Dossier Assessment Form



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: |Comments |Institution’s response |

| |3.1 - Graduate Attributes | | |

| |3.1.1 |A knowledge base for engineering | | |

| |3.1.2 |Problem analysis | | |

| |3.1.3 |Investigation | | |

| |3.1.4 |Design | | |

| |3.1.5 |Use of engineering tools | | |

| |3.1.6 |Individual and team work | | |

| |3.1.7 |Communication skills | | |

| |3.1.8 |Professionalism | | |

| |3.1.9 |Impact of engineering on society and the environment | | |

| |3.1.10 |Ethics and equity | | |

| |3.1.11 |Economics and project management | | |

| |3.1.12 |Life-long learning | | |

| |CRITERION 2: |Comments |Institution’s response |

| |3.2 - Continual Improvement | | |

| |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 | | |3.3.1 |Admission | | | | | | | | |3.3.2 |Promotion and graduation | | | | | | | | |3.3.3 |Counselling and guidance | | | | | | | | |3.3.4 |Degree auditing | | | | | | | |

|CRITERION 4:

3.4 – Curriculum content and quality |Issue |A |M |U |Institution’s response |C/W/D | | |3.4.1 |Approach and methodologies for quantifying curriculum content | | | | | | | | |3.4.1.1 |Accreditation units (AU) | | | | | | | | |3.4.2 |Minimum curriculum components | | | | | | | | |3.4.3 |Mathematics and Natural Sciences minimum of 420 AU | | | | | | | | |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 | | | | | | | | |3.4.3.2 |Natural Sciences minimum of 195 AU: Elements of physics and chemistry (mandatory) & Life sciences and Earth Sciences (optional) | | | | | | | | |3.4.4 |ES and ED minimum of 900 AU | | | | | | | | |3.4.4.1 |ES minimum of 225 AU | | | | | | | | |3.4.4.2 |ES – other engineering disciplines | | | | | | | | |3.4.4.3 |ED minimum of 225 AU | | | | | | | | |3.4.4.4 |Significant design experience | | | | | | | | |3.4.4.5 |Modern engineering tools | | | | | | | | |3.4.5 |Complementary Studies minimum of 225 AU | | | | | | | | |3.4.5.1 |a. Engineering economics | | | | | | | | | |b. Impact of technology on

society | | | | | | | | | |c. Humanities and social sciences | | | | | | | | | |d. Technical communications | | | | | | | | | |e. Health and safety | | | | | | | | | |f. Professional ethics, equity and

law | | | | | | | | | |g. Sustainable development and

environmental stewardship | | | | | | | | |3.4.5.2 |Language instruction | | | | | | | | |3.4.6 |Entire program minimum of 1,950 AU | | | | | | | | |3.4.7 |Laboratory experience | | | | | | | | |3.4.8 |Evaluation of curriculum content (transcript analysis) | | | | | | | | |3.4.8.1 |Prior university level of post-secondary education | | | | | | | | |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 | | |3.5.1 |Quality of the educational experience | | | | | | | | |3.5.1.1 |Quality, morale and commitment of: | | | | | | | | | |a. Students | | | | | | | | | |b. Faculty | | | | | | | | | |c. Support Staff | | | | | | | | | |d. Administration | | | | | | | | |3.5.1.2 |Quality, suitability and accessibility of: | | | | | | | | | |a. Laboratories | | | | | | | | | |b. Library | | | | | | | | | |c. Computing facilities | | | | | | | | | |d. Other supporting facilities | | | | | | | | |3.5.2 |Faculty | | | | | | | | |3.5.2.1 |Faculty qualifications and experience | | | | | | | | |3.5.2.2 |Sufficient number of full-time faculty | | | | | | | | |3.5.2.3 |Balance of faculty duties | | | | | | | | |3.5.2.4 |Program not dependent on one individual | | | | | | | | |3.5.3 |Leadership (Dean or equivalent officer; program head) | | | | | | | | |3.5.4 |Expertise and competence of faculty | | | | | | | | | |a. The level of academic education of faculty members | | | | | | | | | |b. Diversity of faculty | | | | | | | | | |c. Ability of faculty to communicate | | | | | | | | | |d. Experience in teaching, research, and design practice | | | | | | | | | |e. Level of scholarship | | | | | | | | | |f. Degree of participation in professional and learned societies | | | | | | | | | |g. Support of program-related extra-curricular activities | | | | | | | | | |h. Attitudes to professional licensure | | | | | | | | |3.5.5 |Professional status of faculty members | | | | | | | | |3.5.7 |Authority and responsibility for the engineering program | | | | | | | | |3.5.8 |Curriculum committee | | | | | | | |

|CRITERION 6:

3.6 – Accreditation Procedures and Application |Issue |A |M |U |Institution’s response

|C/W/D | | |3.6.4 |All program variations (options) meet the criteria | | | | | | | | |3.6.5 |Program includes the word “engineering” in its title | | | | | | | | |3.6.6 |Title is properly descriptive of the curriculum content | | | | | | | | |3.6.7 |Program meets each engineering curriculum named | | | | | | | | |3.6.9 |Options have distinct curriculum content | | | | | | | | |3.6.10 |Program name is appropriate, regardless of option | | | | | | | | |3.6.11 |Program has / will have graduates (new programs only) | | | | | | | | |3.6.13 |Significant change | | | | | | | | |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

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download