Washington Accord Graduate Attributes: A Metric for the Quality of Engineering

Education Worldwide

MELJUN CORTES, MBA,MPA,MSCS

13 August 2006 1

MELJUN CORTES, MBA,MPA,MSCS

• The author has no formal connection with the International Engineering Alliance or the Washington Accord.

• The views expressed in this presentation are those of the author based on 17 years of experience gained on accreditation visits in Canada, Costa Rica, India, Korea, and the United States.

• The author has been a member of the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board for 11 years and was Chair from 2012-2014.

Disclaimer:

13 August 2006 2

Outline

• Purpose

• WA Background

• WA Graduate Attribute exemplar

– Knowledge Base

– Complex Problems

• Role of the GA exemplar

– Not a standard but a metric

• Using the exemplar as a metric

• What can we learn from applying a metric?

3 13 August 2006

• The purpose of this presentation is to discuss the concept of worldwide standards for quality of undergraduate engineering programs

• The purpose of accreditation is to serve the public and the profession by continually improving the quality of engineering education and engineering practice

Purpose

13 August 2006 4

• The Washington Accord (WA) is an international mutual recognition agreement (MRA) that has been in place for more than 25 years and now has 17 signatories and 5 provisional members.

WA Background

13 August 2006 5

Principles of the MRA

• Accreditation criteria, policies and procedures of the signatories have been verified and judged comparable (“substantially equivalent”)

• Accreditation decisions made by one signatory are acceptable to the other signatories

• Make every effort to ensure that the registering / licensing body recognizes signatories’ programs

13 August 2006 6

Benchmarking Agreement

• The signatories will identify and encourage the implementation of best practice for the academic preparation of engineers – by mutual regular monitoring on a six-year cycle

– regular communication and sharing of accreditation information

– sharing and maintaining lists of accredited programs

– invitations to observe accreditation visits and meetings of any boards

13 August 2006 7

• Program criteria of signatories are benchmarked against a metric called the WA graduate attribute exemplar

• The exemplar includes:

– a defined knowledge base (WK1-8), – a definition problem complexity (WP1-7) and – a defined set of graduate attributes (WA1-12)

• The knowledge base and definition of complexity serve to clarify and interpret the language of the attributes

Graduate Attribute Exemplar

13 August 2006 8

Knowledge Base

13 August 2006 9

WK1: A systematic, theory-based understanding of the natural sciences applicable to the discipline

WK2: Conceptually-based mathematics, numerical analysis, statistics and formal aspects of computer and

information science to support analysis and modelling applicable to the discipline

WK3: A systematic, theory-based formulation of engineering fundamentals required in the engineering

discipline

WK4:Engineering specialist knowledge that provides theoretical frameworks and bodies of knowledge

for the accepted practice areas in the engineering discipline; much is at the forefront of the discipline.

WK5: Knowledge that supports engineering design in a practice area

WK6: Knowledge of engineering practice and the practice areas in the engineering discipline

WK7:

Comprehension of the role of engineering in society and identified issues in engineering practice

in the discipline: ethics and the professional responsibility of an engineer to public safety; the

impacts of engineering activity: economic, social, cultural, environmental and sustainability

WK8: Engagement with selected knowledge in the research literature of the discipline

A program that builds this type of knowledge and develops the appropriate attributes is typically achieved in 4 to 5 years of study.

Characteristics of Complex Problems

WP1

WP2 Involve wide-ranging or conflicting technical, engineering and other issues

WP3Have no obvious solution - require abstract thinking, originality in analysis to

formulate suitable models

WP4 Involve infrequently encountered issues

WP5Are outside problems encompassed by standards and codes of practice for

professional engineering

WP6 Involve diverse groups of stakeholders with widely varying needs

WP7 Are high level problems including many component parts or sub-problems

Cannot be resolved without in-depth engineering knowledge at an advanced level

10 13 August 2006

• Ability to deal with complex problems is explicitly specified for most (8 of 12) attributes in the WA exemplar

• The ability to address complex problems in their academic preparation is usually the distinguishing feature of a professional engineer relative to an engineering technologist or technician

• Complex problems are defined as requiring: – advanced engineering knowledge and – one or more characteristic from WP2 to WP7:

• Wide-ranging • Originality • Rarity • Outside codes • Diverse stakeholders • High-level

Significance of Complex Problems

13 August 2006 11

• Each signatory defines the standards for against which engineering educational programs are accredited within their jurisdictions

• WA graduate attributes form a set of measurable outcomes

• WA graduate attributes are clear, succinct statements of expected capability (competencies)

• WA graduate attributes are intended primarily to assist signatories and provisional members to develop outcomes based accreditation criteria for use by their respective jurisdictions

Role of WA Graduate Attributes

13 August 2006 12

• The WA graduate attributes do not constitute an “international standard” for accredited programs

• The WA exemplar is simply one way of organizing the competencies to be delivered in an undergraduate engineering program

• But it does provide a widely accepted common frame of reference within which bodies can describe the outcomes of substantially equivalent programs

Limitations of WA Graduate Attributes

13 August 2006 13

Attributes

13 August 2006 14

WA1: Engineering Knowledge:

Apply knowledge of mathematics, natural science, engineering fundamentals and an engineering

specialization as specified in WK1 to WK4 respectively to the solution of complex engineering

problems.

WA2: Problem Analysis:

Identify, formulate, research literature and analyse complex engineering problems reaching

substantiated conclusions using first principles of mathematics, natural sciences and engineering

sciences. (WK1 to WK4)

WA3: Design:

Design solutions for complex engineering problems and design systems, components or

processes that meet specified needs with appropriate consideration for public health and safety,

cultural, societal, and environmental considerations. (WK5)

WA4: Investigation:

Conduct investigations of complex engineering problems using research-based knowledge (WK8)

and research methods including design of experiments, analysis and interpretation of data, and

synthesis of information to provide valid conclusions.

WA5: Modern Tool Usage:

Create, select and apply appropriate techniques, resources, and modern engineering and IT tools,

including prediction and modelling, to complex engineering problems , with an understanding of the

limitations. (WK6)

WA6: The Engineer and Society:

Apply reasoning informed by contextual knowledge to assess societal, health, safety, legal and

cultural issues and the consequent responsibilities relevant to professional engineering practice and

solutions to complex engineering problems . (WK7)

WA7: Environment and Sustainability: Understand and evaluate the sustainability and impact of professional engineering work in the

solution of complex engineering problems in societal and environmental contexts. (WK7)

WA8: Ethics: Apply ethical principles and commit to professional ethics and responsibilities and norms of

engineering practice. (WK7)

WA9: Individual and Team Work: Function effectively as an individual, and as a member or leader in diverse teams and in multi-

disciplinary settings.

WA10: Communication:

Communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with the engineering community and

with society at large, such as being able to comprehend and write effective reports and design

documentation, make effective presentations, and give and receive clear instructions.

WA11: Project Management and Finance:

Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of engineering management principles and economic

decision-making and apply these to one’s own work, as a member and leader in a team, to manage

projects and in multidisciplinary environments.

WA12: Lifelong Learning: Recognize the need for, and have the preparation and ability to engage in independent and life-long

learning in the broadest context of technological change.

• The attributes provide a framework but do not set a rigid standard – a knowledge base is defined (but only in general terms) – problem complexity is defined but……

• Even clear and succinct statements of attributes leave room for legitimate interpretation

• The WA exemplar is something to measure ourselves

against – a metric not a mandatory set of regulations • We can perhaps agree that the WA exemplar is

something we can all aspire to and use as a “yardstick” to measure our progress

The Exemplar is a Metric

13 August 2006 15

• Do we all mean the same thing when we say: – “appropriate consideration”, – “apply reasoning”, – “function effectively”, – “communicate effectively”, – “commit to professional ethics and responsibilities” – “first principles of mathematics and natural sciences”?

• Can we group the components that make up the set of attributes differently? – is twelve a magic number?

• Can we use more or less attributes? • Can we eliminate some attributes? • Do we need to add more attributes?

– where do graduate attributes end …… – and professional competencies begin?

Interpretation and Ambiguity

13 August 2006 16

• How do the criteria we use in our jurisdiction match up?

Using the Exemplar as a Metric

13 August 2006 17

Are All Performance Levels Equal?

13 August 2006 18

En

gin

ee

rin

g K

no

wle

dg

e

Pro

ble

m A

na

lys

is

Des

ign

Inve

sti

ga

tio

n

Mo

de

rn T

oo

l U

sa

ge

Th

e E

ng

ine

er

an

d S

oc

iety

En

vir

on

me

nt

an

d S

us

tain

ab

ilit

y

Eth

ics

Ind

ivid

ua

l a

nd

Te

am

Wo

rk

Co

mm

un

ica

tio

n

Pro

jec

t M

an

ag

em

en

t a

nd

Fin

an

ce

Lif

elo

ng

Le

arn

ing

WA

1:

WA

2:

WA

3:

WA

4:

WA

5:

WA

6:

WA

7:

WA

8:

WA

9:

WA

10

:

WA

11

:

WA

12

:

Exceeds x x x x

Fully meets x x x x

Marginally meets x x

Does not meet x x

Criteria

Alignment

Analysis

• How do the criteria we use in our jurisdiction match up?

• How do we distribute time and resources toward the delivery each attribute?

Using the Exemplar as a Metric

13 August 2006 19

Are All Attributes Equal?

13 August 2006 20

Pro

ble

m A

naly

sis

Desig

n

Investi

gati

on

Mo

dern

To

ol

Usag

e

Th

e E

ng

ineer

an

d S

ocie

ty

En

vir

on

men

t an

d S

usta

inab

ilit

y

Eth

ics

Ind

ivid

ual

an

d T

eam

Wo

rk

Co

mm

un

icati

on

Pro

ject

Man

ag

em

en

t an

d F

inan

ce

Lif

elo

ng

Learn

ing

WK1:

Natural

Sciences

WK2:

Mathematics

WK3:

Engineering

Fundamentals

WK4:

Discipline-

Specific

WA

2:

WA

3:

WA

4:

WA

5:

WA

6:

WA

7:

WA

8:

WA

9:

WA

10:

WA

11:

WA

12:

Exceeds x x x x x x x

Fully meets x x x x

Marginally meets x x

Does not meet x x

Criteria

Alignment

Analysis

WA1: Engineering Knowledge

• How do the criteria we use in our jurisdiction match up?

• How do we distribute time and resources toward the delivery each attribute?

• How do our accredited programs perform for each attribute?

Using the Exemplar as a Metric

13 August 2006 21

Is Acceptable Performance a Range?

13 August 2006 22

• How do the criteria we use in our jurisdiction match up?

• How do we distribute time and resources toward the delivery each attribute?

• How do our accredited programs perform for each attribute?

• What changes might we want to consider ….or even encourage?

Using the Exemplar as a Metric

13 August 2006 23

Is This Our Aspiration?

13 August 2006 24

• Remember that the WA exemplar and our jurisdictional criteria are “living documents”

• They will change as we learn and adopt new technologies and practices in striving to improve the quality of our programs

• Standing still is not an option!

Final Thought

13 August 2006 25

Questions?

26 13 August 2006

For more information:

Email: ceab@engineerscanada.ca

Phone: 613-232-2474 *The terms P.ENG. and ING. are official marks held by the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers.

27 13 August 2006