A Comparison of Institutional Approaches to CEAB Graduate Attribute Requirements

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.

Faculty Level Support of Graduate Attribute Assessment and Continuous Improvement Process

“…Similarly, a procedure to measure indicators of graduate attributes is proposed by McMaster University [9]. In 2012, Concordia University, Dalhousie University, Queen's University, University of British Columbia, University of Calgary and University of Manitoba also reported that they were implementing faculty-wide indicator development approach [8]. The Graduate Attribute Committee at University of Toronto developed their own faculty level outcomes and indicators [14] while allowing for modification of performance indicators at the departmental level [8].…”

“…In 2012, Concordia University, Dalhousie University, Queen's University, University of British Columbia, University of Calgary and University of Manitoba also reported that they were implementing faculty-wide indicator development approach [8]. The Graduate Attribute Committee at University of Toronto developed their own faculty level outcomes and indicators [14] while allowing for modification of performance indicators at the departmental level [8]. In 2014, Guelph presented their own faculty process [3] defining indicators for each GA. McGill University in preparation for their 2016 accreditation for 10 of 11 engineering programs determined the graduate attribute indicators for each component within a graded assessment tool [10,11].…”

Graduate Attribute Assessment in Software Engineering Program at University of Ottawa – Continual Improvement Process

“…In 2012 in a joint paper from Queen's University, University of Calgary, University of Toronto, Concordia University, University of British Columbia, University of Manitoba and Dalhousie University compared their institutional approaches to CEAB GA requirements. Concordia's AAS LMS has been identified as most notable for its capability to collect data and rubrics and its ability to allow data sharing between instructors [6].…”

Creating Faculty Buy-In: Leadership Challenges in Implementing Ceab Graduate Attributes

“…These processspecific modalities of the EGAD project forms the kernel of its five-step guide to curriculum development -1. program evaluation; 2. curriculum mapping; 3. identifying and collecting data on student learning; 4. analyzing and interpreting data; 5. data-informed curriculum development. This five-step guide forms the basis for a strategy to restructure curriculum at several different faculties of engineering in the country [8,14]. In doing so, these approaches have focused primarily on the definitional, programmatic, and information management challenges of the task.…”