Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board Research Articles

TEACHING DESIGN FOR SAFETY THROUGH REAL WORK INCIDENTS

Good design means at least safe design. There is no doubt that engineering students have to develop the ability to design for safety in order to satisfy the expectations of the profession and of employers. According to the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board, an appropriate exposure to safety and health must be part of any engineering curriculum. Design for safety principles can be taught in project-based courses. Those courses provide real-world contexts for the development of design for safety skills. Design minima established in standards, regulations, and handbooks can easily be integrated throughout the curriculum in engineering science courses. In association with safety, engineering science courses may go beyond the application of standards and guidelines and prepare the student to become a better designer. The Case Study approach is a very interesting pedagogical tool for engineering education and can be introduced in the most engineering courses. When based on real work incidents and investigation reports, case studies become a perfect instrument to expose students to safety as professional engineers should apply it. To illustrate the idea, this paper presents an example of a case study based on an incident that occurred with a scissor lift. This particular case was introduced in a machine design course and helped students to link safety concepts with machine design contents.

EVALUATION METHODS FOR FINAL YEAR PRACTICE ORIENTED DESIGN COURSES

The curriculum debate is alive and well amongst engineering faculties across the country. Even as the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board continues to move towards fostering more design in the curriculum the question remains as to what impacts this is having on creating practice ready engineering graduates. The term practice ready is not to imply they are ready to be registered as professionals in their jurisdiction, but is intended to imply they have enough understanding of the realities of working in the private and public sector to appreciate the many conflicting objectives and limitations organizations face when making decisions that involve a large component of engineering involvement. This paper presents a discussion of using case histories in a final year Civil Engineering course to introduce elements of institutional policy, business management and engineering practice through demonstration with case histories where decisions involved all these elements. The case histories involved discussion of legal claims and dispute resolution on projects where engineering and business considerations were weighed in concert to achieve final solutions. The class was broken into working teams to discuss the case histories at various stages where information to that point was presented. The groups reported on their position and what decisions they would take at each stage so they could appreciate how their position changed as new information became available. This paper will focus on how the curriculum material was evaluated in the context of the examinations. Given the focus around case histories, the evaluation process was difficult given any questions about the case histories covered was simply a recalling knowledge already gained. At the same time the skills to be evaluated were highly subjective and difficult to articulate in answers to specific one-off questions. As such a case study was used in the examination process with considerable success. This paper discusses the development of an examination, conducting the examination and marking the examination of a case study based problem.

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

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.

Progress on Defining the CEAB Graduate Attributes at Carleton University

The Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) is requiring engineering programs to demonstrate that their graduating students have certain specified attributes beginning in 2014. At Carleton University we have been working on developing our approaches to meeting this requirement for some time. This paper presents some of the aspects of our efforts that appear to be unique. It was important to include in the process coverage of the Ontario government's Undergraduate Degree Level Expectations (UDLEs). After reviewing the UDLEs we created what we are describing as a thirteenth Graduate Attribute – Limits of Knowledge. With the establishment of this attribute both the CEAB and UDLE requirements are covered with a single process.Considerable effort was given to the process for defining competencies (specific and measurable criteria associated with each of the broad attributes) in a clear and functional manner.Our process separates each competency into three components: area of knowledge, expectation levels and context. The area of knowledge is a noun phrase that clearly descrives the specific aspect of the graduate attribute to the beasured. The expectation levels include both threshold and target specifications using the revised Bloom's Taxonomy as a cognitive hierarchy. The final component of each competency is contect which allows each discipline to specify a possibly unique area of application.

Graduate Attributes: Intentional Mapping and Assessment Portfolios

In 1987, the University of Guelph introduced Learning1. CurricKit Outcomes Mapping has been created to support intentional curriculum development through aggregating faculty input on course outcomes to a program perspective.2. Progression Maps have been created to aid in the visualization of a program’s curriculum structure, through courses, semesters and program years3. A Portfolio System has been developed to permit student, educator and program portfolios to be built. These portfolios allow for reflection and for assessment of learning outcomes based on the artefacts of student work.This presentation will share current status and Guelph’s visions for the future - a future in which every student has a learning outcomes based portfolio and every program has an intentional curriculum map and a program level portfolio.By the end of this session, participants will be able to:• Describe the processes and tools being used at the University of Guelph,• Consider how to apply or adapt them for use in theirObjectives for all of its undergraduate programs. In 2004, the NSERC Chairs in Design Engineering released a white paper on Engineering Design Competencies. In 2009, the Province of Ontario mandated University Undergraduate Degree Level Expectations (UUDLEs). And finally, in 2010, the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) began reviewing and assessing progress towards twelve graduate attributes. These initiatives are based on an outcomes philosophy towards curriculum development that is distinctly different from our historical, and still common, inputs based approach. Success in a learning outcomes approach relies on engaging students,educators and program leaders and is data-informed, educator- and student-driven, intentional and assessed. Guelph has been developing a combination of tools and processes to advance learning outcomes pedagogy:local context.

ASSESSING CEAB GRADUATE ATTRIBUTES AT RYERSON UNIVERSITY: FRAMEWORK AND INGREDIENTS FOR SUCCESS

The Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) has recently introduced a new criterion for accreditation of engineering programs. The criterion included 12 graduate attributes. Each engineering program must have a system in place for assessing these attributes and using the assessment results to continuously improve the engineering program. The development of a system for assessing CEAB graduate attributes at Ryerson University has started in April 2010. This paper highlights the developed system, including framework, elements, process, and ingredients for success.

Employing Co-op Employer Evaluations to Assess Outcomes

The Faculty of Engineering at the University of Waterloo is preparing to employ outcomes-based assessments to inform program improvement as required by the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) and the Ontario Council of Academic Vice Presidents (OCAV). Engineering at Waterloo requires all students to complete five 4-month work terms to graduate; a model of Co-operative education that involves a sequence of alternating work and academic terms. Upon completion of each work term employers complete a Student Performance Evaluation (SPE) that provides students with feedback on their work term and is employed to assign a grade to the student for the term. This presentation will describe an innovative use of historical SPE information to initiate a process that will lead to their use for outcomesassessment for program enhancement.

CURRICULUM ENHANCEMENT AND EVALUATION OF GRADUATE ATTRIBUTES AND OUTCOMES THROUGH STUDENT-RUN FORUMS

The evolution of a curriculum involves changes at many different levels such as daily changes to reflect questions or areas of interest of a particular class, improvements to an established course based on observations from the professor, or more significant changes to streams of courses at a departmental level, or adaptation to suggested accreditation guidelines such the recent new Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) graduate attributes and outcomes. Most educational institutions have means of collecting data and assessing individual courses or streams of courses based on student performance, course evaluations, and professor assessments. However, since more can be done to gauge the collective effect of changes before students get to their final year capstone project or go into industry, a student-run curriculum forum has been established.This paper presents some of the lessons learned from the bi-annual student-run curriculum forums in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Manitoba. Based on the experience acquired so far, this paper outlines the organization of the curriculum forums, suggestions on guided discussions, ways to present feedback, and means of communicating to students how their feedback is being used to improve the curriculum.

CEAB’s Graduate Attributes and Ontario’s UUDLEs

In 2009, the Province of Ontario mandated UniversityUndergraduate Degree Level Expectations (UUDLEs). The Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) began reviewing and assessing progress towards twelve graduate attributes in 2010. UUDLEs and Graduate Attributes are both a learning outcomes perspective on education. Unfortunately, the vocabulary of these two learning outcome requirements is not identical. This presentation will take a look at the intersection and the differences between the two requirements. Recognizing and understanding the differences is essential for Ontario engineering schools to maximize the educational benefits associated with these two new requirements.

The Professional Spine: Creation of a Four-year Engineering Design and Practice Sequence

This paper discusses the development of a four-year Engineering Design and Practice Sequence (EDPS) of project-based courses at Queen’s University. The four-year sequence is a core requirement for all engineering students, and will develop competence in design process methods and tools, problem analysis, creativity, economics and entrepreneurship, engineering communications, professionalism, and ethics. The EDPS was designed to meet requirements of the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board graduate attributes , which addresses requirements of the Washington Accord. They also target applicable elements of the CDIO syllabus. The EDPS is being delivered to first year engineering students for the first time in the 2010-2011 academic year and will continue rolling out over the next three years. The paper discusses the process involved in creating the sequence, the course objectives and delivery for each year of the program, and proposed assessment and evaluation methods. The sequence will also be compared to previously published engineering design and practice sequences. The outcomes of the first year, including student feedback and attribute assessment, will also be discussed. Upper year students who will not experience the engineering design and practice sequence are being assessed on their understanding of design methods to provide baseline data for comparison with students who progress through the sequence in future years.This paper was also published in the ASEE 2011 Annual General Conference with joint permission of ASEE and CEEA.

Engineering Graduate Attributes - Investigation

The Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) has added a graduate attributes component to the overall accreditation process. This addition is in part driven by Canada’s participation in the Washington Accord. CEAB recognizes that it will take some time for CEAB and Canadian schools to gain comfort and skills with this new element of the review process. In that context, it is not until reviews beginning in 2014 that schools could be considered deficient as a result of the graduate attribute system. The Environmental Engineering group at the University of Guelph has embarked on exploring the Investigation attribute. The Environmental Engineering group’s exploration is a work in progress that we are certain will be and should be highly iterative. The group started with defining what the Investigation attribute means in the context of the Environmental Engineering. This was followed by an exercise to create a functional framework that would effectively capture this investigation meaning. The framework chosen is an Investigation Process that has similarities to the Design Process. The Investigation Process obviously differs in being driven by advancing knowledge and understanding. The group is currently surveying current curriculum against this framework. Each Investigation Process element within each course will be judged in terms of reaching the Idea, Connection or Extension level. It is expected that our exploration will lead to a current curriculum map and the development of initial recommendations for the advancement of our students Investigation skill sets.

The Impact of CEAB Accreditation Requirements Changes on Engineering Curricula Design and Development

The Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) has recently made some changes to the accreditation criteria for engineering programs, effective fall 2009. The major changes include an attribute-based outcome assessment, increased minimum accreditation units for the entire program, and engineering design and engineering science curriculum components taught by registered professional engineers. The engineering programs at the University of Victoria were among the first programs to be evaluated by the CEAB using the new accreditation criteria. As the directors of the computer and electrical engineering programs respectively, the authors were involved in the preparation of the accreditation documents and the site visit in winter 2010. In this paper, the authors share their recent accreditation experience and also provide some thoughts on the new accreditation criteria’s impact on curriculum design and development, and program delivery.

Consideration of the Design Attribute in the 2008 CEAB Accreditation Procedures

The 2008 Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) “Accreditation Criteria and Procedures” document introduces a significant change in the engineering accreditation process for Canadian engineering programs. Under this new system, each program must demonstrate that students meet specific outcomes for each of twelve attribute criteria specified in the document. In July 2009, the collective NSERC Chairs in Design Engineering were asked by the National (Canadian) Dean’s Education Committee to review and comment on the new CEAB accreditation process, particularly with respect to the design attribute. After some preparatory work, a small group of chair-holders and an expert in teaching and learning outcomes assessment met for two days in September to respond to this task. A “design process” approach was determined to be the best way to describe the design attribute by developing a series of high level and lower level outcome statements for each step in the generic engineering design process. It was also clearly determined that design competency could not be described as an attribute separate from the other eleven attributes listed in the CEAB document. In fact, all of the other eleven attributes were inextricably wound into engineering design. This paper will describe the systematic outcomes-based process applied to approach this issue, as well as provide an overview of the results.

Evaluation System for Capstone Engineering Design Reports

Although the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board sets a clear requirement for a capstone design experience for engineering undergraduates, it is not so clear to engineering educators how to fairly evaluate design projects that often differ greatly in breadth and depth. Compounding the problem is the common situation where different design projects, even within the same course, are evaluated by different markers. To address these issues we created an evaluation system that could be used in the evaluation of design reports of varying years of study. Anecdotally the evaluation system has proven useful, but further study of its impact is required.

Teaching Occupational Health and Safety in Engineering Schools – Best Practices, Support, and Opportunities

With the current pace of retirements, more engineers are being fast-tracked into operating positions where Safety, Health and Environment (SHE) is an important and vital component of their work. Educators are beginning to hear more and more from industry and government that there is a need for engineers to be better educated in SHE Management as well as Process Safety Management. Minerva Canada Safety Management Education Inc. is a not for profit organization dedicated to promoting the teaching of SHE Management education to post-secondary teaching institutions across Canada. It targets the educators of tomorrow’s leaders by encouraging colleges and universities to embed SHE Management education into the core curricula of business and engineering schools. Since 2004, there have been 140 engineering professors from 26 Canadian universities that have attended Minerva’s annual Summer Institute. Professors have been provided with valuable presentations and teaching material at these Institutes on various aspects of Safety, Health and Environment from members of industry, government, H&S associations and academia. At the June 2010 CEEA Conference, the authors of this paper will present the compelling case for the need for more SHE education in our engineering schools, from a business, regulatory and ethical standpoint. They shall also discuss recent changes in the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board requirements and what this may mean to engineering curriculum requirements. Finally, the authors will discuss the inventory of SHE teaching material that is available free from Minerva’s Summer Institutes and its website along with teaching methods to incorporate some of it into existing courses.

Environmental engineering registration in Canada — The expectations of the professional engineer working in this field

The practice of environmental engineering in Canada is regulated by the 12 individual provincial and territorial associations/ordre, who are also members of the national Canadian Council of Professional Engineers (CCPE). Although CCPE has no regulatory authority over the engineering profession in its own right, it is responsible for establishing national guidelines for registration and for accrediting university engineering programs. The criteria for professional registration in Canada are presented in detail and include both educational and experience components. The educational requirements can be met through graduation from a Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board approved environmental engineering degree program or by passing mandatory examinations assigned by the individual associations/ordre from CCPE's national Environmental Engineering Syllabus. Generally a minimum of four years of satisfactory engineering experience, which has been supervised by a professional engineer who takes direct responsibility for the work carried out, is required. Public interest and public protection go hand in hand with the concept of professional registration for environmental engineers. Problems encountered by the associations/ordre in reviewing environmental engineering registration applications are discussed, and the approach taken by the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia (by example) in addressing these problems is reviewed. Environmental engineering requires a wide range of knowledge in both engineering and science, as well as effective communication skills. Life-long learning is essential to the profession, particularly considering the rapid introduction of new technologies and the advances occurring in scientific and engineering knowledge in the environmental sector.Key words: environmental engineering, registration, professional engineer, education, undergraduate, graduate, certification, professional experience, academic criteria.

Quality Assurance in Engineering Education: Comparison of Accreditation Schemes and ISO 9001

SUMMARY In recent years, the world of engineering education has been changing rapidly. Emerging communication technologies offer new means of distance education, the job market is getting narrower and increasingly competitive, and numerous stakeholders are concerned about the quality of education the students receive. To offer quality assurance to interested parties and the general public, engineering faculties in the US and Canada undergo accreditation processes, fostered by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology and the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board, which are professional boards. However, some university-level institutions in Europe have turned to the ISO 9000 family of international standards as a framework for quality assurance. This paper provides an outline of these three quality assurance schemes, followed by a comparison of their common elements. It is argued that engineering faculties can establish meaningful ISO 9000 quality systems on the basis of, and integrated with, the accreditation schemes. Finally, recent European initiatives for quality assurance in engineering education are addressed.

First-Year Engineering Computing Courses in Canadian Engineering Programs

Most Canadian engineering students take a computing course in their first year that introduces them to digital computation. The Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board does not specify the language(s) that can or should be used for instruction. As a result, a variety of languages are used across Canada. This study examines which languages are used in degree-granting institutions, currently and in the recent past. It also examines why institutions have chosen the languages that they currently use. In addition to the language used in instruction, the types and hours of instruction are also analyzed. Methods of instruction and evaluation are compared, as well as the pedagogical philosophies of the different programs with respect to introductory computing. Finally, a comparison of the expected value of this course to graduates is also presented. We found a more diverse landscape for introductory computing courses than anticipated, in most respects. The guiding ethos at most institutions is skill and knowledge development, especially around problem solving in an engineering context. The methods to achieve this are quite varied, and so are the languages employed in such courses. Most programs currently use C/C++, Matlab, VB and/or Python.

ACCREDITATION, LICENSING, AND SPECIALIZATION FOR EMPLOYMENT

The Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board directs undergraduate programs towards a broadly based education in engineering. Employers accept the need for a broad education but also want young engineers to have specialist training for practice. These very different requirements appear at first sight to be in conflict. In the United States and Europe, but not yet in Canada, licensing bodies are moving towards requiring a master’s degree or equivalent for licensing. Companies that engage in international projects are concerned they may be unable to compete if other countries require master’s degrees for licensing, while Canada does not. Universities should develop broad educational undergraduate programs that can actually be completed in four years in principal areas like civil, electrical, mechanical engineering. Additional effort should be directed towards specialist master’s programs that provide training for employability.