Using Post Course Assessments to Involve Instructors in the Continuous Improvement Process

Ivey, M.; Dew, S. K.; Mandal, Mrinal; Mohamed, Yasser; Nychka, John A.; Raboud, Don; Carey, Jason P.

doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.9519

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In order to ensure an effective implementation of a continual improvement program and aligned assessment of graduate attributes, engineering program and curriculum designers now integrate course-level learning outcomes mapped to the CEAB graduate attributes and linked to the overall program objectives (Ivey, 2017;Kaupp & Frank, 2016;Watson et al, 2018). Work and co-op experience, capstone design projects, internships, and extra and co-curricular activities may be included as contributing factors to graduate attribute development (Gwyn, 2017;Gwyn & Gupta, 2015;Jamieson, 2016;Salustri, 2017;Shehata & Schwartz, 2015).…”

Section: Prior Research On Implementing Graduate Attributesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Federation of Law Societies of Canada Standards (2018) calls them skill competencies. In the Canadian engineering education field, these abilities are called graduate attributes (CEAB, 2019); they are demonstrated through institution level-specific and measurable indicators mapped to course learning outcomes (Ivey et al, 2017(Ivey et al, , 2018. In each of these professions, graduates are required to demonstrate knowledge and skills specific to the profession (e.g., engineering design, clinical skills, knowledge of case law) and skills that are often common (e.g., lifelong learning, communications, ethics).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Intersecting Roadmaps: Resolving Tension Between Profession-Specific and University-Wide Graduate Attributes

ElAtia

Carey²,

Jamieson³

et al. 2021

CJHE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Can we map university-wide graduate attributes to specific program requirements? Can we develop and manage an integrated assessment process? In this article, we present a seven-month long project where we attempted to map generic university graduate attributes (UGAs) to required engineering program graduate attributes in a large Canadian research institution. The purpose of the project was to explore the intersection of the UGAs with engineering graduate attributes, evaluate the accreditation process, develop a mapping process, and examine management strategies for assessing both sets of graduate attributes, all the while keeping the continual improvement process attractive to students, instructors, and administrators. Using a modified dialectical inquiry, two groups worked on the mapping process: one from engineering, the other from social sciences (Education and Arts), to ensure objectivity of comparison. Both forward and backward mapping took place. Results demonstrated that, although generic, UGAs may not necessarily capture specific professional program graduate attributes. The study also highlighted the need for more revisions and updates of UGAs by including various stakeholders who can substantially contribute to the implementation and assessment of UGAs.

show abstract

Section: Prior Research On Implementing Graduate Attributesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intersecting Roadmaps: Resolving Tension Between Profession-Specific and University-Wide Graduate Attributes

ElAtia

Carey²,

Jamieson³

et al. 2021

CJHE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Authors from the University of Alberta described in detail one element of their continual improvement process-their post-course assessment system (PCAS), which was a tool that prompted curricular changes [63]. With PCAS, instructors reflected and reported on their successes and challenges at the end of a term.…”

Section: Continual Improvementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Approaches to Graduate Attributes and Continual Improvement Processes in Faculties of Engineering Across Canada: A Narrative Review of the Literature

Parker

Watson

Ivey

et al. 2019

PCEEA

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The CEAB accreditation requirement of graduate attributes and continual improvement processes (GACIP) has been a pervasive topic in the annual CEEA conference proceedings since 2010. The proceedings are a rich primary source of work being done in Canadian tertiary institutions. This narrative review of the literature consolidates and discusses the relevant CEEA papers for 2010-2017 in a manner that is useful to leadership and decision-makers at accredited faculties of Engineering nationwide. Four guiding research questions were asked of this literature: (1) What general frameworks are being implemented as accredited faculties of Engineering across Canada approach GACIP?; (2) What are the specific activities and methods of one or more of the GACIP steps?; (3) What are the roles and responsibilities of people involved?; and (4) What perspectives are taken in response to the CEAB accreditation criteria, including concerns, issues, and benefits? A qualitative content analysis was conducted on 106 papers meeting selection criteria. Emergent topics were used to form the discussion.

show abstract

“…Developing the capacity for life-long learning and the ability to integrate it into a sustainable learning culture is the key motivation for this work. Our ongoing continual improvement process [38,40,41,44] initially focused on the capstone process design course was then extended to the process design course sequence and now to collaboration with administrators and other instructors to achieve program and cultural improvements.…”

Section: Problem Definition and Motivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A continual improvement process [40,41] grounded in the performance attribute work of Hattie [35] and the constructive alignment work of Biggs [6] was recommended, as were specific continual improvement interventions [40,[42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50]. Further work led to the identification and enhancement of the metacognitive structure of the capstone chemical process design course as three successive cycles built around design project phases and milestones ( Figure 3) [42,43], and a course based continual improvement process linked to the program level continual improvement process [38,41].…”

Section: Solutions Exploredmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning to Learn: Defining an Engineering Learning Culture

Jamieson

Shaw

2019

PCEEA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Learning is a cultural construct. Beliefs, perceptions and values regarding learning shape the culture of a classroom and a program of study. A framework for engineering education grounded in the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) Graduate Attributes and engineering practice is proposed. Methods and activities to shape a learning culture in engineering design education consistent with a community of practice and lifelong learning are also proposed. This transformational approach offers an opportunity to teach lifelong learning and integrate engineering practice and engineering education, while entrenching graduate attributes more deeply in the engineering curriculum. Accountability, engagement, recognition, motivation, appreciation, credibility, and continual improvement are key elements of a functional learning culture. Learning moments are a concise way to make learning to learn a relevant part of each session and encourage student reflection and metacognition.

show abstract

Using Post Course Assessments to Involve Instructors in the Continuous Improvement Process

Abstract: -

Cited by 6 publications

References 3 publications

Intersecting Roadmaps: Resolving Tension Between Profession-Specific and University-Wide Graduate Attributes

Intersecting Roadmaps: Resolving Tension Between Profession-Specific and University-Wide Graduate Attributes

Approaches to Graduate Attributes and Continual Improvement Processes in Faculties of Engineering Across Canada: A Narrative Review of the Literature

Learning to Learn: Defining an Engineering Learning Culture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About