Get documents about "acc GeneralVisitorManualinstructions
Document Sample
GENERAL VISITOR
MANUAL
CANADIAN ENGINEERING ACCREDITATION BOARD
1100 – 180 Elgin Street
Ottawa, ON
K2P 2K3
TEL: (613) 232-2474 FAX: (613) 230-5759
E-MAIL: ceab@ccpe.ca
CEAB – GVM – 2007
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1
OVERVIEW OF THE ACCREDITATION PROCESS ..................................................................... 1
Step 1. Initiating the Process ............................................................................................. 1
Step 2. The Visiting Team ................................................................................................. 1
Step 3. Prior to the Visit ..................................................................................................... 1
Step 4. The Accreditation Visit ........................................................................................... 2
Step 5. Report of the Visiting Team ................................................................................... 2
Step 6. Accreditation Decision ........................................................................................... 3
ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE GENERAL VISITOR .................................................. 3
Prior to the Accreditation Visit ............................................................................................. 3
Report of the General Visitor .............................................................................................. 3
GUIDANCE FOR PREPARING THE REPORT OF THE GENERAL VISITOR ............................. 5
Components Linked To Engineering .................................................................................. 5
Occupational Health and Safety Issues .............................................................................. 7
Professional Licensure Issues ............................................................................................ 8
Student Interviews............................................................................................................... 9
Suggestions for Improvements ........................................................................................... 9
INTRODUCTION
Thank you for agreeing to participate as a GENERAL VISITOR on an upcoming accreditation
visit. You, along with the Chair of the Visiting Team, the Vice-Chair, and the Program Visitor(s),
provide an invaluable service to the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB).
To assist you in understanding the accreditation process, and your role and responsibilities, the
Canadian Council of Professional Engineers has developed this document, which comprises 3
parts:
1. An overview of the accreditation process, including the accreditation visit
2. The role and responsibilities of the GENERAL VISITOR; and,
3. A Report of the General Visitor, which you are asked to complete based on your
observations during the accreditation visit.
OVERVIEW OF THE ACCREDITATION PROCESS
In Canada, the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) is responsible for accrediting
and re-accrediting undergraduate engineering education programs that meet or exceed
educational standards acceptable for professional engineering registration. Students who
graduate from a CEAB-accredited program can be considered to have fulfilled the academic
requirements for licensing by Canada’s regulatory bodies.
Accreditation is an on-going process. It involves 6 main steps that generally take approximately
18 months to complete.
Step 1. Initiating the Process
The accreditation process begins when the university offering the program for which
accreditation is sought makes a request to the CEAB Secretariat. Note that the CEAB accredits
individual engineering undergraduate educational programs, not departments or engineering
faculties. Requests must be received in January for decisions that will be taken in June of the
following year. To be considered for accreditation, a program must have the word “engineering”
as part of its name, and must have graduates.
Step 2. The Visiting Team
The CEAB selects a Visiting Team Chair, who is usually a current or former member of the
CEAB. The Visiting Team Chair then invites a Vice-Chair and Program Visitor(s) to join the
team. GENERAL VISITORS are selected by the regulatory body in the province in which the
university is located. All members of the visiting team must be registered professional engineers.
Step 3. Prior to the Visit
Before an accreditation visit, the CEAB Secretariat asks the university to complete a
questionnaire, reporting on various aspects of the program being considered for accreditation.
The questionnaire seeks information about the administration, faculty, facilities, and course
content. Copies of the completed questionnaire, along with supporting documents such as the
university calendar, are delivered to each visiting team member 6 weeks before the visit.
-1-
Step 4. The Accreditation Visit
The accreditation visit usually takes place over 3 days in October or November. The purpose of
the visit is to provide the visiting team with an opportunity to corroborate the information
contained in the completed questionnaire and to assess qualitative factors that can affect the
undergraduate educational experience. Visiting team members participate in a variety of
activities, including interviews with faculty, staff, administration, and students, tours of facilities,
and examination of course notes, textbooks, student reports, and transcripts.
On the final afternoon, the visiting team meets privately to review their findings. During the
team's final meeting and prior to the exit interview, each program and general visitor completes a
rough draft of their Report and prepares a Summary of observations. Team members are
asked to provide copies of the Summary to the Visiting Team Chair, for consolidation and
presentation at the exit interview with university representatives.
Step 5. Report of the Visiting Team
A report on the accreditation visit is prepared by the visiting team chair consisting of three
parts as follows:
Part 1 – The first part is a narrative report that provides a concise description of the important
observations made by the visiting team. Since the team chair usually makes visit assignments to
cover areas such as the common core, academic support departments (e.g. mathematics,
physics, chemistry, complementary studies, etc.) and institutional facilities (e.g. library, central
shops, computer centre, etc.) to various team members, summary reports, received from the
respective visitors on these areas are also included. The report of the team chair also contains:
names, affiliation and assignments of visiting team members
brief schedule of main visit events
names of individuals interviewed
facilities visited
other pertinent information.
Part 2 - The report(s) of the general visitor(s), the format for which is appended to this manual.
Part 3 - The report(s) of the program visitor(s), the format for which is presented elsewhere.
Within two weeks of the visit, team members submit typed versions of their reports to the team
chair. These final reports should not include any major findings not previously mentioned and
revealed during the exit interview.
Within four weeks of the visit, the team chair submits the Report on the Accreditation Visit to
the CEAB Secretariat.
Note that the Report shall contain no recommendations concerning accreditation.
The CEAB Secretariat forwards a copy of the Report to the institution for review and comment.
This gives the institution an opportunity to ensure accuracy, and to advise on any enhancements
to the program after the visit.
-2-
Step 6. Accreditation Decision
The CEAB makes a decision about accreditation based on information obtained during the
accreditation visit process and/or from reports submitted by the institution at the request of the
CEAB. Most accreditation decisions are taken in June of the year following the accreditation
visit, at a regularly scheduled meeting of the CEAB. Prior to this meeting, relevant documents
are forwarded to all CEAB members for review. During the meeting, the visiting team chair, or
other representative, present the case for the program under consideration. The CEAB
members then discuss the merits of the program and vote on its accreditation.
The maximum period of time for which a program can be accredited is six years. Sometimes a
program is accredited for a shorter period of time, if the CEAB is concerned about particular
aspects of the program or so that future accreditation activities coincide with other programs at
the same institution. If the CEAB judges that significant shortcomings exist in a program subject
to re-accreditation, a Notice of Termination of Accreditation can be issued. If the CEAB
determines that an unaccredited program does not fulfil the CEAB published criteria,
accreditation of the program can be denied.
The decision about accreditation of the program is conveyed in writing to the Dean shortly after
the meeting. A courtesy copy of the decision letter is also sent to the President of the institution.
ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE GENERAL VISITOR
Prior to the Accreditation Visit
The duties of the GENERAL VISITOR often include evaluation of areas such as the professional
orientation of the program, Occupational Health and Safety issues, student projects, support
departments and facilities, and other aspects as determined by the team chair. Prior to the visit,
the team chair, or designate, will contact you about your assignments and your schedule during
the visit.
As stated above, the GENERAL VISITOR receives Part 1 and Part 2 of the completed
questionnaire, along with supporting documents, from the institution (see Step 3 above). While
certain sections of this questionnaire will be particularly relevant to your assigned tasks, you are
provided with a complete set of the institution’s documentation for your information. Reviewing
this material prior to the visit allows the GENERAL VISITOR to identify strengths and
shortcomings, which can help to focus efforts during the visit itself. Be sure to bring all materials
with you to the visit.
Report of the General Visitor
The Canadian Council of Professional Engineers has developed a template Report of the
General Visitor, which consists of a series of forms and narrative pages to be completed by the
general visitor. The information reported should reflect the situation as observed at the time of
the visit and is related to information provided by the institution in their completed Questionnaire
for Evaluation of Engineering Programs.
For some program components, for example, workshop facilities, the GENERAL VISITOR is
asked to assign a rating. Where ratings are requested (by placing an “X” in the appropriate
space), the following rating scheme is used:
-3-
A = Acceptable (i.e. clearly meets or exceeds minimum standards)
M = Marginal (i.e. only marginally meets minimum standards)
U = Unacceptable (i.e. clearly does not meet minimum standards)
For factors that cannot be evaluated (e.g., because they are not applicable or they were not
assigned), a horizontal line should be drawn through all three ratings.
Space for comments is provided on the lower portion of each page. It is essential that comments
be provided for each rating of M or U; include specific reasons for these ratings by providing
details of shortcomings and/or deviations from the CEAB criteria. Also, comments should be
provided for features given an A rating that you consider to be of an exceptionally high calibre.
The comments should be precise and concise, and should normally fit into the space provided. If
extra space is required, additional pages should be attached and appropriately identified.
Comments (if any) for important factors not specifically included in the rating forms may be
included in the comments area of the relevant section.
For visits involving more than one program, the weakest-link principle is to be used. That
means each factor is evaluated for each program but only the lowest rating is reported for
each factor. It is essential that factors with M or U ratings be clearly identified in the "Comments"
section along with the indication of which program has been rated as M or U.
The Report of the General Visitor includes a Summary on the last page, which should, at a
minimum, address the following:
Observed strengths
Perceived shortcomings
Deviations from the CEAB criteria
A draft copy of the Summary is prepared prior to the exit interview, where it is used by the team
chair to summarize the visiting team’s findings. A copy of the summary should be provided to the
team chair.
If more than one GENERAL VISITOR is involved in the visit, each individual should prepare a
Summary of the visit, and a report should be completed for only those areas to which each
GENERAL VISITOR was assigned. If a GENERAL VISITOR has been assigned additional tasks
not covered by the Report of the General Visitor, the Summary should also include comments
on these assigned tasks.
If the GENERAL VISITOR is involved with visit activities that are the responsibility of other team
members, the general visitor should provide input to the other team members for inclusion in
their reports.
After the Accreditation Visit, as stated above, all visiting team members are expected to submit
typed versions of their reports to the team chair within two weeks of the visit. The final typed
version of the Report of the General Visitor should not include any major findings not raised
during the exit interview.
You may be asked by your provincial/territorial licensing body to provide a verbal or written report
on the accreditation visit. The CEAB encourages this practice to the extent that it does not
compromise the confidentiality of the accreditation process. As such, a General Visitor’s
Report to the Constituent Member has been prepared for you to complete and submit to the
-4-
CEAB secretariat. The licensing body can be informed of the quality and conduct of the visiting
team, the visit schedule, and other general information that would convey a sense of the overall
experience. Information regarding the quality of each engineering program and related factors
assessed during the visit must remain confidential.
After the CEAB has decided on the accreditation of the program(s), you will receive a copy of the
letter from the CEAB chair to the visiting team chair, advising of the accreditation decision and
thanking you for your participation in the accreditation process.
GUIDANCE FOR PREPARING THE REPORT OF THE GENERAL VISITOR
Attached to this document is a template titled Report of the General Visitor that should be
used to prepare your report.
The main topics covered by the Report relate to:
1. Components linked to engineering;
2. Occupational health and safety issues;
3. Professional licensure issues;
4. Student interviews; and,
5. Suggestions for improvements.
Below, we have put together some ideas to help you as you review the institution’s documents
and make observations during the visit.
Components Linked To Engineering
In this section of your report, you are asked to assign ratings and comment on items linked to
engineering, such as workshop facilities. When examining these components, you may wish to
consider the following:
Transcripts - Does transcript information conform to regulations as stated
in the institution’s calendar (e.g., are failed courses cleared)?
- Is there evidence of conformance with CEAB’s regulations
regarding Advanced Standing and Prior Studies?
Student Projects - Does the Capstone project represent a “significant” design
a) Capstone Design experience?
b) Other Projects - Is there opportunity for teamwork?
- Is there a link between undergraduate projects and faculty
research?
- Does the institution make the most of industry partnerships
when identifying Capstone or other design projects?
Complementary Studies - Are these individual courses, or are the topics covered as
a) Engineering Economics part of other courses?
b) Impact of Technology - What are the opportunities for developing communication
c) Ability to Communicate skills?
d) Central Issues - Do students receive formal instruction in oral presentation
and report writing?
-5-
- Are elements of the complementary studies integrated into
engineering coursework (e.g., do students evaluate
economics as part of design projects)?
- Are complementary studies given by instructors outside the
faculty?
Library Facilities and Services - Is Engineering consulted when the library makes decisions
regarding acquisitions?
- What type of liaison exists between Library Services and
engineering?
- Is instruction in using the library and its resources provided?
- What is the engineering budget for acquisitions?
Workshop Facilities and - Is equipment in good repair and up-to-date?
Services - What is the access procedure for undergraduate students?
Computer Facilities and Services - Is equipment in good repair and up-to-date?
- What on-site support is available?
- Renewal – Is there a formal plan? How often is equipment
updated?
- What software is available to engineering?
- How is acquisition of specialized engineering software
determined?
Advisory Services to Students - What is the scope of services?
- What is the accessibility?
Senior University Administration - Is engineering a priority?
- How does commitment manifest itself (e.g., financially)?
Student Access to Dean’s Office - Is there formal liaison between undergraduate student body
and the Dean’s Office?
- What issues can be brought forward?
- Is there informal access, and, if so, for what are the types of
issues?
Relationship with Service Depts. - Is there collaboration between engineering and service
departments?
- What is the Service Department’s view of engineering
undergraduates?
Co-op/Internship Programs - How are these delivered?
- How is this experience integrated into the undergraduate
education experience?
- What is the rate of student participation?
-6-
Occupational Health and Safety Issues
In this section of your report, you are asked to assign ratings and comment on occupational
health and safety issues, and how these are integrated into the undergraduate education
experience. When examining these components, you may wish to consider the following:
Culture Surrounding Lab Safety - Are undergraduates advised of safety
procedures/equipment before entering/using the lab?
- What safety equipment are undergraduates required to
wear (e.g., glasses)?
- What disciplinary action is taken if lab procedures are not
followed?
- How are chemicals stored, and how are they accessed?
- How is laboratory activity (both course-related and
research) supervised?
University Commitment to Safety - How is OH&S assured across the university?
Example Set by Staff - Are instructors cognizant of OH&S Act, procedures, etc.?
- Do instructors wear safety glasses, shoes, hard hats,
etc.?
Emergency Equipment - Where are eyewashes and showers located?
- Are fire extinguishers readily available?
Emergency Procedures - Are Material Safety Data Sheets up-to-date and
appropriately located?
- Are emergency procedures posted?
- Are evacuation procedures reviewed with faculty, staff,
students?
Faculty Appreciation of OH&S - How is OH&S integrated into the curriculum?
Knowledge
Student Appreciation of OH&S - Are undergraduates aware of the Act?
Knowledge - How do the students view the Act?
Posting of OH&S Act - Where is the Act posted?
- Is it the most recent edition?
Non-Academic Workplace Health - How is this monitored by the institution?
& Safety Issues - What options are available if this is found to be lacking?
Public Health & Safety in - Is there evidence that undergraduates consider health
Engineering Design and safety in their design projects?
- How is public health and safety integrated within the
curriculum?
-7-
Professional Licensure Issues
In this section of your report, you are asked to assign ratings and comment on professional
licensure issues. When examining these components, you may wish to consider the following:
Students’ Understanding of - How do students describe the title “professional
Licensure engineer”?
- What advantages do students see in becoming licensed?
- Can students articulate the responsibilities that go along
with being licensed (e.g., protection of the public)?
Students’ Understanding of the - What is the students’ definition of self-regulating?
Licensing Body’s Role - Can students articulate the functions performed by the
licensing body (e.g., admissions, enforcement, discipline)?
- Can the students describe how the CEAB accreditation
process fits into the licensing framework?
Regularity of Student Contact with - What is the relationship between the undergraduates and
the Provincial Association the provincial licensing body?
- How is regular contact achieved?
University Programs and - Is licensure a requirement for employment?
Incentives to Encourage - Are annual, or other fees (e.g., exams), paid by the
Licensure of Non-registered institution?
Faculty Members - Is lack of licensure penalized (e.g., merit pay is withheld)?
- How does the Dean support licensure?
Non-registered Faculty’s - How do non-registered faculty view the title “professional
Understanding of Licensure engineer”?
- What advantages do non-registered faculty see in
becoming licensed?
Proportion of Licensed - How close is this number to 100%?
Professional Engineers - Reasons for present proportion (e.g., new hires who have
not yet applied)?
- Dean’s support for registration?
Proportion of Courses with - How close is this number to 100%?
Engineering Science and - Reasons for present proportion (e.g., new hires who have
Engineering Design that are not yet applied)?
Taught by Licensed Professional - Dean’s policy for assigning professors who teach
Engineers engineering science and engineering design?
-8-
Student Interviews
Discussions with the undergraduate students will give you an opportunity to judge the “quality of
the students”, part of CEAB Criterion 2.3.1. Observations can be made about student maturity,
communication skills, knowledge (of licensure, of the CEAB accreditation process), among
others. As well, you can take this opportunity to find out how the students view the engineering
program, its advantages and drawbacks, and the features that the students find most attractive.
Suggestions for Improvements
Note that your suggestions for improvements are offered to the institution for consideration in
future revisions to its engineering unit. These suggestions are yours alone and will not
necessarily represent the views of the CEAB or others.
-9-
CANADIAN ENGINEERING ACCREDITATION BOARD
1100 – 180 Elgin Street
Ottawa, ON
K2P 2K3
TEL: (613) 232-2474 FAX: (613) 230-5759
E-MAIL: ceab@ccpe.ca
REPORT OF THE GENERAL VISITOR
VISIT INFORMATION:
NAME OF INSTITUTION: _______________________________________________
VISIT DATE: _______________________________________________
TEAM CHAIR: _______________________________________________
DATE REPORT SUBMITTED: _______________________________________________
REPORT SUBMITTED BY - NAME: _______________________________________________
SIGNATURE: _______________________________________________
NOTE: THIS REPORT REPRESENTS THE VIEWS OF THE VISITING TEAM. THE
CEAB CHAIR'S LETTER REPORTING THE ACCREDITATION DECISIONS
WILL BE THE ONLY OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE CEAB.
THIS REPORT REFLECTS ONLY THOSE AREAS TO WHICH THE GENERAL
VISITOR WAS ASSIGNED.
EVALUATION OF COMPONENTS LINKED TO ENGINEERING
A M U
1. Transcripts ….…….....................………………….…......…….….
2. Student Projects:
a) Capstone Design ….………...................…........…........
b) Other Projects …..….……………........…...….....…........
3. Complementary Studies:
a) Engineering Economics ……………………………………
b) Impact of Technology on Society …………………………
c) Ability to Communicate: Written …………………....
Oral ……………………….
d) Central issues, methodologies and thought processes
of the humanities and social sciences …………….……..
4. Library Facilities and Services ....……………….…….......….…...
5. Workshop Facilities and Services …....................……......……...
6. Computer Facilities and Services ..............................….......…....
7. Advisory Services to Students .....................................…...…......
8. Support of Senior University Administration ...................….…......
9. Student Access to Dean’s Office ...….............................….…......
10. Relationship with Service Departments (math, science) ………….
11. Co-op/Internship Program ……………………………………………
COMMENTS (Comment on all M and U ratings - other comments as appropriate)
-2-
EVALUATION OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES
A M U
1. Culture Surrounding Lab Safety ………..................….....…....….
2. University commitment to Safety
3. Example Set by Staff …….……………………..............…..…......
3. Emergency Equipment …………………………….…..….…….….
4. Emergency Procedures ………………………………………….....
5. Faculty Appreciation of OH&S Knowledge.............……....……...
6. Student Appreciation of OH&S Knowledge …………..…..……....
7. Posting of OH&S Act .……………........................................….....
8. Non-Academic Workplace Health & Safety Issues ………………
9. Public Health & Safety Issues in Engineering Design ……………
COMMENTS (Comment on all M and U ratings - other comments as appropriate)
-3-
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
Sections 1D.2 and 2D.2 of the ‘Questionnaire for Evaluation of Engineering Programs’ require
that the institution provide information on courses containing instruction in Occupational Health
and Safety, in accordance with the table below. You are asked to verify this information for
completeness and accuracy during the visit, and make any changes deemed appropriate.
Course Program Manedatory or Name of Textbook Used for Formal Lecture
code Year Offered Elective OH&S Instruction (if any) Format (Yes/No)
-4-
EVALUATION OF PROFESSIONAL LICENSURE ISSUES
A M U
1. Students’ Understanding of Licensure …….............…......…...….
2. Students’ Understanding of the Licensing Body’s Role ….…......
3. Regularity of Student Contact with the Provincial Association ….
4. University Programs and Incentives to Encourage Licensure of
Non-Registered Faculty Members ………………………………....
5. Non-Registered Faculty’s Understanding of Licensure .…….......
6. Proportion of Registered Professional Engineers…………………
7. Proportion of Courses Containing Engineering Science and
Engineering Design Being Taught by Professional Engineers …..
COMMENTS (Comment on all M and U ratings - other comments as appropriate)
-5-
LIST EXAMPLES OF EVENTS/PROJECTS/ACTIVITIES SPONSORED BY THE
CONSTITUENT ASSOCIATION, AND/OR OF PRACTICING PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS
ACTING AS ROLE MODELS FOR THE STUDENTS
-6-
COMMENTS BASED ON STUDENT INTERVIEWS
-7-
INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWED
Name Position, Department
-8-
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS
The following comments are offered to the institution for consideration in future revisions to its
engineering unit. These suggestions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the
views of the CEAB or others.
-9-
SUMMARY
- 10 -
