Defining the Outcomes of Your Program:
All engineering schools in Canada are now required to evaluate their programs’ success relative to their ability to support students’ development of the 12 engineering graduate attributes that have been defined by the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board.
The Engineering Graduate Attributes are general characteristics that CEAB has defined as essential for all graduates of Canadian engineering programs. Because they are so general, most schools will choose to better define them in terms of their own program’s purpose and expectations for students’ learning. One way of better defining the attributes is through articulation of specific indicators. Indicators are the component parts of attributes as you intend those attributes to present themselves in your program. They are specific descriptors of what your students must do to be considered competent in an attribute in the context of your program. An effectively written indicator uses language that indicates standards of performance that can be used to evaluate the demonstrations of learning described.
[expand title=”Example 1: (Click to see examples) ” rel=”expendable-highlander”] Criterion 3.1.12 requires that students possess the attribute Lifelong Learning. A program might consider that the indicators required to demonstrate that students possess this attribute include demonstrations of their ability to:
- Critically evaluate procured information for authority, currency, and objectivity.
- Describe professional and academic societies in the discipline and how new knowledge enters the discipline.
- Identify resources and professional associations that address their own ongoing professional development.[/expand]
- Uses graphics to explain, interpret, and assess information.
- Delivers persuasive and professional formal presentations adapted to the needs of the audience.
- Demonstrates functional use of current software packages for written, oral, and graphical communications in engineering contexts.[/expand]
Verb selection is critical when writing indicators because the verb defines the level of learning complexity that is expected. Each verb should denote a purposefully selected level of performance to indicate targets for learning. To see a list of verbs demanding different levels of learning complexity [click here].
For the following exercises, identify the problems with these attempts at writing indicators. The first two were first drafts for attribute #1, a Knowledge Base for Engineering and the last for #8, Professionalism.
[expand title=”Troubleshooting Exercise:” expanded = “true”]
Identify the problems with these attempts at writing indicators. The first two were first drafts for attribute #1, a Knowledge Base for Engineering and the last for #8, Professionalism.
[expandsub1 title=”Troubleshooting exercise #1:” expanded=”true” rel=”TES-highlander”]“Students will learn concepts about linear motion”[expandsub2 title=”Reveal Answer” trigclass=”roleselection_menu”]
[/expandsub2] [/expandsub1] [expandsub1 title=”Troubleshooting exercise #2:” rel=”TES-highlander”]“Student will describe concepts including force, power, energy and momentum”(no indication of what “learning†looks like; the statement provides no indication of a standard; it is open to interpretation and therefore not reliably measurable.)
[expandsub2 title=”Reveal Answer” trigclass=”roleselection_menu”]
[/expandsub2] [/expandsub1] [expandsub1 title=”Troubleshooting exercise #3:” rel=”TES-highlander”]“Students will work effectively in teams”(While the word describe does provide information about the expected standard of performance [see word list], that standard is at a very low cognitive level. Consider writing indicators that describe what students will be able to accomplish with the knowledge they gain rather than itemizing the knowledge they are expected to gain)
[expandsub2 title=”Reveal Answer” trigclass=”roleselection_menu”]
[/expandsub2] [/expandsub1] [/expand](Aside from the fact that effective team work is a Graduate Attribute in itself, this statement is not an effective indicator: There is no standard of performance identified and as such the statement is open to interpretation, reducing the likelihood of consistent assessment across raters. Increase its effectiveness by specifying the characteristics of what effective groups look like – the degree to which certain behaviours are exhibited.