Institution: Program name

Dossier Assessment Form - Visits

Institution: Program name

Presenter: / Final motion:
Proposed motion:
Lead Reviewer: / Permitted motions (per CEAB policy):
  • Program meets criteria; no deficiencies are identified (#V)
  • Program meets criteria; some issues identified (#V if visit required or #R if reportable)
  • Program meets criteria; limited and specific issues identified (#FV)
  • Program does not meet criteria; program is currently accredited (#T)

Editor: /
  • Previous decision:
  • Last decision letter:
  • Criteria year:

Instructions:

  1. Review summarized issues based on the Visiting Team report, including corresponding A, M, U.
  2. Insert summarized response from Institution. (if a response has been received, but a particular line item has not been addressed, make note of this).
  3. The secretariat will delete all rows of items not being brought forward for discussion.
  4. Review the AU Summary table. If AUs for all curriculum categories meet the minima, note this.
  5. Complete and submit this form to the Accreditation Board Secretariat 10 days before the decision meeting.

Notes:

A – Acceptable

M – Marginal Per Visiting Team Report Findings

U – Unacceptable

For purposes of Board Decisions (to be completed at the time of the Board Meeting):

C – Concern: Criterion satisfied; potential exists for non-satisfaction in near future.

W – Weakness: Criterion satisfied; insufficient strength of compliance to assure quality of program will be maintained.

D – Deficiency: Criterion not satisfied.

CRITERION 1:
3.1 - Graduate Attributes / Comments / Institution’s response
1 / 3.1.1 / A knowledge base for engineering
2 / 3.1.2 / Problem analysis
3 / 3.1.3 / Investigation
4 / 3.1.4 / Design
5 / 3.1.5 / Use of engineering tools
6 / 3.1.6 / Individual and team work
7 / 3.1.7 / Communication skills
8 / 3.1.8 / Professionalism
9 / 3.1.9 / Impact of engineering on society and the environment
10 / 3.1.10 / Ethics and equity
11 / 3.1.11 / Economics and project management
12 / 3.1.12 / Life-long learning
CRITERION 2:
3.2 - Continual Improvement / Comments / Institution’s response
13 / 3.2 / 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 graduate attributes, and that the results are applied to the further development of the program.
CRITERION 3:
3.3 - Students / Issue / A / M / U / Institution’s response / C/W/D
14 / 3.3.1 / Admission
15 / 3.3.2 / Promotion and graduation
16 / 3.3.3 / Counselling and guidance
17 / 3.3.4 / Degree auditing
CRITERION 4:
3.4 – Curriculum content and quality / Issue / A / M / U / Institution’s response / C/W/D
18 / 3.4.1 / Approach and methodologies for quantifying curriculum content
19 / 3.4.1.1 / Accreditation units (AU)
20 / 3.4.2 / Minimum curriculum components
21 / 3.4.3 / Mathematics and Natural Sciences minimum of 420 AU
22 / 3.4.3.1 / Mathematics minimum of 195 AU:
Appropriate elements of: linear algebra, differential and integral calculus, differential equations, probability, statistics, numerical analysis, and discrete mathematics
23 / 3.4.3.2 / Natural Sciences minimum of 195 AU: Elements of physics and chemistry (mandatory) & Life sciences and Earth Sciences (optional)
24 / 3.4.4 / ES and ED minimum of 900 AU
25 / 3.4.4.1 / ES minimum of 225 AU
26 / 3.4.4.2 / ES – other engineering disciplines
27 / 3.4.4.3 / ED minimum of 225 AU
28 / 3.4.4.4 / Significant design experience
29 / 3.4.4.5 / Modern engineering tools
30 / 3.4.5 / Complementary Studies minimum of 225 AU
31 / 3.4.5.1 / a. Engineering economics
32 / b. Impact of technology on
society
33 / c. Humanities and social sciences
34 / d. Technical communications
35 / e. Health and safety
36 / f. Professional ethics, equity and
law
37 / g. Sustainable development and
environmental stewardship
38 / 3.4.5.2 / Language instruction
39 / 3.4.6 / Entire program minimum of 1,950 AU
40 / 3.4.7 / Laboratory experience
41 / 3.4.8 / Evaluation of curriculum content (transcript analysis)
42 / 3.4.8.1 / Prior university level of post-secondary education
43 / 3.4.8.2 / These criteria do not limit accreditation to any particular mode of learning. In the case of distance learning, the Accreditation Board will rely on the Interpretive statement on distance learning.
CRITERION 5:
3.5 – Program Environment / Issue / A / M / U / Institution’s response / C/W/D
44 / 3.5.1 / Quality of the educational experience
45 / 3.5.1.1 / Quality, morale and commitment of:
46 / a. Students
47 / b. Faculty
48 / c. Support Staff
49 / d. Administration
50 / 3.5.1.2 / Quality, suitability and accessibility of:
51 / a. Laboratories
52 / b. Library
53 / c. Computing facilities
54 / d. Other supporting facilities
55 / 3.5.2 / Faculty
56 / 3.5.2.1 / Faculty qualifications and experience
57 / 3.5.2.2 / Sufficient number of full-time faculty
58 / 3.5.2.3 / Balance of faculty duties
59 / 3.5.2.4 / Program not dependent on one individual
60 / 3.5.3 / Leadership (Dean or equivalent officer; program head)
61 / 3.5.4 / Expertise and competence of faculty
62 / a. The level of academic education of faculty members
63 / b. Diversity of faculty
64 / c. Ability of faculty to communicate
65 / d. Experience in teaching, research, and design practice
66 / e. Level of scholarship
67 / f. Degree of participation in professional and learned societies
68 / g. Support of program-related extra-curricular activities
69 / h. Attitudes to professional licensure
70 / 3.5.5 / Professional status of faculty members
71 / 3.5.7 / Authority and responsibility for the engineering program
72 / 3.5.8 / Curriculum committee
CRITERION 6:
3.6 – Accreditation Procedures and Application / Issue / A / M / U / Institution’s response / C/W/D
73 / 3.6.4 / All program variations (options) meet the criteria
74 / 3.6.5 / Program includes the word “engineering” in its title
75 / 3.6.6 / Title is properly descriptive of the curriculum content
76 / 3.6.7 / Program meets each engineering curriculum named
77 / 3.6.9 / Options have distinct curriculum content
78 / 3.6.10 / Program name is appropriate, regardless of option
79 / 3.6.11 / Program has / will have graduates (new programs only)
80 / 3.6.13 / Significant change
81 / 3.6.14 / Compliance

AU summary: Program name

Total AU / Math / NS / Math + NS / CS / ES / ED / ES+ ED / AU “recognized”
ES / ED / ES+ED
Original submission by institution
Revised by program visitors
Revised per institution’s response
Accreditation Board requirement / 1 950* / 195 / 195 / 420 / 225 / 225 / 225 / 900 / 225 / 600

* 1800 is acceptable until 2014

1