Abstract
This paper describes and compares the different approaches of seven Canadian institutions to the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) requirements for continuous quality improvement using graduate attributes. Program approaches are compared by: program objectives & management, indicators, curriculum mapping, assessment & data collection and curriculum improvement. The significant differences include approaches to curriculum mapping, data collection and curriculum improvement.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
