ cont’d. Visit – Day 2 (Monday)‏ • Plenary Session with the Team, Dean, Program Chairs / Co-ordinators: • Introductions and purpose (fact-finding for the CEAB) • Process and time lines • Conduct visit • Lunch with administrators and faculty members • Continuation of visit • Team dinner and meeting • Discussion and preliminary consensus regarding issues • List areas of strength and list issues that require further investigation

15. Visit Schedule ~ cont’d. Visit – Day 3 (Tuesday) • Update information with Dean, Program Coordinators • Revise visit schedule as necessary • In cameraTeam Working Lunch: • Complete draft reports • Review reports, arrive at consensus on final conclusions • Draft copies of each report provided to the chair

16. Visit Schedule ~ cont’d. Visit – Day 3 (Tuesday) ~ cont’d. • Exit meeting with Dean, Program Chairs, Faculty (verbal presentation by the Team Chair) • Restate - Visiting Team’s role is fact-finding • Accreditation decisions are made only by the Accreditation Board • Repeat time-line of the process to follow • Emphasize confidentiality • Summarize all issues and state strengths • Thank the Dean and staff for visit arrangements and their hospitality

17. Timeline after visit • Chair submits report to CEAB Secretariat • Report is edited, formatted and returned with any questions to chair • Chair may contact team members with questions • Report finalized, sent to institution • Institution responds and sends update • Accreditation decision made (June or Sept mtg) • Institution and Team members notified of decision (within month)

18. If you see an issue with a program • Visit Team is on a fact-finding mission • Institution’s documentation will emphasize the positive but your direct observation may differ • You need to verify documentation and identify discrepancies if any, to inform CEAB decision • Add something about editing process. • If there is an issue, the institution still has multiple opportunities to address it and improve • Do not hesitate to dig for the full picture and describe it accurately in your report

19. Accreditation Decisions2012-2013 Cycle There are now 271 accredited programs at 43 Higher Education Institutions in Canada And 13 substantially equivalent programs in 4 HEIs outside of Canada

20. Accreditation Criteria Highlights • The processes of accreditation place emphasis on the quality of the curriculum, the students, the academic staff, support staff, facilities, and resources • The accreditation criteria: • Reflect the need for engineers to be adaptive, creative, resourceful, and responsive • Ensure that the 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

21. Accreditation Criteria Highlights cont’d. 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 • The Curriculum must prepare students to learn independently and to work as an effective member of a team

22. Accreditation Criteria Highlights cont’d. Qualitative Evaluation – Curriculum Considerations • Curriculum must include studies in: • communication skills • engineering economics • impact of technology on society • subject matter that deals with central issues, methodologies and thought processes of humanities and social sciences, and; • must culminate in a significant design experience

23. Accreditation Criteria Highlights cont’d. Qualitative Evaluation – Curriculum Considerations • Engineering Design: • integration of curriculum elements • creative, iterative and open-ended • subject to constraints imposed by legislation or standards • to satisfy specification using optimization • economics should be part of the design experience • to be supervised by licensed engineers Every program must culminate in a significant design experience

24. Accreditation Criteria Highlights cont’d. Quantitative Evaluation Accreditation units (AU) • one hour of lecture (corresponding to 50 minutes of activity) = 1 AU • one hour of laboratory or scheduled tutorial = 0.5 AU

25. Accreditation Criteria Highlights cont’d.

26. Accreditation Criteria Highlights cont’d. • In reviewing course information and course materials, check reasonableness of AU allocations ~ not an exact science! • AU re-allocations should be team decisions, after discussion • We will discuss re-allocations, if any, on Sunday evening, and again on Monday evening • Discuss allocations with responsible faculty member, but no need to argue • Agree to disagree

27. Accreditation Criteria Highlights cont’d. Professional Licensure • Dean, Department Chairs, and faculty members teaching courses that are primarily engineering science and engineering design are expected to be licensed to practice engineering in Canada • minimum of 225AU of ED to be instructed by P.Eng./ing. • minimum of 600 AU of ES+ED to be instructed by P.Eng./ing. or 'Applied’ • Interpretive Statement as guidance • Curriculum development and control should be in the hands of persons licensed to practice engineering in Canada

28. Graduate Attributes Accreditation Criteria Highlights cont’d. – Graduate Attributes Criterion 3.1 Graduate Attributes • Two components • Attributes: • Interpreted at time of graduation • Recognized that achievement does not end there • Continuous Improvement: • Ongoing evolution of engineering programs • Processes needed • Assessment of attribute achievement • Results used to improve program

29. Graduate Attributes Accreditation Criteria Highlights cont’d. – Graduate Attributes Criterion 3.1 Graduate Attributes Timeframe: • “While programs are expected to provide evidence to demonstrate compliance with this criterion, a transition and development period will be allowed. Starting in June 2015, the Accreditation Board will make decisions about compliance with the Graduate Attribute criteria. Deficiencies may be assessed in cases of non-compliance.”

30. Graduate Attributes Accreditation Criteria Highlights cont’d. – Graduate Attributes

31. Graduate Attributes Graduate Attributes ~ Examples The institution must demonstrate that the graduates of a program possess the attributes under the following headings: 3.1.1 A Knowledge Base for Engineering: Demonstrated competence in university level mathematics, natural sciences, engineering fundamentals, and specialized engineering knowledge appropriate to the program. 3.1.8 Professionalism: An understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the professional engineer in society, especially the primary role of protection of the public and the public interest.

32. Graduate Attributes Graduate Attributes progress ~ Evaluation by Program Visitors The Program Visitor must evaluate progress toward each graduate attribute to fill out the report template: Program Visitor’s Observations on Implementation Evaluate the evidence and actions (either seen on-site or in the questionnaire) proposed to demonstrate the level of achievement of each graduate attribute Program Visitor’s Observations on Implementation Evaluate the evidence and actions (either seen on-site or in the questionnaire) proposed to demonstrate the level of continual improvement achievement

33. Graduate Attributes Graduate Attributes progress ~ Evaluation by Program Visitors • Things the Program Visitor will need to see: • Graduate Attributes (Accreditation Criteria) • Learning outcomes that support Graduate Attributes • Indicators • Acceptable levels • Feedback mechanism

34. Graduate Attributes Graduate Attributes: Evaluation by HEI • The program is assessed, not the students • Continuous improvement process • Not required to assess every student • Not required to assess in every course • Not required to assess every year

35. Graduate Attributes Continuous Improvement – The big picture HEIs evaluate: • Are students meeting expectations? • In what areas are they successful • What areas require improvement • What data would help institution improve their program?

36. Graduate Attributes What to look for: Program background • Is the program clearly described? • Is there a curriculum map? • Is the context of the program clear?

37. Graduate Attributes What to look for:Curriculum Mapping • Information in the curriculum map is • Accurate, with some depth • Identifies intended outcomes from learning experiences • Not simply a list of topics “covered” • Map provides information for each attribute • Can include curricular and other experiences

38. Graduate Attributes Methodology: Data Collection Plan • On what does the program propose collecting data (i.e. indicators)? • What methods are proposed for collecting data? • Is the data collection plan good?

39. Graduate Attributes Terminology for Data Collection (1) • Valid Indicators • measure what they are supposed to measure • Reliable Indicators • the results are consistent; the measurements are the same when repeated with the same subjects under the same conditions

40. Graduate Attributes Terminology for Data Collection (2) Direct measures • directly observable or measurable assessments of student learning Indirect measures • opinion or self-reports of student learning or educational experiences Use both direct and indirect measures if possible.

41. Graduate Attributes Data Collection - Indicators • An indicator is like a sensor: what indicators has the program chosen? • Where have they placed their indicators? Where are the data collection points? • Does the proposed data collection plan make sense?

42. Graduate Attributes What to look for: Overall - data collection plan • Integrity: • How good is the quality of the data collection plan • Are Indicators well chosen? • Are assessment points well chosen? • Is valid, reliable data collection proposed? • Is plan cyclic, continuous? • will results be useful for informing curriculum change? Ask the question: “why are you collecting this data?”

43. Graduate Attributes What to look for:Indicators in data collection • Indicators align with attributes and questions • Indicators are “leading indicators”: central to attribute; indicate competency • Enough indicators defined to identify strength areas and weak areas within an attribute • Not too many indicators – resulting in reams of data but little deep information • Indicators are clearly articulated and measurable

44. Graduate Attributes Selecting Assessment Points • Learning is generally demonstrated through: • Artifacts, e.g. written test, report, built project • Performances, e.g. oral presentation, observed practice

45. Graduate Attributes What to look for: Assessment Points • Indicators are well aligned to the proposed assessment points • Enough assessment points are utilized • Expectations of performance quality are clear, i.e. the scale is defined

46. Graduate Attributes What to look for: Triangulation in improvement process • Are opportunities included for informal assessment, students’ self-reports of learning, and even unsolicited data from placement supervisors or employers? • Are more than one type of assessment used when analyzing data? • Are all assessments valued, not just major events? • Are the data gained from assessment used to answer questions about authentic learning? • Are data across time intervals looked at?

47. Graduate Attributes Measurement Tools ~ Illustrative Examples

48. Graduate Attributes Quality Improvement Loop • 3.1 Graduate attributes • Engineering programs are expected to continually improve • There must be processes in place that demonstrate that program outcomes are being assessed in the context of the attributes • And, that the results are applied to the further development of the program. Thus, If observed outcomes are not consistent with expected attributes, then system inputs and/or process must be adjusted

49. Graduate Attributes What to look for: Evidence of Feedback Loop • Results are consolidated for each learning outcome. • Determination is made regarding whether learning outcome is met. • Results of assessment are used to determine if changes need to be made in curriculum, courses, prerequisites, performance criteria or metrics. • Change is implemented • Assessment is repeated to determine effect of change.

50. Graduate Attributes Continuous Improvement