Engineers Canada logo

GACIP questions answered by CEAB secretariat

January 2019

Is there any sign regulators like PEO and Engineers & Geoscientists BC are becoming more receptive to outcome-based process review?

We understand the question to be asking if the regulators are becoming more comfortable with outcomes only-based accreditation.  Emphasis on the minimum path is still going to remain an important part of the accreditation criteria. The regulators seem to be becoming more comfortable with criteria 3.1 and 3.2.

When will the Exhibit 1 Update and Excel Workbook from the 2019 visit be ready?

The Questionnaire to be used for visits occurring in 2019/2020 were posted in December 2018.  Materials are available online.

Are there any plans for a safety graduate attribute, and if not, where would you place safety?

Safety is examined as part of the program environment criteria and is specifically called out in criterion

Can we find a way to communicate accreditation updates more regularly?

We will evolve the monthly AIP update, and will look for other means of communications. We welcome any suggestions at

What will the change in emphasis to the GACI “process” look like in terms of the accreditation site visit experience? AND

We heard today that CEAB visit will focus on the process for continuous improvement.  It seems the reliability of the assessment is also critical.  How much attention would CEAB visitors pay to reliability, i.e., confidence, of the assessments?

CEAB members will be discussing the GA/CI process documents (such as the Questionnaire and Exhibit 1 as well as the guidance given for on-site materials) when they meet in February and June 2019, and we will continue to share information as it emerges.

Will AU counts ever be linked to GAs instead of math, natural science, etc.?

The Policy and Procedures Committee is working on a linking approach. They are looking at a trial run of a new Course Information Sheet (CIS).

Is it safe to say that the purpose of the GA assessment process (quantitative measures) is to demonstrate student progress/proficiency for each of the attributes, whereas program improvement recommendations can be collected through other means (qualitative feedback from faculty)?

Please take a look at criteria 3.2.3. and Appendix 10

What are we doing to manage data collection to make it sustainable and meet Accreditation visitor requests?

The Accreditation Improvement Program is working on reducing the workload and increasing efficiencies where possible. 

What does “Curriculum exposure criteria provides a reasonable proxy for attainment of desired graduate attributes” mean? (slide 24, lower right corner)

This is part of a presentation where we describe the different aspects of accreditation evaluation (curriculum criteria and graduate attributes).  What we wanted to say is: “The regular assessment of graduate attribute attainment drives continuous improvement”