Consultation period:
April 6, 2021 - June 4, 2021

Consultation status:
Open

We are seeking stakeholder feedback on the recommended changes to the required visit materials being proposed by the CEAB Required Visit Materials Working Group in their report. This report is available for review.

Briefly, the proposed changes are:

Comparison of existing and proposed required materials to support a CEAB visit
Existing request Proposed request Change Workload savings
Description of the policies and regulations that cover various aspects of the program, including, but not limited to admission, appeals, grade approval and practices. Links to source materials online that describe the appropriate policies, procedures, and regulations. Description no longer required. Links to source documents are sufficient. More Precise specification of visiting team needs. Written descriptions are replaced by documents, or links to documents.
Syllabi for all learning activities in the program curriculum. Syllabi for courses on the minimum path that incorporate Math, NS, ES, ED, and CS. Syllabi are only required for courses on the minimum path. Fewer courses need to be documented.
Assessment materials and three examples of student work from the low, middle, and high end of each assessment in 15 to 20 courses. All graded lab and design reports. Assessment materials and three examples of student work with the lowest acceptable performance as judged by the instructor at the time of assessment, representing 75 per cent of the final course assessment for ten course taken by all students with ES, ED, and GAs. Instructor?s discretion to add any three more. Only ten courses on the minimum path are sampled. Only 75 per cent of the assessment is required. Only examples of the lowest acceptable work are required, other samples are at the instructor?s discretion. Fewer assessment materials required. All learning activities do not need to be sampled: only 75 per cent of assessments are required.
Ten examples of the culminating design experience. Ten examples of the culminating design experience, including the three minimum acceptable examples. The three minimum acceptable samples must be included. No difference.
Dossiers with examples for 15-20 courses which measure the graduate attributes. Examples of minimum acceptable student work in courses on the minimum path with attributes at the D or A level. These samples are only required if not included with the assessment covering ES + ED. A separate dossier of GAs with samples is no longer needed.
Exhibit 1 Exhibit 1 ? detailed expectations No change ? requirements are specified in detail. Less time spent preparing documentation as expectations are clearer.
GA/CI presentation GA/CI presentation ? detailed expectations No change ? requirements are specified in detail. Less time spent preparing presentation as expectations are clearer.
Health and safety manuals required. Health and safety manuals not required. No safety manuals required. Safety culture will be assessed on-site. No time spent gathering manuals.
Changes in data collection requirements made every year. Changes in data collection requirements made every six years. Requirements are frozen for six years at a time. Less time spent preparing as information can be gathered over several years.
Collection requirements not explicitly tied to criteria. Every requirement is tied to a specific criterion. Criterion-based data collection. Less time spent preparing as HEI knows how information will be used by visiting team.

We will be consulting with stakeholders between April 6, 2021 and June 4, 2021.

Questions asked of stakeholders

  1. Does the description of required materials provide responsible individuals (including, but not limited to, designated officials, relevant faculty and administrative staff) with enough guidance on what materials to collect to demonstrate compliance with the CEAB accreditation criteria related to:
    a. Graduate attributes
    b. Continual improvement
    c. Students
    d. Curriculum content
    e. Program environment
    f. Additional criteria
  2. Is the description of required materials sufficient to allow the CEAB to identify those engineering programs whose graduates are academically qualified to begin the process to be licensed as professional engineers in Canada?
  3. Does the description of required materials represent an actual reduction in the number of materials that programs will have to produce?
  4. Do you have any other comments regarding the required materials that the CEAB ought to consider at this time?

Consultation Objectives

The following have been identified as the objectives of this consultation:

  1. Inform stakeholders that the CEAB is considering making changes to the required materials submitted to the visiting team for accreditation purposes.
  2. Investigate stakeholder reaction to the Working Group’s recommendations.
  3. Identify the impact of the recommendations to the data-collection needs of programs, accreditation visitors and CEAB members.
  4. Identify barriers to change if the report recommendations are adopted.
  5. Develop a reasonable implementation plan that accommodates the diverse viewpoints of stakeholders.

Stakeholders being consulted

  • CEAB members  
  • Higher Education Institutions (HEIs)
  • Engineering Deans Canada (via the DLC), with a request for Deans to share with faculty
  • Engineering regulators (via the CEO and National Admissions Officials Groups)
  • The Graduate Attribute & Continuous Improvement Professionals Network
  • Program visitors from the last three years  
  • Program chairs from the last three years, in addition to the CEAB members
  • Canadian Federation of Engineering Students (CFES)

Introductory webinars will be offered on the following dates. By clicking their preferred option below, participants will be taken to the registration page for the selected date/time:

The webinars will provide:

  • background on the report’s development,
  • an overview of the report’s recommendations; and
  • the ways by which we will consult with each stakeholder group.

The webinars will be recorded for future viewing.

Stakeholders are invited to also provide a written response which should be directed to accreditation@engineerscanada.ca or by mail to:
    
  Elise Guest
  Engineers Canada
  300-55 Metcalfe Street
  Ottawa, ON  K1P 6L5

Written responses must be received by June 4, 2021.
 
After the consultation closing date, the CEAB will carefully review the feedback received and a summary of the findings will be posted.

For more information contact Elise Guest, Accreditation Program Advisor, at elise.guest@engineerscanada.ca

Related information:

2021/2022 Accreditation cycle resources

 

See previous consultations on this topic