Accreditation Visit to Name Title. Welcome! Outline of this presentation Background General notes on accreditation Goals of the CEAB Objectives of the.

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

NameTitle

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

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>

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

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

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

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

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!).

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

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?

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

Statement on the Evaluation of Natural Science Accreditation Units Statement of Interpretation on Licensure Expectations and Requirements Advanced Standing, Prior Studies, Exchange Studies, and Transfer

Credit Regulation (effective January 2012: Regulations for granting transfer credits)

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

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


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


Visit – Day 3 (Tuesday) Update information with Dean, Program

Coordinators Revise visit schedule as necessary In camera Team Working Lunch:

Complete draft reports Review reports, arrive at consensus on final conclusions Draft copies of each report provided to the chair


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

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)

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

Accreditation Decisions2011-2012 Cycle

There are now 271 accredited programs at 43 Higher Education Institutions in CanadaAnd 13 substantially equivalent programs in 4 HEIs outside of Canada

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

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



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



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


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



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


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

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

Graduate Attributes


Criterion 3.1 Graduate AttributesTimeframe: “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.”

Graduate Attributes


1. Knowledge Base

2. Problem Analysis

3. Investigation

4. Design

5. Use of Engineering Tools

6. Individual and Team work

7. Communication

8. Professionalism

9. Impact on Society and the Environment

10. Ethics and Equity

11. Economics and Project Management

12. Life-Long Learning

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.

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

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

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

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?

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?

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

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?

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

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.

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?

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?”

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

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

Graduate Attributes

What to look for: Assessment Points

Indicators are well aligned to the proposed assessment points

Enough assessment points are utilizedExpectations of performance quality are

clear, i.e. the scale is defined

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?

Graduate Attributes

Measurement Tools ~ Illustrative Examples

• Examinations– Final

– Mid-term

– Entry and exit

– Standardized (PPE, FE)

– Oral

– Embedded questions

• Portfolios– Culminating design experience

– Projects

– Laboratories– Internship/stage

– Co-op

• Surveys– Exit

– Alumni

– Employers

– Self

– Course Evaluations

– Advisory Board

• Student Work– Reports

– Peer Reviews

– Reviews/critiques– Presentations

– Posters

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

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.

Graduate Attributes

Continuous Improvement

Graduate Attributes

Criterion 3.1 ~ 2009 Findings

Most programs at beginning stages of developing GA measurement tools and data management systems

Some examples: Mapping of GAs to curriculum Structuring activities to address specific GA aspects

Graduate Attributes

Criterion 3.1 ~ 2011-2012 Cycle Findings

Accreditation site visits in 2011-2012 assessed state of progress toward Graduate Attribute compliance.

Out of 17 programs, based on present progress:– 7 were rated “will fail to reach compliance by 2014”– 3 were rated “likely to fail to reach compliance by

2014”– 7 were rated “on track to comply by 2014”

Graduate Attributes

Potential Issues that visit can reveal

Large classes Faculty numbers ~ “faculty who are not faculty”

Long-term leaves and long sabbaticals (counted at institution, but not available to teach)

Soft-funded faculty Teaching loads ~ critical dependence on a single individual

Course failure rates Check the course information sheet to see if the numbers make

sense (tough courses should have higher failure rates)

Students pass while failing Attrition rate

Potential Issues cont’d.

Grading of major written reports Appropriateness of AU allocations ~ especially for

Engineering Design and Complementary Studies Plans for renewal of equipment Design experience Access to Dean’s office, Program Director's office, etc. Notional contact hours Admissions:

Practices followed for granting advanced standing or transfer credits? Who authorizes exceptions? Is control rigorous?

Report Expectations

All issues on the visit

Must be tied to criteria

Finalized by Monday night

Complete report to extent possible by Tuesday p.m.

Will be used to make exit statement

Recall ~ all issues need to be raised at the exit meeting

Your reports transferred to my computer before you go

Post-Visit Activities

Chair prepares a draft team report Incorporates Program Visitors' reports Target ~ within 2 weeks of Visit

Distributed by e-mail to all team members for review and comment

Target ~ comments returned within 4 weeks of Visit

Report edited by CEAB Executive Committee member Edited report sent to HEI for review and comment CEAB relies on report + HEI’s response to make

decision

Post-Visit Activities cont’d.

All team members will be advised of decision Opportunity to be acknowledged by CEAB for your

contribution Evaluation

HEI evaluates the visit process Team Chair evaluates team members Team members evaluate Team Chair and process (currently

this is a pilot project. Not all teams do this) General Visitor provides report on visit process to association

of jurisdiction where institution is located

Visit-Specific Issues

Insert per pre-visit summary of issues list

1100-180 Elgin Street, Ottawa, Ontario K2P 2K3

Tel. 613-232-2474 / Fax. 613-230-5759

engineerscanada.ca

Accreditation Visit to Name Title. Welcome! Outline of this presentation Background General notes on accreditation Goals of the CEAB Objectives of the.

Documents

accreditation accreditation

accreditation visit

visit slide

engineering accreditation

ceab slide

accreditation goals

accreditation process

team member slide