scholarly journals Progress on Defining the CEAB Graduate Attributes at Carleton University

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Harris ◽  
Alan Steele ◽  
Donald Russell
Keyword(s):  
Noun Phrase ◽  
Specific Aspect ◽  
Engineering Programs ◽  
Graduate Attributes ◽  
Revised Bloom's Taxonomy ◽  
Limits Of Knowledge ◽  
Cognitive Hierarchy ◽  
Degree Level ◽  
Graduating Students ◽  
Area Of Application

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.

scholarly journals DEVELOPMENT OF PROCESSES AND CRITERIA FOR CEAB GRADUATE ATTRIBUTE ASSESSMENT

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Frank
Keyword(s):  
Management System ◽  
Outcomes Assessment ◽  
Learning Management System ◽  
Assessment Criteria ◽  
System Software ◽  
Engineering Programs ◽  
Graduate Attributes ◽  
Working Groups ◽  
Assessment Measures ◽  
Degree Level

The Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) is following the lead of other accreditation bodies in requiring engineering programs to measure graduate attributes, also known as outcomes. Canadian ministers of education have also established undergraduate degree-level expectations that will imact engineering programs. This paper will review the evolution of outcomes assessment as it pertains to engineering accreditation and compare the new CEAB graduate attribute requirements to those of engineering accreditation bodies in countries including the U.S.A, U.K., and Australia. The process of implementing outcomes assessment at Queen's University will be described, including development of measurable assessment criteria from faculty working groups. Finally, the paper will provide an overview of learning management system software that can manage and report on assessment measures.

scholarly journals Cohort Analysis and Reporting for Graduate Attribute Assessment

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aneta George ◽  
Liam Peyton
Keyword(s):  
Performance Management ◽  
Performance Indicators ◽  
Cohort Analysis ◽  
Information Analysis ◽  
Engineering Programs ◽  
Graduate Attributes ◽  
Historic Data ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Analysis System ◽  
The University

The Graduate Attribute Information Analysis system (GAIA) was developed at the University of Ottawa to support data collection and performance management of graduate attributes for engineering programs at the program level and at the course level [10]. This paper reports on our research to develop support for cohort analysis and reporting by providing a single consistent view of graduate attributes (GA) and performance indicators for groups of students who started and finished an engineering program at the same time. This is supported by two special purpose reports: Graduate Attribute Report per Cohort (GAR/C) and Course Progression Report per Cohort (CPR/C). The former shows average GA data per attribute, the latter tracks student achievement as students progress in their program. It also adds to the historic data trend analysis for a program. Furthermore, a COOP Progress Report per cohort (COOPR/C) is generated.

ENHANCING THE TEACHING AND EVALUATION OF GRADUATE ATTRIBUTES IN WINE SCIENCE AND VITICULTURE DEGREE LEVEL COURSES

2009 ◽  
pp. 203-210
Author(s):  
S. Savocchia ◽  
J. Thompson ◽  
D. Greer ◽  
M. Meunier ◽  
J. Gray ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Graduate Attributes ◽  
Degree Level

scholarly journals CREATING FACULTY BUY-IN: LEADERSHIP CHALLENGES IN IMPLEMENTING CEAB GRADUATE ATTRIBUTES

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Govind Gopakumar ◽  
Deborah Dusart-Gale ◽  
Ali Akgunduz
Keyword(s):  
Course Design ◽  
Program Improvement ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
Curricular Innovation ◽  
Engineering Programs ◽  
Leadership Challenges ◽  
Graduate Attributes ◽  
Educational Culture ◽  
Program Innovation ◽  
High Degree

In 2009 the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) announced its intention requiring all undergraduate engineering programs in Canada to utilize twelve graduate attributes for assessing the capacities of its students. In response, engineering faculties across the country have been experimenting with creating processes that incorporate these graduate attributes as a means to stimulate program improvement to achieve curricular and program innovation. Many of the support resources (like the inter-university collaboration EGAD, for example) have focused largely in three directions – definitional, programmatic and information management challenges faced by different engineering programs.Less attention has been given to identifying and addressing leadership challenges faced by faculty administrators in piloting curricular and programmatic changes such as the CEAB graduate attributes. We argue that these challenges result from fundamental features of university educational culture: faculty members place great value upon autonomy in their workplace, and likewise expect a high degree of intellectual independence in designing courses. The introduction of CEAB attributes, together with the mandated changes they will bring to course design, is perceived by faculty members as an external imposition. Such a perception we suggest introduces some scepticism in the faculty about its efficacy leading to a disengagement from the change process. Thorough attention to these cultural factors impacting on graduate attributes adoption is crucial to the implementation of successful curriculum development.Describing these challenges in detail, this paper will outline some pathways that can circumvent these impediments to curricular innovation.

scholarly journals CEAB's Graduate Attribute 3.1.3: Investigations – Is it really possible for engineering graduates to possess this attribute?

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonard Lye
Keyword(s):  
Student Outcomes ◽  
Complex Problem ◽  
Engineering Programs ◽  
Graduate Attributes ◽  
Complex Problems ◽  
Nonlinear Responses ◽  
Conflicting Objectives ◽  
Proper Design ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Current Curriculum

Starting 2014, engineering programs in Canada will be evaluated by CEAB based on twelve Graduate Attributes and institutions must demonstrate that their graduates possess these attributes at the time of graduation. One of these attributes is “Investigations” which is defined by CEAB as “an ability to conduct investigations of complex problems by methods that include appropriate experiments, analysis and interpretation of data, and synthesis of information in order to reach valid conclusions.” This is similar to one of ABET's student outcomes which states that students attain "an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data". In this paper, it will be argued that with the current curriculum of most, if not all, engineering schools in Canada, it is almost impossible for graduates to possess this attribute unless a compulsory course is introduced to specifically teach the subject. Proper design, conduct, and analysis of experiments of complex problems cannot be learned by osmosis or by doing standard labs where the procedure and analysis methods are given. Engineering educators and graduates thinking that somehow that the skill to design, conduct and analyze experiments will be learned in an engineering program do not fully appreciate the myriad of issues that are involved with experimentation to study a complex problem. Examples of these issues include: a large number of variables, multiple responses with conflicting objectives, linear or nonlinear responses, interaction among variables, etc. In this paper, these issues and many others will be discussed. How they can be addressed will be discussed and a course that will help graduates achieve competence in “Investigations” is also proposed.

scholarly journals SELF PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENTS’ HUMANITIES-BASED SKILLS IN AN ENGINEERING PROGRAM: OVERVIEW OF A LONGITUDINAL STUDY’S FIRST TWO YEARS (2017-2019)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Patterson
Keyword(s):  
Longitudinal Study ◽  
Research University ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Engineering Ethics ◽  
Self Assessment ◽  
Engineering Programs ◽  
Graduate Attributes ◽  
Self Perceptions ◽  
Perceptions Of Students ◽  
Second Year

This paper is a continuation of research from a previous paper presented to CEEA on a three-year longitudinal study aimed at assessing engineering accreditation non-technical skills at a medium sized engineering school at a large research university.  The goal of this longitudinal study is to improve the assessment of these non-technical graduate attributes and test a metric to do so.  The Likert-style survey focuses on engineering students self-perceptions of teamwork, communication skills, engineering ethics, professionalism, and lifelong learning in order to gather quantitative data that can be analyzed for trends. Self-perceptions are the focus of this study because student self-efficacy has been found to be correlated with student success over the long term. The study has been conducted through pre-and post-surveys testing whether engineering students’ self-assessment of their abilities in those areas increased or decreased from year to year.  Currently, the longitudinal study has only just completed data collection for its final year of the three-year study, so the focus of this paper will be adding the results of the second year to the first, which were presented to CEEA last year. This paper analyzes the data gathered in the second year of the longitudinal study and continue the analysis of those results to explore what they can offer to our understanding of non-technical engineering graduate attributes. These findings are not meant to replace other initiatives, but to offer another metric to examine the effectiveness of engineering programs and meeting non-technical accreditation requirements. 

scholarly journals CEAB’s Graduate Attributes and Ontario’s UUDLEs

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Warren Stiver
Keyword(s):  
Learning Outcomes ◽  
Learning Outcome ◽  
Educational Benefits ◽  
Graduate Attributes ◽  
Degree Level ◽  
Engineering Schools

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.

scholarly journals A WORKSHOP ON LEARNING OBJECTIVES FOR ENGINEERING FACULTY MEMBERS

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Romkey ◽  
Susan McCahan
Keyword(s):  
Educational Practice ◽  
Initial Step ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
Learning Objectives ◽  
Engineering Programs ◽  
Graduate Attributes ◽  
University Of Toronto ◽  
The University ◽  
First Time

As an initial step in preparing faculty members for the new outcomes-based accreditation process introduced by the CEAB, a pilot workshop on creating learning objectives was developed for engineering professors at the University of Toronto. As the Graduate Attributes will be mapped to individual courses within engineering programs, the need for course-based learning objectives is even more critical; although research already supports the development and use of learning objectives as an effective educational practice. . This paper will describe the process of developing the workshop, facilitating it for the first time, and the lessons learned that were used in developing a second iteration of the workshop.

CAPSTONE DESIGN PROJECTS WITH INDUSTRY PARTNERS: A 6-YEAR EXPERIENCE REPORT

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippe Kruchten ◽  
Paul Lusina
Keyword(s):  
Learning Outcomes ◽  
Soft Skills ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Computer Engineering ◽  
Engineering Programs ◽  
Graduate Attributes ◽  
Capstone Courses ◽  
Evaluation Scheme ◽  
Capstone Design Courses ◽  
Capstone Design

Since 2013, the fourth-year capstone design courses for the electrical and computer engineering programs at UBC are working only with projects defined by industrial partners. These capstone courses run over two terms (September to April) and are worth 10 credits. The projects involves teams of five students, which follow a common timeline, produce a common set of deliverables, and have a common evaluation scheme –with some latitude for variation based on the nature of the project and the type of partner. A key objective is to include non-technical graduate attributes, the so-called “soft skills”, in our learning outcomes. In this paper, we describe our current course framework, our constraints and design choices, and we report lessons learned and improvements implemented over 6 years.  

scholarly journals CELBEST Project: Design and Implementation of the First Engineering Education-specific Assessment Tool for Professional Communicative Competence

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristina Fabretto
Keyword(s):  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Communicative Competence ◽  
Project Design ◽  
Program Outcomes ◽  
Undergraduate Program ◽  
Engineering Programs ◽  
Graduate Attributes ◽  
Challenges And Opportunities ◽  
Specific Assessment ◽  
Progressive Assessment

Following the 2010 review of engineering programs in Canada by the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB), the Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science at Memorial University introduced a number of changes to its undergraduate program in order to align with the new CEAB outcome-based accreditation approach [1-3]. As programs’ accreditation begun to be reviewed for progress toward assessment of graduate attributes (G.A.), the 12 graduate attributes as defined by the CEAB became de facto the undergraduate program outcomes at Memorial. This paper provides an overview of the Faculty’s approach to the development and progressive assessment of communication skills as Graduate Attribute (G.A.: 07) in such a way that is aligned with CEAB accreditation requirements while taking into account the unique challenges and opportunities inherent in its program.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document