1. Washington Accord Graduate Attributes: A Metric for the Quality of Engineering Education Worldwide Dr. Malcolm J. Reeves, FEC, FGC, P.Eng., P.Geo. Chair Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board 2012-2014 August 13, 2014 13 August 2014GCREAS International Conference 20141

2. The author has no formal connection with the International Engineering Alliance or the Washington Accord. The views expressed in this presentation are those of the author based on 17 years of experience gained on accreditation visits in Canada, Costa Rica, India, Korea, and the United States. The author has been a member of the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board for 11 years and was Chair from 2012-2014. Disclaimer: 13 August 2014GCREAS International Conference 20142

3. Outline Purpose WA Background WA Graduate Attribute exemplar –Knowledge Base –Complex Problems Role of the GA exemplar –Not a standard but a metric Using the exemplar as a metric What can we learn from applying a metric? GCREAS International Conference 2014313 August 2014

4. The purpose of this presentation is to discuss the concept of worldwide standards for quality of undergraduate engineering programs The purpose of accreditation is to serve the public and the profession by continually improving the quality of engineering education and engineering practice Purpose 13 August 2014GCREAS International Conference 20144

5. The Washington Accord (WA) is an international mutual recognition agreement (MRA) that has been in place for more than 25 years and now has 17 signatories and 5 provisional members. WA Background 13 August 2014GCREAS International Conference 20145

6. Principles of the MRA Accreditation criteria, policies and procedures of the signatories have been verified and judged comparable (“substantially equivalent”) Accreditation decisions made by one signatory are acceptable to the other signatories Make every effort to ensure that the registering / licensing body recognizes signatories’ programs 13 August 2014GCREAS International Conference 20146

7. Benchmarking Agreement The signatories will identify and encourage the implementation of best practice for the academic preparation of engineers –by mutual regular monitoring on a six-year cycle –regular communication and sharing of accreditation information –sharing and maintaining lists of accredited programs –invitations to observe accreditation visits and meetings of any boards 13 August 2014GCREAS International Conference 20147

8. Program criteria of signatories are benchmarked against a metric called the WA graduate attribute exemplar The exemplar includes: –a defined knowledge base (WK1-8), –a definition problem complexity (WP1-7) and –a defined set of graduate attributes (WA1-12) The knowledge base and definition of complexity serve to clarify and interpret the language of the attributes Graduate Attribute Exemplar 13 August 2014GCREAS International Conference 20148

9. Knowledge Base 13 August 2014GCREAS International Conference 20149

10. Characteristics of Complex Problems GCREAS International Conference 20141013 August 2014

11. Ability to deal with complex problems is explicitly specified for most (8 of 12) attributes in the WA exemplar The ability to address complex problems in their academic preparation is usually the distinguishing feature of a professional engineer relative to an engineering technologist or technician Complex problems are defined as requiring: –advanced engineering knowledge and –one or more characteristic from WP2 to WP7: Wide-ranging Originality Rarity Outside codes Diverse stakeholders High-level Significance of Complex Problems 13 August 2014GCREAS International Conference 201411

12. Each signatory defines the standards for against which engineering educational programs are accredited within their jurisdictions WA graduate attributes form a set of measurable outcomes WA graduate attributes are clear, succinct statements of expected capability (competencies) WA graduate attributes are intended primarily to assist signatories and provisional members to develop outcomes based accreditation criteria for use by their respective jurisdictions Role of WA Graduate Attributes 13 August 2014GCREAS International Conference 201412

13. The WA graduate attributes do not constitute an “international standard” for accredited programs The WA exemplar is simply one way of organizing the competencies to be delivered in an undergraduate engineering program But it does provide a widely accepted common frame of reference within which bodies can describe the outcomes of substantially equivalent programs Limitations of WA Graduate Attributes 13 August 2014GCREAS International Conference 201413

14. Attributes 13 August 2014GCREAS International Conference 201414

15. The attributes provide a framework but do not set a rigid standard –a knowledge base is defined (but only in general terms) –problem complexity is defined but…… Even clear and succinct statements of attributes leave room for legitimate interpretation The WA exemplar is something to measure ourselves against – a metric not a mandatory set of regulations We can perhaps agree that the WA exemplar is something we can all aspire to and use as a “yardstick” to measure our progress The Exemplar is a Metric 13 August 2014GCREAS International Conference 201415

16. Do we all mean the same thing when we say: –“appropriate consideration”, –“apply reasoning”, –“function effectively”, –“communicate effectively”, –“commit to professional ethics and responsibilities” –“first principles of mathematics and natural sciences”? Can we group the components that make up the set of attributes differently? –is twelve a magic number? Can we use more or less attributes? Can we eliminate some attributes? Do we need to add more attributes? –where do graduate attributes end …… –and professional competencies begin? Interpretation and Ambiguity 13 August 2014GCREAS International Conference 201416

17. How do the criteria we use in our jurisdiction match up? Using the Exemplar as a Metric 13 August 2014GCREAS International Conference 201417

18. Are All Performance Levels Equal? 13 August 2014GCREAS International Conference 201418

19. How do the criteria we use in our jurisdiction match up? How do we distribute time and resources toward the delivery each attribute? Using the Exemplar as a Metric 13 August 2014GCREAS International Conference 201419

20. Are All Attributes Equal? 13 August 2014GCREAS International Conference 201420

21. How do the criteria we use in our jurisdiction match up? How do we distribute time and resources toward the delivery each attribute? How do our accredited programs perform for each attribute? Using the Exemplar as a Metric 13 August 2014GCREAS International Conference 201421

22. Is Acceptable Performance a Range? 13 August 2014GCREAS International Conference 201422

23. How do the criteria we use in our jurisdiction match up? How do we distribute time and resources toward the delivery each attribute? How do our accredited programs perform for each attribute? What changes might we want to consider ….or even encourage? Using the Exemplar as a Metric 13 August 2014GCREAS International Conference 201423

24. Is This Our Aspiration? 13 August 2014GCREAS International Conference 201424

25. Remember that the WA exemplar and our jurisdictional criteria are “living documents” They will change as we learn and adopt new technologies and practices in striving to improve the quality of our programs Standing still is not an option! Final Thought 13 August 2014GCREAS International Conference 201425

26. Questions? GCREAS International Conference 20142613 August 2014

27. For more information: Email: ceab@engineerscanada.ca Phone: 613-232-2474 *The terms P.ENG. and ING. are official marks held by the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers. GCREAS International Conference 20142713 August 2014