Questionnaire for Evaluation
of an Engineering Program
Submitted by:
Name of institution
Program name
Date
Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board
1100 – 180 Elgin Street, Ottawa, ON K2P 2K3
Tel.: (613) 232-2474 / Fax: (613) 230-5759
Questionnaire update: 2009-03-25
Questionnaire for Evaluation of an Engineering Program
Table of contents
Glossary of terms
General instructions
1. General institutional and program information
2. Purpose of accreditation
3. Accreditation criteria
3.1Graduate attributes
3.2Students
3.3Curriculum content
3.4Program environment
3.5Accreditation procedures and application
4. List of required exhibits
5. Data tables
5.1Summary of academic staff tables: Instructions
5.1aSummary of academic staff holding continuing appointments
5.1bSummary of academic staff not holding continuing appointments
5.2Academic staff information sheet
5.3Summary of staff changes
5.4Summary of expenditures
5.5Enrolment and degree data
5.6Summary of transcript: Instructions
5.6aSummary of transcript
5.7Course information sheet: Instructions
5.7aCourse information sheet
5.8Summary of curriculum tables: Instructions
5.8aCompulsory common core courses
5.8bProgram-compulsory courses
5.8cOption-compulsory courses
5.8dElective courses
5.8eProgram totals
Appendix A: Advanced Standing, Prior Studies, Exchange Studies,
and Transfer Credit Regulations
Appendix B: Procedures for Formal Review of an Accreditation Board Decision to
Deny Accreditation
Appendix C: Program Development Advisory Procedure
Appendix D: Confidentiality – Policies and Procedures
Appendix E: Statement of Interpretation on Curriculum Content for Options and
Dual-Discipline Programs
Appendix F: Interpretive Statement on Natural Sciences
Appendix G: Statement of Interpretation on Licensure Expectations and Requirements
Appendix H: Guidelines for Engineers Canada Substantial Equivalency Evaluations
Questionnaire for Evaluation of an Engineering Program
Glossary of terms
Accreditation Units (AU) are defined on an hourly basis for an activity which is granted academic credit and for which the associated number of hours corresponds to the actual contact time of that activity between the student and the faculty members, or designated alternates, responsible for delivering the program:
- one hour of lecture (corresponding to 50 minutes of activity) = 1 AU
- one hour of laboratory or scheduled tutorial = 0.5 AU
This definition is applicable to most lectures and periods of laboratory or tutorial work. Classes of other than the nominal 50-minute duration are treated proportionally. In assessing the time assigned to determine the AU of various components of the curriculum, the actual instruction time exclusive of final examinations should be used.
Curriculum content: This need not mean an entire course dedicated to specific material; for example, it may include separate units within an array of courses which address the material.
Minimum path: The set of courses, including common-core, program compulsory, option compulsory and elective courses which provide the least number of AU within each Accreditation Board curriculum content category.
Modern engineering tools: This refers to tools such as equipment, processes, codes of practice, software, simulation packages, etc. that are considered essential for the given discipline.
“Qualified” Accreditation Units: Curriculum content delivered by faculty members that meet the Accreditation Board accreditation licensure requirements. Engineering licensure is examined only for courses that include engineering science and/or engineering design curriculum content. Please see theStatement of Interpretation on Licensure Expectations andRequirements for further information.
Weakest-link principle: For purposes of accreditation, a program is characterized by a formally approved and published curriculum that is regarded as an entity by the institution and that can be considered independently. All options in the program are examined. Following the principle that a program is only as strong as its “weakest link”, a program is accredited only if the institution can demonstrate that all students in all options satisfy the minimum AU requirements in all curriculum content categories.
General instructions
As part of the accreditation process, the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (the Accreditation Board) conducts visits to the institution that has requested evaluation of its engineering program for accreditation. The visiting team selected by the Accreditation Board consists of qualified licensedprofessional engineers from the academic and non-academic sectors.
The first step in the evaluation process is to complete this questionnaire for each program being evaluated. For the convenience of those preparing thisquestionnaire and those who assess it, each section is keyed to the relevant criterion, and there are indications of where the visiting team will expect to find evidence that demonstrates compliance. The Accreditation Board emphasizes that it is the responsibility of the institution to make the case that the program meets each and every criterion. Accordingly, space is provided for information which the Board has not specified but the institution feels is relevant. This is especially important where less conventional and more innovative educational processes are under way.
This questionnaire is based on the Accreditation Board’s Accreditation Criteria and Proceduresfor 2008.
Questionnaire and tables
The questionnaire is intended for the collection of data concerning the institution and the program being evaluated and to give the institution an opportunity to describe educational objectives and procedures. It should be filled out with care to provide the data completely and accurately.
The institution must respond to each criterionin this questionnaire. Please useas much space as required to provide your responses. Tables are provided for the institution to complete as appropriate, either by entering your information within the tables contained in this document, or by using the Excel tables included with this package. Word processor and/or spreadsheet programs may be used. Please number the pages consecutively. Major attachments should be placed at the end of the completed questionnaire. A table of contents should be prepared showing all pages and attachments.
If documents are submitted to reply to specific criteriain the questionnaire, please indicatethe exact location within these documents to which reference is being made (i.e., document name, page, paragraph, line, etc.) or provide clear copies of the specific sections.
When information is updated for the visiting team it is important that copies of the updates be sent to the Accreditation Board Secretariat.
Calendars
Copies of the latest calendar must be included for all recipients of the questionnaire. In cases where the latest calendar information does not correspond to the curriculum of the upcoming graduation class, an appropriate explanation must be part of the documentation provided.
Exhibits
The following supplemental information should be attached at the end of the completed questionnaire. For more information on these exhibits, see the List of required exhibits.
- Exhibit 1: Mission statements, vision statements, strategic plans and similardocuments that affect the program being evaluated
- Exhibit 2: Documents describing the processes and policies for student admission, promotion, and graduation
- Exhibit 3: Documents describing the procedures to evaluate advanced standing, prior studies, transfer credits and/or exchange studies
- Exhibit 4: Copies of degree certificates and transcript entries for all variations of theprogram
- Exhibit 5: Copy of the transcript of the student that you judge as “most likely to graduate” (only if this is a new program from which no students have yet graduated)
- Exhibit 6: Self appraisal
Where to send your materials
Contact the Accreditation Board Secretariat in Ottawa for instructions on delivery of materials.
Accreditation Board Secretariat
E-mail:
Telephone: (613)232-2474
Toll free at: 1-877-408-9273
1. General institutional and program information
Name and postal address of the institution
Name and title of the chief executive officer of the institution
Name, title and mailing address of the dean
As appropriate, provide the dean’s name, title, mailing address, telephone number and other means of communication (e.g. courier address, e-mail address, fax number, etc.).
Person responsible for organizing the visit
Provide the name, title, mailing address, telephone number and other means of communication (e.g. courier address, e-mail address, fax number, etc.) of the person responsible for organizing the visit. If the person is the same as above, please indicate.
Person responsible for the program
Provide the name, title, mailing address, telephone number and other means of communication (e.g. courier address, e-mail address, fax number, etc.) of the person responsible for the program. If the person is the same as above, please indicate.
Options in this program
List the names of all the options for the program being evaluated, if applicable. Use the names as specified in the calendar.
2. Purpose of accreditation
The purpose of accreditation is to identify to the constituent members of Engineers Canada those engineering programs whose graduates are academically qualified to begin the process to be licensedas professional engineers in Canada. The process of accreditation emphasizes the quality of the students, the academic and support staff, and the educational facilities.
The engineering profession expects of its members competence in engineering as well as an understanding of the effects of engineering on society. Thus, accredited engineering programs must contain not only adequate mathematics, science, and engineering curriculum content but must also develop communication skills, an understanding of the environmental, cultural, economic, and social impacts of engineering on society, the concepts of sustainable development, and the capacity for life-long learning.
The criteria are intended to provide a broad basis for identifying acceptable undergraduate engineering programs, to prevent over-specialization in curricula, to provide sufficient freedom to accommodate innovation in education, to allow adaptation to different regional factors, and to permit the expression of the institution’s individual qualities, ideals, and educational objectives. They are intended to support the continuous improvement of the quality of engineering education.
Interpretations, regulations, and guidelines are published and updated regularly on the Engineers Canada website: As of June 30, 2008, the following policies, procedures, regulations and interpretive statements are in effect and are included as appendices to this document. Please consult the website or contact the Accreditation Board secretariat for the most up-to-date information:
- Advanced Standing, Prior Studies, Exchange Studies, and Transfer Credit Regulations
- Procedures for Formal Review of an Accreditation Board Decision to Deny Accreditation
- Program Development Advisory Procedure
- Confidentiality: Policies andProcedures
- Statement of Interpretation on Curriculum Content for Options and Dual-DisciplinePrograms
- Interpretive Statement on Natural Sciences
- Statement of Interpretation on Licensure Expectations and Requirements
- Policies and Procedures for Engineers Canada Substantial Equivalency Evaluations
3. Accreditation criteria
The following sections describe the measures used by the Accreditation Board to evaluate Canadian engineering programs for the purpose of accreditation. The number indicated beside each criterion corresponds with the Accreditation Board’s Accreditation Criteria and Proceduresfor 2008.
3.1Graduate attributes
The institution must demonstrate that the graduates of a program possess the attributes under the following headings. The attributes will be interpreted in the context of candidates at the time of graduation. It is recognized that graduates will continue to build on the foundations that their engineering education has provided.
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 these attributes, and that the results are applied to the further development of the program.
Notes regarding criterion 3.1:
The Accreditation Board and universities are presently developing methods of evaluating the success of achieving the attributes. For this reason, the attributes will not form a basis for accreditation decisions until June 2014. However, to assist in the development of evaluation methods, you are requested to complete this section of the questionnaire as fully as possible. Methods of evaluation that have been identified currently are based on a review of:
- Textbooks and other supporting materials for all core, program compulsory, and elective courses (not necessarily including non-technical elective courses) including:
- course outlines (lecture-by-lecture is best)
- lecture notes and visual aids
- course materials posted on the web
- Samples of graded student work and examinations(see list below) should demonstrate a range of student performances, from outstanding to unacceptable. Please include the original problem statements with your samples.Visiting team members will verify that grading and course difficulty levels are appropriate.
- graded problem sets
- graded mid-term tests
- graded examinations
- graded assignments including laboratory assignments
- For programs where there are more than 20 students, a sample of 20 anonymous student transcripts is required for the most recent graduating class. For programs with less than 20 students in the graduating year, provide all available transcripts with identifying information removed. Transcripts are to be provided for the program being visited and should be included with the completed questionnaire.
- Student design reports and/ortheses for the program being visited
- Models or equipment constructed by students and other evidence of student performance
- Laboratory instruction sheets
- Information about the professor in charge and instructors, including status (faculty or sessional, qualifications, and professional registration)
- Access to student files when the team is on site to corroborate transcript information
- On-site interviews
If the institution wishes to provide additional information, a description of this evidence should be provided in the boxes after each attribute. Examples of such additional information follows. This list is not meant to be prescriptive, or exhaustive, and the institution is encouraged to provide any other evidence they consider relevant.
- Work term experience/reports
- Employer surveys
- Exit interview
- Graduate surveys
3.1.1A knowledge base for engineering
Demonstrated competence in university level mathematics, natural sciences, engineering fundamentals, and specialized engineering knowledge appropriate to the program.
Response to criterion 3.1.1:
Optional additional information.
3.1.2Problem analysis
An ability to use appropriate knowledge and skills to identify, formulate, analyze, and solve complex engineering problems in order to reach substantiated conclusions.
Response to criterion 3.1.2:
Optional additional information.
3.1.3Investigation
An ability to conduct investigations of complex problems by methods that include appropriate experiments, analysis and interpretation of data, and synthesis of information in order to reach valid conclusions.
Response to criterion 3.1.3:
Optional additional information.
3.1.4Design
An ability to design solutions for complex, open-ended engineering problems and to design systems, components or processes that meet specified needs with appropriate attention to health and safety risks, applicable standards, economic, environmental, cultural and societal considerations.
Response to criterion 3.1.4:
Optional additional information.
3.1.5Use of engineering tools
An ability to create, select, apply, adapt, and extend appropriate techniques, resources, and modern engineering tools to a range of engineering activities, from simple to complex, with an understanding of the associated limitations.
Response to criterion 3.1.5:
Optional additional information.
3.1.6Individual and team work
An ability to work effectively as a member and leader in teams, preferably in a multi-disciplinary setting.
Response to criterion 3.1.6:
Optional additional information.
3.1.7Communication skills
An ability to communicate complex engineering concepts within the profession and with society at large. Such abilities include reading, writing, speaking and listening, and the ability to comprehend and write effective reports and design documentation, and to give and effectively respond to clear instructions.
Response to criterion 3.1.7:
Optional additional information.
3.1.8Professionalism
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.
Response to criterion 3.1.8:
Optional additional information.
3.1.9Impact of engineering on society and the environment
An ability to analyse social and environmental aspects of engineering activities. Such abilities include an understanding of the interactions that engineering has with the economic, social, health, safety, legal, and cultural aspects of society; the uncertainties in the prediction of such interactions; and the concepts of sustainable design and development and environmental stewardship.
Response to criterion 3.1.9:
Optional additional information.
3.1.10Ethics and equity
An ability to apply professional ethics, accountability, and equity.
Response to criterion 3.1.10:
Optional additional information.
3.1.11Economics and project management
An ability to appropriately incorporate economics and business practices including project, risk and change management into the practice of engineering, and to understand their limitations.
Response to criterion 3.1.11:
Optional additional information.
3.1.12Life-long learning
An ability to identify and to address their own educational needs in a changing world, sufficiently to maintain their competence and contribute to the advancement of knowledge.
Response to criterion 3.1.12:
Optional additional information.
3.2Students
Accredited programs must have functional policies and procedures that deal with quality, admission, counseling, promotion and graduation of students. Although all accreditation criteria connect directly and indirectly with their education, attention is drawn to the following in particular: admission; promotion and graduation; and counselling and guidance.
Instructions and responses for criterion 3.2:
Compliance shall be based a review of the documents that contain a description of processes and policies for admission, promotion, and graduation, and documents that contain a description of procedures to evaluate advanced standing, prior studies, transfer credits and/or exchange studies.
3.2.1Admission
There must be documented processes and policies for admission of students. Admission involving advanced standing, prior studies, transfer credits and/or exchange studies must be in compliance with the associated Accreditation Board regulations. The document entitled Advanced Standing, Prior Studies, Exchange Studies, and Transfer Credit Regulations is included as an appendix to this questionnaire and is also available online at and from the Accreditation Board secretariat.
Instructions and response for criterion 3.2.1:
Describe the general criteria and procedures for admitting students to the undergraduate engineering program including:
- Regular admission to the initial year of the engineering program at this institutionand,
- Non-regular admission including admission with conditions, advanced standing on an individual case-by-case assessment, formal agreements with other institution, etc. Describe how credit for advanced standing is evaluated.
3.2.2Promotion and graduation