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 Schedule ~ cont’d.
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 Schedule ~ cont’d.
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 Schedule ~ cont’d.
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
Accreditation Criteria Highlights cont’d.
Qualitative Evaluation – Curriculum Considerations
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
Accreditation Criteria Highlights cont’d.
Qualitative Evaluation – Curriculum Considerations
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
Accreditation Criteria Highlights cont’d.
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
Accreditation Criteria Highlights cont’d.
Accreditation Criteria Highlights cont’d.
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
Accreditation Criteria Highlights cont’d.
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
Accreditation Criteria Highlights cont’d. – 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
Accreditation Criteria Highlights cont’d. – 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