Does Program Compliance with CDIO Warrant Automatic Compliance with CEAB Accreditation Criteria for 2014?

Abstract

An accreditation board takes the responsibility of evaluating an institute’s engineering program, granting it accreditation upon the satisfaction that it meets a minimum standard in terms of academic and professional quality of the faculty, laboratories, equipment, computing facilities, and students’ work within the engineering curriculum. In Canada, the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) ensures that engineering programs meet the necessary educational standards as acceptable for licensure, and that engineering education delivered by the institute continues to improve. In recent years, accreditation boards have prescribed “outcome-based” assessments of engineering design curriculums. These criteria focus on the ability of students to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering science, extending to designing and conducting experiments, analyzing data, as well as developing a system, component, or process to meet certain needs. A recent approach that has been introduced to provide a better learning experience for engineering students and to educate them as well-rounded engineers to be able to develop complex, value-added engineering products and processes is the CDIO (Conceive-Design-Implement-Operate) approach. This approach has been adapted by several universities within their engineering departments. But should a program’s compliance with the CDIO standards warrant automatic compliance with CEAB (Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board) accreditation standards? Following the CDIO approach and using the outcome-based standards of accreditation boards may suggest so. Herein, we will provide an assessment of the Mechanical Engineering program in terms of the CDIO approach and look at its relationship with the CEAB standards.