Intersecting Roadmaps: Resolving Tension Between Profession

Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur 51:1 (2021)

Intersecting Roadmaps: Resolving Tension

Between Profession-Specific and University-Wide

Graduate Attributes

Abstract

Can we map university-wide graduate attributes to specic program requirements? Can we develop and manage an integrat-

ed 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 modied 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 specic 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.

Keywords: graduate attributes, engineering education, professional attributes, mapping, learning outcomes

Résumé

Peut-on associer des compétences transversales universitaires, d’ordre général et générique, à des exigences et compétenc-

es essentielles propres à un programme de formation particulier? Peut-on mettre au point et gérer un processus cohérent

et uni d’évaluation des deux types de compétences au sein du même établissement postsecondaire? Dans cet article, nous

présentons un projet qui a duré sept mois et dans lequel nous avons tenté de mettre en correspondance les compétences

transversales universitaires et les compétences essentielles requises dans le programme d’ingénierie d’un établissement

canadien. Le but de ce projet était d’explorer l’intersection des compétences transversales et de celles requises des diplômés

en génie et d’évaluer le processus d’agrément du programme de génie. En gardant en vue l’idée de garder le processus

d’amélioration continue attrayant pour les étudiants, les enseignants et les administrateurs du programme, nous visions à

mettre au point un processus de schématisation/modélisation pour déterminer des stratégies de gestion an d’évaluer les

deux ensembles de compétences. En utilisant une enquête dialectique, deux équipes se sont penchées sur le travail de

schématisation/modélisation : l’une du domaine de l’ingénierie, l’autre de celui des sciences sociales (éducation et arts), an

d’assurer l’objectivité de l’étude comparative. Une schématisation inversée a eu lieu. Les résultats démontrent que, bien que

génériques, les compétences transversales universitaires ne capturent pas nécessairement les compétences essentielles

particulières aux programmes professionnels. L’étude a également mis en évidence le besoin de réviser et de mettre à jour

les compétences transversales universitaires en incluant des parties prenantes qui peuvent contribuer substantiellement à

leur mise en œuvre et à leur évaluation.

Mots-clés : compétences transversales, pédagogie du génie, compétences professionnelles, schématisation, résultats d’ap-

prentissage

Jason P. Carey

University of Alberta

Samira ElAtia

University of Alberta

Marnie Jamieson

University of Alberta

Bashair AliBrahim

University of Alberta

Marcus Ivey

University of Alberta

Intersecting Roadmaps of Graduate Attributes

S. ElAtia, J. P. Carey, M. Jamieson, B. AliBrahim & M. Ivey

Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur

51:1 (2021)

Introduction

At higher education institutions in Canada, professional

engineering programs are accredited by the Canadian

Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB). The aim of the

accreditation process is to ensure each student grad-

uating from an accredited engineering program meets

the profession’s minimum knowledge and skills devel-

opment required by the principal stakeholders of their

education; namely, the profession, society, education-

al institutions, employers, and graduates themselves.

Similar to other professions, such as medicine and law,

the governing bodies require strict development and as-

sessment of eld-specic technical knowledge, skills,

and abilities (Committee on the Accreditation of Canadi-

an Medical Schools [CACMS], 2019; Federation of Law

Societies of Canada Standards, 2018; CEAB, 2019).

Non-professional university programs do not require an

accredited quality assurance assessment of students,

programs, and instructor qualications; however, from

employability and career decision-making perspectives,

students desire to understand and dene the competen-

cies developed as a result of their university experience

regardless of the discipline of study (Dew et al., 2013).

To this end, the University of Alberta identied and

published a set of seven student attributes to reect

graduate characteristics and the values of the universi-

ty believed to be developed as a result of course work

and extracurricular activities (Dew et al., 2013). The rec-

ommended implementation path and assessment of the

student attributes was to be accomplished by program

planners and instructors. An obstacle to implementa-

tion is the perception of whether or not these attributes

are linked to program objectives, are developed and/

or addressed in the curriculum, would be linked to the

curriculum, and could hence be assessed by instructors

(Kanuka & Cowley, 2017). The implementation of UGAs

as a set of outcomes acquired by students in higher ed-

ucation is a complex, multifaceted project. It requires

cooperation and collaboration on many levels, spanning

from the classroom and course level, to the program and

department level, to the interdisciplinary and administra-

tive levels, and beyond academia to include the multiple

stakeholders invested in qualied university graduates,

including potential employers, communities of practice,

and accreditation and regulatory bodies. It is a complex

process that is challenging to undertake (Hamou-Lhadj

et al., 2015; Harris et al., 2011; Kaupp et al., 2012; Kaupp

& Frank, 2016; Oliver & Jorre de St. Jorre, 2018; Park-

er et al., 2019; Sepheri, 2013; Stiver, 2011; Watson et

al., 2018

) given the various and diverse stakeholders

involved as shown in Figure 1.

Each professional accrediting body may use dier-

ent terminology to dene what competencies graduates

must meet. For example, the Committee on the Accred-

itation of Canadian Medical Schools (CACMS, 2019)

denes in its lexicon, medical education program objec-

tives, which are dened as “statements of what medical

students are expected to be able to do at the end of the

educational program i.e., exit or graduate level compe-

tencies” (p. iv). The Federation of Law Societies of Can-

ada Standards (2018) calls them skill competencies. In

the Canadian engineering education eld, these abili-

ties are called graduate attributes (CEAB, 2019); they

are demonstrated through institution level-specic and

measurable indicators mapped to course learning out-

comes (Ivey et al., 2017, 2018). In each of these profes-

sions, graduates are required to demonstrate knowledge

and skills specic to the profession (e.g., engineering

design, clinical skills, knowledge of case law) and skills

that are often common (e.g., lifelong learning, communi-

cations, ethics). A complete review of accreditation bod-

ies and processes is outside of the scope of this article,

but there is clearly signicant overlap in professional

requirements.

The language used to describe the professional

competencies is very dierent, which underpins the

need for a process to map competencies in dierent

elds when implementing and administering a set of

graduate attributes relevant to all university graduates,

especially those in professional programs governed by

accreditation requirements. In this article, we examine

the intersection of two sets of graduate attributes at the

Faculty of Engineering, University of Alberta: the profes-

sional engineering graduate attributes, and the univer-

sity graduate attributes for the purposes of implementa-

tion and administration in a faculty of one university. In

engineering, assessment of graduate attributes is part

of the required continual improvement process (CIP),

a framework each program must develop. There are 12

engineering graduate attributes (GAs) related to student

performance of engineering work that must be demon-

strated at dierent levels of ability prior to graduating.

The Faculty of Engineering, University of Alberta

framework has been detailed extensively (Parker et al.,

2019; Ivey et al., 2018; Watson et al., 2018; Ivey et al.,

Intersecting Roadmaps of Graduate Attributes

S. ElAtia, J. P. Carey, M. Jamieson, B. AliBrahim & M. Ivey

Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur

51:1 (2021)

2017). The seven university graduate attributes are re-

lated to skills, characteristics, and values. The necessity

for students to demonstrate these attributes is linked to

post-graduation marketability and the idea that a univer-

sity education provides preparation to contribute to the

public good (Bendixen & Jacobsen, 2017) rather than

demonstrated competence for entry into a profession.

Implementation has been slow in professional programs

as accreditation-related graduate attribute assessment

is already in place and the correspondence of the sets of

professional and university graduate attributes is not ob-

vious. In addition, the actual assessment of the UGAs is

viewed as an obstacle by academics (Ipperciel & ElAtia,

2014; Kanuka & Cowley, 2017; Maguire & Gibbs, 2013).

In non-professional and professional programs alike,

there are challenges in implementation as academics

do not share common conceptions of student attributes,

how they are developed, or the core achievements of

higher education.

Prior Research on Implementing

Graduate Attributes

Since the 1989 Washington Accord (International En-

gineering Alliance [IEA], 2015), engineering education

programs accredited by signatories, such as CEAB and

the American Accreditation Board for Engineering and

Technology (ABET), are recognized as academically

equivalent to support international mobility for profes-

sional engineers. In 2009, the Washington Accord ac-

crediting bodies introduced the engineering graduate

competency-based outcomes as part of the accreditation

process (Easa, 2013; Frank et al., 2011; Gopakumar et

al., 2013; Stiver et al., 2010). Subsequently, engineering

programs began grappling with how these graduate attri-

butes would become a part of the accreditation process

with limited direction from the Canadian Engineering

Accreditation Board or Washington Accord signatories.

Engineering schools began implementing processes to

review curriculum and map the graduate attributes to

curriculum content, develop assessment criteria, and

then measure graduate achievement of these attributes.

Gradually, the 12 CEAB graduate attributes

and the

associated CIP (IEA

, 2015) have become a signicant

part of the accreditation process in Canada (CEAB,

2017, 2018; Kaupp & Frank, 2016). The CEAB Gradu-

ate Attributes (CEAB-GAs) have driven changes to the

accreditation process, program level assessment, and

highlighted the need for a university culture that supports

the scholarship of teaching and learning at program and

course levels as part of the CIP (Doré, 2019; Jamie-

son & Shaw, 2019b; Meikleham et al., 2018; Parker et

al., 2019). The development of the Washington Accord

graduate attributes took nearly a decade (Stiver, 2011;

Parker et al., 2019), another decade passed before they

were introduced into the Canadian accreditation process

(Parker et al., 2019), and it is expected to take another

two accreditation cycles for full integration of the grad-

uate attribute continual improvement process (GACIP).

Since 2014, engineering programs in Canada are

required to report graduate attribute achievement and

demonstrate the use of a CIP to identify program im-

provement opportunities or justify the status quo (CEAB,

2018) as part of the accreditation process (CEAB,

2017). In Canadian universities, the implementation of

the CEAB-GAs framework for assessing the quality of

engineering education and graduates is mandated by

the national accreditation board and supported by pro-

vincial regulators. Consequently, academic program

administrators and instructors in engineering faculties

are working toward meaningful implementation of these

attributes within their curriculum (i.e., Kaupp & Frank,

2016), developing management strategies (i.e., Parker

et al., 2019), and writing about their ongoing progress

and struggles, including the Engineering Graduate Attri-

bute Development (EGAD, 2018) program inaugurated

by several Canadian universities

. In addition, some en-

gineering schools associated with the Conceive, Design,

Implement, Operate (CDIO) program have investigated

how the CEAB accreditation requirements map to CDIO

program standards and syllabus (Cloutier et al., 2012;

Meikleham et al., 2018; Platanitis & Pop-Iliev, 2011) in

order to better manage student and program assessment

for two purposes; namely, accreditation and post-gradu-

ation marketability.

Parallel to this—and triggered by a growing dissat-

isfaction with higher education outcomes for university

graduates (Arum & Roska, 2010), such as job opportu-

nities and graduates’ readiness for the job market—the

need for a valid and longitudinal assessment that serves

the needs of all higher education stakeholders comes to

light. University-wide Graduate Attributes (UGAs) are

presented as global learning outcomes for students,

acquired during their education; they set criteria to as-

sess the transformative inuence of higher education on

Intersecting Roadmaps of Graduate Attributes

S. ElAtia, J. P. Carey, M. Jamieson, B. AliBrahim & M. Ivey

Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur

51:1 (2021)

graduates and may link assessment to quality assurance

and continual improvement, enhancing accountability of

post-secondary institutions (French et al., 2014; Treleav-

en & Voola, 2008), especially in the eyes of funders. The

UGAs model comprises competency-based assessment

criteria “which structures learning around competencies

dened as fundamental for successful performance”

(Stoe & Pryor, 1980, p. 55). O’Donnell et al. (2017)

identify two directions of transferable skill and attribute

(TSA) development progression: a vertical progression

enabling students to operate within their academic eld

of study and a horizontal skill development progression

that crosses academic disciplines and enables students

to “operate successfully within a variety of employment

settings” (O’Donnell et al., 2017, p. 21). A goal for pro-

fessional and non-professional programs is to develop

both discipline-specic and generic professional compe-

tencies to foster exibility and resilience in the face of a

changing world.

The process of integrating the UGAs model into uni-

versity professional programs requires integrating this

more horizontal transferable skill progression (address-

ing employability and transformative experience) with

discipline-specic and professional program require-

ments such as the CEAB-GAs, which address discipline

competencies, and quality assurance accreditation. As

graduates of dierent professional programs are expect-

ed to master skills related to their practical domain, these

skills may or may not overlap with the UGAs (Harris et

al., 2011; Stiver, 2011).

In order to ensure an eective implementation of

a continual improvement program and aligned assess-

ment of graduate attributes, engineering program and

curriculum designers now integrate course-level learn-

ing 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). The subse-

quent integration of the UGAs into this process requires

the examination of overlap and divergence of the two

sets of graduate attributes and the management of the

assessment and continual improvement processes.

Figure 1

Stakeholders and Graduate Attributes

Intersecting Roadmaps of Graduate Attributes

S. ElAtia, J. P. Carey, M. Jamieson, B. AliBrahim & M. Ivey

Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur

51:1 (2021)

The implementation of the UGAs is still evolving and

a shared understanding of what the UGAs are and how

to implement them is still developing (Kanuka & Cow-

ley, 2017). Administrative questions with respect to co-

ordinated implementation with accredited programs are

currently being investigated. This article reects on the

outcomes of the process of mapping the UGAs to the

CEAB-GAs within the Faculty of Engineering (F of E) at

the University of Alberta (U of A). In addition to the map-

ping outcomes, the study highlights the methodology of

mapping the graduate attributes to distinguish the over-

laps and divergences between the two sets of graduate

assessment criteria in order to implement the UGAs in a

professional program.

Theoretical Frameworks Guiding

the Study

As illustrated above, the body of literature on student at-

tributes regarding their higher education purpose, their

developmental goals, and their implementation goals

are diverse. To guide our work, O’Donnell et al.’s (2017)

description of discipline (vertical) and cross-discipline

(horizontal) TSA frames the developmental goals of the

GA. For the implementation goals Maguire and Gibbs’

pragmatic denition of quality assurance best describes

the CEAB-GA: “Quality has no intrinsic link with what

higher education is; it is simply a measure of how well,

eective or ecient an institution is in providing the

benets it claims for itself and its stakeholders” (Maguire

& Gibbs, 2013, p. 44). The UGAs are better described

by the denition presented: “This denition extends be-

yond the needs of the institutions and includes societal,

economic and political dimensions of what can be taken

as higher education” (Maguire & Gibbs, 2013, p. 44). In

order to include the UGAs within the Faculty of Engineer-

ing GA assessment process for accreditation, an under-

standing of the congruence and divergence of the two

sets of GAs is required. Regarding the overall purpose

of student attributes in higher education, we propose a

stakeholder framework as noted in Figure 1 to recognize

the diverse interests in this process.

Dialectical Approach to Mapping

We employed a dialectical approach to mapping the

UGA to the CEAB-GA. In mathematics, mapping is syn-

onymous with transformation and is dened as “any

prescribed way of assigning to each object in one set

[emphasis added] a particular object in another (or the

same) set” (Osserman, 2006, para. 2). In this project, we

embarked on a structured qualitative approach to carry-

ing out the mapping process between two sets of gradu-

ate attributes from the university: one is mandated by an

accreditation body, while the other is more of a guide to

generically dene what students acquire in a university

beyond the classroom experience.

Using Dialectical Inquiry (DI), we proceeded to the

mapping process within a qualitative research methodol-

ogy. Berniker and McNabb (2006) dene DI as “a useful

structured qualitative research method for studying or-

ganizational sense making processes as they are under-

stood by participants.… Its focus is on the content and

meaning of models and theories in use” (pp. 644–645)

Dialectical inquiry requires debate and building ar-

guments by experts on a subject or matter that requires

opposite views. Hence, we organized our DI through an

adapted Hegelian model of: thesis, antithesis, synthe-

sis. We approach both sets of graduate attributes, the

university, and the CEAB as thesis and antithesis, and

the mapping process was the nal synthesis of both for-

ward mapping (thesis) from CEAB to UAB, and back-

ward mapping (synthesis) from UGA to CEAB. The nal

results that contributed to the mathematical range is

the synthesis of our work. Our aim was to answer these

questions: Are the CEAB and UGAs equivalent/overlap-

ping? And how can we read these similarities and/or dis-

similarities within the wider scope of quality assurance

in higher education?

Back in 1969, Mason found utility of the dialecti-

cal modeling for eective decision support system: the

constructive debate between experts leads to better

outcomes—a synthesis of new ideas and ndings. The

mapping process that we undertook was directly found-

ed on this model for decision making.

Research Design

The overarching objective of this interdisciplinary study

at the U of A is to advance the scholarship in under-

standing, use, implementation, and management of

related graduate attribute competency-based continual

improvement processes. This article addresses the fol-

lowing questions:

Intersecting Roadmaps of Graduate Attributes

S. ElAtia, J. P. Carey, M. Jamieson, B. AliBrahim & M. Ivey

Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur

51:1 (2021)

• What are the challenges of aligning the UGAs

with program-specic requirements (the CE-

AB-GAs in our case study) to facilitate ecient

implementation?

• How does mapping for implementation contrib-

ute to evolving the UGAs as a universal assess-

ment criterion to include vertical and horizontal

TSA development aspects?

• How does the dialectical method of one-to-ma-

ny and many-to-one relationship expose the

blindsided areas in the UGAs and in any as-

sessment criteria in general?

The aim of this study is to identify the main areas of

divergence between the two GA assessment models,

along with identifying the main challenges of the actual

enactment of the UGAs in curriculum design more broad-

ly. The outcomes of this article will be valuable to those

who seek to integrate UGAs with professional practice

programs governed by external graduate attributes. This

model is proposed for use in dierent faculties and dis-

ciplines and toward a cross-disciplinary standardization

of the UGAs assessment process.

Case Description: Integration of the

CEAB-GA and UGA Management

Systems

The initial development of two separate systems to as-

sess graduate attributes for engineering undergraduate

students was identied as redundant, overlapping, an un-

due burden for both students and instructors, and poten-

tially dicult to manage by program administration. The

UGAs are structured as knowledge, skills, and attitudes

(KSA) indications of the attribute and were intended to

demonstrate student and program quality assessment of

higher education programs. From a preliminary review,

the CEAB graduate attributes and those of the U of A

did not match as listed in Table 1. From a professional

program perspective, the priority of the Faculty of Engi-

neering is to maintain accreditation, meet the governing

body’s requirements, and train undergraduate students

to ensure the safety of the public whom engineers serve;

notwithstanding U of A requirements for demonstrating

graduate competencies.

Table 1

University and CEAB Graduate Attributes

UGA (7) CEAB-GA (12)

1. Ethical Responsibility (ER) 1. Knowledge base in engineering (KB)

2. Scholarship (SC) 2. Problem analysis (PA)

3. Critical Thinking (CT) 3. Investigation (IN)

4. Communication (CM) 4. Design (DE)

5. Collaboration (CL) 5. Use of Engineering tools (ET)

6. Creativity (CR) 6. Individual and team work (TW)

7. Condence (CF) 7. Communication skills (CS)

8. Professionalism (PR)

9. Impact of engineering on society and environment (IS)

10. Ethics and equity (EE)

11. Economics and project Management (EP)

12. Lifelong learning (LL)

Intersecting Roadmaps of Graduate Attributes

S. ElAtia, J. P. Carey, M. Jamieson, B. AliBrahim & M. Ivey

Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur

51:1 (2021)

Accreditation and Graduate

Attribute Implementation in

Engineering Programs

The accreditation process of engineering undergraduate

programs is multifaceted. Competency-based assess-

ment, curriculum content, and quality inputs are seen

as complementary aspects of a program and its accred-

itation. If an institution can deploy resources for collab-

orative implementation at the administrative, program,

and course level, a cultural shift that explicitly makes

learning a priority can happen. Students, instructors, ad-

ministrators, and stakeholders must recognize the value

in the implementation and believe that developing the

graduate attributes is a worthwhile activity for the gradu-

ate attributes to become embedded at the program and

course levels (Hamou-Lhadj et al., 2015; Jamieson &

Shaw, 2016, 2018a, 2019a; Kaupp & Frank, 2016; Oliver

& Jorre de St. Jorre, 2018; Parker et al., 2019).

To achieve the objective of embedding the UGAs

into the course and program levels of the curriculum,

three levels of implementation and cultural change are

targeted. The rst is the institutional level, where a col-

laborative administrative team allocates resources, de-

velops an implementation vision, and executes a strate-

gy to support a learning-focused team that develops and

monitors the implementation process as shown in Figure

2. At this level, a collaborative eort aimed at integrating

the goals of the professional program(s) and the univer-

sity graduation requirements is required. The second is

a program-level approach that focuses on mapping the

graduate attributes to the curriculum, the developmental

trajectory of the graduate attributes on the learning path-

way (Meikleham et al., 2018) over the program years,

and integrating the goals of the professional program

and the university graduation requirements into the pro-

gram and course objectives. The third level targets spe-

cic course design coordinated with the developmental

trajectory of the graduate attributes on the learning path

for the program. Figure 3 shows an integrated approach

to managing CEAB-GA implementation and continual

improvement at the program and course levels focusing

on constructivist and outcome-based learning approach-

es (Hattie, 2009). Course instructors can embed GAs at

the course level given an institutional learning culture,

but the learning trajectories must be managed at the pro-

gram level across multiple courses that allow the student

to progress on a learning pathway that scaolds graduate

attribute development through the program progression.

The initial institutional level work done at the U of A

in the Faculty of Engineering to implement a manage-

ment structure for the CEAB-GA is discussed in this

case. At the time of investigating how UGA integration

might occur, the U of A, Faculty of Engineering had al-

ready developed a management structure, mapped

the curriculum, and was starting to move into Stage 3

as described in Figure 2. This study identied the rst

step toward integration as mapping the UGAs to the CE-

AB-GAs to outline the overlap as well as the divergence

between the two frameworks, and potentially provide a

management strategy to reduce assessment loading at

the program and course levels while satisfying the pro-

fessional program requirements and the university re-

quirements concurrently.

Figure 2

Graduate Attributes Implementation Stages

Intersecting Roadmaps of Graduate Attributes

S. ElAtia, J. P. Carey, M. Jamieson, B. AliBrahim & M. Ivey

Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur

51:1 (2021)

Developing the CEAB-GA

Management Structure

In accordance with the internationally agreed-upon

Washington Accord (IEA 2015), accreditation of Cana-

dian engineering undergraduate programs requires stu-

dents demonstrate a satisfactory level of competence

commensurate with the professional expectations of an

engineer in training at the time of graduation (CEAB,

2017). The development of these competencies should

progress over the course of the engineering program.

The CEAB-GAs are structured as competency or perfor-

mance-based outcomes (Hattie, 2009) and intended to

assure graduate and program quality. The U of A, Faculty

of Engineering assessment model includes aspects, in-

dicators, and measurements for each of the CEAB-GA.

The 12 CEAB graduate attributes listed in Table 2 are

dened in Appendix A, Table A.

For the U of A, Faculty of Engineering GACIP man-

agement process, a hierarchy was developed for each

CEAB-GA as shown in Figure 4. For each of the 12 CE-

AB-GAs, the faculty academic planning committee iden-

tied a number of aspects (sub-attributes) that elaborat-

ed or characterized that CEAB-GA to provide a better

Figure 3

Continual Improvement Process

Algorithm for the University of Alberta

Intersecting Roadmaps of Graduate Attributes

S. ElAtia, J. P. Carey, M. Jamieson, B. AliBrahim & M. Ivey

Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur

51:1 (2021)

understanding of how many dierent dimensions had to

be considered and assessed within the curriculum. The

aspects developed for the engineering programs are

presented in Appendix B, Table B, where the mechan-

ical engineering program is used as the example. With

exceptions of CEAB-GA (1), Knowledge Base for Engi-

neering, and CEAB-GA (5), Engineering Tools, which

were largely discipline-specic, a common set of as-

pects was developed for all engineering programs at the

U of A. This supported the deployment of a standardized

management approach across the dierent engineering

programs. For each aspect, at least one indicator was

identied. These indicators describe some assess-

able skill and/or ability that an engineering student can

demonstrate developmental competency in. The total

number of indicators for all U of A engineering programs

ranges from 82 to 90, depending on the program. In our

programs, the number of indicators per graduate attri-

bute ranges from four to 19. In mechanical engineering

there are 82 indicators. Those highlighted in grey are

discipline-specic. With this level of detail, mapping the

U of A graduate attributes to the Faculty of Engineering

CEAB-GA sub attributes was possible.

University-Mandated Graduate Attributes

at the University of Alberta

In 2007, the U of A’s Sub-Committee (Dew et al., 2013)

on Graduate Attributes identied and developed indi-

cators for the following seven competencies/proles as

graduating attributes of its students: ethical responsibil-

ity, scholarship, critical thinking, communication, collab-

oration, creativity, and condence. The development of

the UGAs and subsequent work of the Sub-Committee

on Graduate Attributes was an initiative led by students

from the students’ union representing various faculties,

with advice and supervision by faculty members under

the direct coordination of the Center for Teaching and

Learning (CTL). The ultimate goal of these groups is a

specic interest in identifying the attributes that students

acquire during their university education that go beyond

the classroom and the scholarship of the subject. The

work was linked directly to employability attributes (i.e.,

these students wanted to identify what soft skills they

acquire during their university overall experience that

prepare them for the workplace). After two years of work,

the Sub-Committee on Graduate Attributes published its

seven university attributes and their sub-indicators as

guidelines for all university programs (Dew et al., 2013).

Figure 4

Graduate Attribute Hierarchy (CEAB, 2017)

Graduate

Attribute

Aspect

Indicator

Measure

CEAB Specied GA

eg. A knowledge base for engineering

Subcategory of the relevant GA

eg. Mathematics, Natural Sciences, etc.

Skill/knowledge on which students are assessed

eg. Assesses data uncertainty and error

Course & assessment tool

eg. Exam, Assignment, Report, etc.

Intersecting Roadmaps of Graduate Attributes

S. ElAtia, J. P. Carey, M. Jamieson, B. AliBrahim & M. Ivey

Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur

51:1 (2021)

Being notoriously dicult to implement and assess

(Barrie, 2006; Drummond et al., 1998), typically because

of their abstract and non-homogenous nature (Bennett

et al., 1999; Green et al., 2009; Taylor et al., 2012), the

integration of the UGAs has yet to gain traction cam-

pus-wide among instructors

. Previously, we devised a

criteria-based model for assessing UGAs (Ipperciel &

ElAtia, 2014). This model is founded on the understand-

ing of UGAs as knowledge, skills, and attitudes, which

allows us to integrate UGAs of a dierent nature. The

model is also built around the notion that UGAs need

to be “interpreted” as praxis-oriented, with can-do state-

ments. These two measures allow for a subsequent and

crucial step prior to the operationalization of the UGAs:

the development of rubric scales for assessment. Follow-

ing this rst step, a readily implementable and practical

UGAs assessment platform was developed (ElAtia et al.,

2016; ElAtia & Ipperciel, 2017). The main objective is

to have an implementation of the conceptualized mod-

el to establish an assessment procedure that accounts

for the needs, interests, and concerns of the main GA

stakeholders (i.e., students and instructors). This simi-

lar and parallel development of the university graduate

attribute KSAs and praxis orientation and the CEAB-GA

aspect and indicator development allowed for the pos-

sibility of mapping. This project proposes to implement

an integrated assessment platform for both UGAs and

CEAB-GAs for the Faculty of Engineering to determine

to what extent both are addressed and acquired in the

program.

Mixed Method Mapping Process for the

UGAs to the CEAB-GAs

The mapping exercise was performed by two teams.

The rst group was composed of three members of the

Faculty of Engineering, all of whom are subject-matter

experts familiar with the CEAB-GAs and their assess-

ment within the context of an engineering program. The

second group was composed of two external members

who were extensively researching the assessment and

implementation of the UGAs. In this way, the teams are

complementary and can have an objective, arms-length

evaluation of the process. Both teams worked on map-

ping the two sets of attributes presented in Table 1 using

the sub-attributes of both sets. A sequential mixed meth-

ods study design was utilized. A qualitative exploratory

mapping study was followed by a quantitative aggrega-

tion of the mapping results. Integration of the qualitative

and quantitative study results was completed as part of

the interpretation of the results and presented in the re-

sults and analysis section.

For each of the 12 CEAB-GAs, the Faculty of Engi-

neering had previously dened a list of sub-attributes,

which constitute the key aspects of each graduate at-

tribute. For each one of these sub-attributes, indicators

had also been dened, which describe what a student

must do to show competency in the attribute. Where

possible, indicators were common across all nine engi-

neering programs in the faculty; but where necessary,

program-specic indicators were used. When assess-

ing students, performance was rated on a 4-level scale

based on a descriptive rubric consistent with accredita-

tion standards.

Similarly, each of the seven UGAs have four sub-at-

tributes associated with them. During the work to devel-

op a criteria-based model for assessing UGAs, specic

interpretations in the form of can-do statements were de-

veloped for each sub-attribute, along with descriptive ru-

brics for a 5-level rating scale to describe relative levels

of attribute acquisition (ElAtia & Ipperciel, 2015a). The

structure of these statements bears a close resemblance

to the indicators and assessment rubrics written for the

engineering sub-attributes and CEAB-GAs.

To map the UGAs to the CEAB-GAs, each Faculty of

Engineering indicator was compared to the list of can-

do statements and associated rubrics used to describe

the University sub-attributes. Each team worked inde-

pendently and then collaboratively in a group to compare

analyses. Related sub-attributes and can-do statements

were linked to the indicator in question as shown for

example in Table 2. If appropriate, a single universi-

ty sub-attribute could be assigned to multiple dierent

Faculty of Engineering indicators, and multiple univer-

sity sub-attributes could be linked to a single Faculty of

Engineering indicator. If none of the can-do statements

were appropriate, the indicator mapping was left blank.

The three steps in the mapping process were as fol-

lows. First, the preparatory phase: This phase consisted

of various meetings. The rst meeting was informative.

In contrast, the purpose of the second meeting was a

team calibration retreat of two days where various groups

representing Faculty of Engineering met to discuss their

program, their involvement with their program-specic

Intersecting Roadmaps of Graduate Attributes

S. ElAtia, J. P. Carey, M. Jamieson, B. AliBrahim & M. Ivey

Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur

51:1 (2021)

requirements and the UGAs, and the challenges they

face to the implementation of these. The third meeting

was to draft a working document and identify the working

group and subgroup, as well as tasks for individual mem-

bers. Second, the qualitative analysis phase: Individual

and group analyses were conducted. Initially, two groups

were established: one group carried the mapping from

CEAB to UGAs, and the other group was tasked to do

the mapping of UGAs to CEAB. Each individual in each

group conducted independent mapping exercises; then,

all the individuals met to discuss a standard setting for

each of the mapping of the attributes. Once the work of

each group was nalized (Matrix), the two groups met

to compare results of the mapping exercise. Third, the

quantitative analysis phase: each subgroup within the

groups analyzed their results and provided the analysis

to the other members; aggregate tables were created

and discrepancies amongst evaluators were discussed.

A standard setting process was carried out to ensure the

nal reports of each group met all members’ evaluations.

Both convergences and divergences were document-

ed. Finally, the debrieng and integration phase: Final

mapping tables and aggregate analysis were shared and

comparisons amongst groups were carried out. Final ad-

justments to the mapping were done.

Results and Analysis

When performing the mapping, all Faculty-wide indica-

tors were mapped rst, followed by any program-specif-

ic indicators. In total, 187 engineering indicators were

mapped to the 28 University sub-attributes. Of the en-

gineering indicators, 72 were common to all programs,

and 115 were program-specic across the nine pro-

grams. Mapping the CEAB-GAs to the UGAs produced

a table for each CEAB-GA linking CEAB-GA Faculty of

Engineering indicators to corresponding UGA sub attri-

butes. As a representative example, CEAB-GA Ethics

and Equity was selected. Ethics and Equity intersected

with two UGAs, Ethical Responsibility and Collabora-

tion, as demonstrated in Table 3. The Faculty of Engi-

neering indicators for Ethics and Equity were matched

to the UGA sub-attributes. For example, consider the U

of A indicator for the CEAB-GA Ethics and Equity: Feels

condent in ability to address ethical dilemmas, which is

measured by a survey question at program entrance and

exit. The U of A engineering programs provide a variety

of learning activities and courses intended to develop

student ability to address ethical dilemmas including de-

sign, ethics, safety, and risk management. This indicator

and measurement for Ethics and Equity encompassed

the Ethical Responsibility sub-attributes of global cit-

izenship, community engagement, social and environ-

mental awareness, and professionalism.

Mapping results between CEAB-GAs and UGAs are

summarized as an intensity map in Figure 5. The scale

of the mapping ranges from white, meaning no overlap,

to black, meaning that the four indicators of the UGAs

are fully mapped within one CEAB-GA. It is important to

note that this does not indicate that the reverse is always

true; not all of the indicators of a CEAB-GA are mapped

to one or more UGA. This is especially true when consid-

ering the Design CEAB-GA (4), which three UGA indica-

tors map into completely. There are a number of aspects

in the Design CEAB-GA (4) that extend well beyond that

of the Ethical Responsibility, Critical Thinking, and Cre-

ativity UGA sub-attributes.

The following were the key ndings resulting from

the GA mapping exercise:

First, there is little in the UGAs that relates to the

CEAB-GA for “Knowledge Base,” as evidenced by the

single match indicated in Figure 5. The only link found

was related to the UGAs for “Scholarship,” of which only

a single sub-attribute was able to be mapped. This nd-

ing was not surprising, as the UGAs framework was de-

signed to be broad in order to encompass all university

programs, whereas the indicators dened for the “Knowl-

edge Base” CEAB-GA tend to be targeted toward highly

discipline-specic knowledge.

It was found that no UGAs explicitly dealt with the

use of tools to accomplish a task, which led to limited

mapping opportunities with the “Use of Engineering

Tools” CEAB-GA. One UGAs sub-attribute from each of

CM and CR were mapped, but neither UGA could be fully

aligned. This is an important omission from the UGAs

that should be addressed. The ability to use modern

tools—such as word processing, which could apply to

all, or in some disciplines a focus on specic tools, for

example, musical instruments, artistic tools, and intrave-

nous injections—is a key part of their university experi-

ence. This aspect is shared by students of all faculties

and should be valued by the University.

Another important oversight observed was that none

of the UGAs considered time management, economics,

Intersecting Roadmaps of Graduate Attributes

S. ElAtia, J. P. Carey, M. Jamieson, B. AliBrahim & M. Ivey

Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur

51:1 (2021)

Table 2

University and CEAB Graduate Attributes Mapping Example

CEAB-GA #10: Ethics and Equity

Faculty of Engineering University

Sub-attribute Indicator Sub-attribute (Can-do Statement)

Awareness of Ethical

Issues

Feels condent in ability to

address ethical dilemmas

1a. Global citizenship (Can consider issues from a global

perspective)

1b. Community engagement (Can consider issues from

the perspective of their impact on the community)

1c. Social and environmental awareness (Can adopt the

perspective of the public good and take into consideration

our embeddedness within society and nature)

1d. Professionalism (Is willing to meet the level of ex-

pertise and deontological expectations of her intended

profession)

Code of Ethics Identies provisions of the

APEGA Code of Ethics

1d. Professionalism (Is willing to meet the level of ex-

pertise and deontological expectations of her intended

profession)

Makes Ethical Choices Makes ethical choices in

complex situations

1a. Global citizenship (Can consider issues from a global

perspective)

1b. Community engagement (Can consider issues from

the perspective of their impact on the community)

1c. Social and environmental awareness (Can adopt the

perspective of the public good and take into consideration

our embeddedness within society and nature)

1d. Professionalism (Is willing to meet the level of ex-

pertise and deontological expectations of her intended

profession)

Awareness of Equity

Issues

Identies situations

containing equity issues

5a. Openness to diversity (Can engage with a diversity of

people (in terms of race, religion, cultures, classes, sex

orientation and appearance)

Awareness of Equity

Issues

Is aware of provisions

within the Alberta Human

Rights, Citizenship and

Multiculturalism Act

5a. Openness to diversity (Can engage with a diversity of

people (in terms of race, religion, cultures, classes, sex

orientation and appearance)

Awareness of Equity

Issues

Feels condent in ability to

address equity

5a. Openness to diversity (Can engage with a diversity of

people (in terms of race, religion, cultures, classes, sex

orientation and appearance)

Intersecting Roadmaps of Graduate Attributes

S. ElAtia, J. P. Carey, M. Jamieson, B. AliBrahim & M. Ivey

Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur

51:1 (2021)

project management, or nancial literacy (employability

TSA). As a result, there was nothing that could be mapped

to the “Economics and Project Management” CEAB-GA.

It can easily be argued that these attributes are vital to

all university graduates, who will require knowledge and

skills in economics and project management in both

their personal and professional lives, and that an addi-

tional UGA should be added to reect this. In the case of

the medical association requirements (CACMS, 2019),

time management in handling patients is included for

example, however, there was no such equivalent in Law

(FLSC, 2018), but one should expect that lawyers have

sound project and time management and budgeting

skills. In many cases, medicine and law are secondary

degrees, and these skills are acquired prior and expect-

ed to be demonstrated by the graduates. Engineering

and most other undergraduate programs on campuses

are direct entry from high school programs. The UGA

“Communication: Multilingualism” has been interpreted

during this mapping process to include computer lan-

guages and technical drawings. These are important

languages used to accomplish tasks and communicate

ideas within an engineering context. The CEAB does

recognize language courses (such as French, Spanish,

etc.) and they count as complementary studies cours-

es, however being multi- or bilingual is not a require-

ment to complete an undergraduate engineering degree.

As such, there could be no link to multilingualism in a

more conventional sense. However, it should be noted

that multilingualism will not be an engineering learning

outcome or indicator in communication skills. Allowing

students to make their own choice of complementary

studies course is an important principle of the programs,

while programming language skills are inherent to the

professional skills.

An ancillary benet of the mapping process was

that it allowed the Engineering group the opportunity to

further reect upon and rene the current CEAB-GA As-

pects and Indicators being used for assessment. As a

result, a number of potential improvements to the list of

aspects and indicators were identied and recorded for

future consideration and implementation by the aected

engineering programs.

Discussion

During this process, it became evident that, for the suc-

cessful implementation of the UGAs, certain elements

are important for consideration. Training is important for

all individuals involved in the mapping process. Stake-

holder perspectives must be taken into consideration

during the process. The Matrix model (in group, between

Figure 5

Intensity Map of the Overall Overlap in CEAB-GAs and UGAs

Intersecting Roadmaps of Graduate Attributes

S. ElAtia, J. P. Carey, M. Jamieson, B. AliBrahim & M. Ivey

Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur

51:1 (2021)

groups) process (Osserman, 1995) is useful to ensure

that all perspectives are met. To ensure validity and ob-

jectivity, it is important to have two sets of evaluators to

meet those goals: those heavily involved with the pro-

grams (validity), and those at arm’s length that can be

neutral to the process (objectivity).

The mapping process was primarily qualitative in

nature, followed by a tabulation amongst the ve review-

ers in the research team, to better understand the degree

of divergence and overlap of the two sets of attributes.

As the CEAB-GAs are part of the Canadian accredita-

tion process and developed via international agreement

they are not subject to adaptation by a single university.

The processes to change the CEAB-GA institution-spec-

ied sub-attributes, indicators, and assessments are

subject to revision by the U of A Faculty of Engineering

and could be revised as part of the GACIP process. The

UGAs were specied by the U of A and as such could be

revised by the University. In addition, the can-do state-

ments may also be revised as part of a CIP. This does

allow for some tailoring and integration of sub-attributes

and can-do statements at the institution level to reduce

the divergence of the two sets of graduate attributes as

they are embedded in the courses of a program.

It was noted that the UGAs did not cover some of

the items that the CEAB-GAs did, and that the process

used to develop the CEAB-GAs and introduce them into

the accreditation process was lengthy. While the UGAs

present a wider, more exible frame of transferable skills

(demonstrated by the fact that the mapping team was

able to often map one UGA with a few GEAB-GAs),

program-specic GAs target professionally oriented

knowledge and skills. Thus, while the UGAs contribute

to the overall vision for a university graduate as a global

citizen, program-specic GAs ensure their functionality

in their future profession. Moreover, the UGAs present

a set of transferable skills that are applicable across

programs and disciplines, while program-specic GAs

combine some transferable skills that are applicable to

a wide variety of disciplines, in addition to technical

program requirements. These requirements might not

nd their analogue in, or may even be resisted by, other

programs. A good example to this would be the attribute

of problem solving, which is a basic requirement to pro-

grams across the scientic disciplines, but may not be a

necessity for all arts programs. According to Oliver and

Jorre de St. Jorre (2018), the most specied Australian

university-level graduate attributes were: global citizen-

ship, written and oral communication, critical thinking,

problem solving, information literacy, and the ability

to work independently. Of these items, the CEAB-GAs

would address all of them explicitly at the graduate at-

tribute description level with the exception of global

citizenship, which is implicit in ethics and equity. En-

gineering leadership and management programs have

been developing across Canada over the last 10 years,

suggesting this aspect is a part of engineering educa-

tion and work (Jamieson & Donald, 2020). The mapping

analysis also suggests the UGAs continual improvement

processes may need to consider including time manage-

ment, economics, project management, problem solving,

independent work, and nancial literacy as part of the

can-do statements or perhaps adding another attribute.

Oliver and Jorre de St. Jorre (2018) note many of these

items are seen as necessary by employers and are cat-

egorized in their work as Independence or Employability

skills (work under pressure, be exible in the workplace,

meet deadlines, understand business/organization,

leadership, management skills, take responsibility for

personal professional development, demonstrate initia-

tive). Oliver and Jorre de St. Jorre’s main points are that

(a) UGAs should be thought of and incorporated during

the course development process, and (b) they should

be communicated to students early and regularly, which

will provide a better understanding, implementation, and

achievement of the UGAs. Students should understand

what the goals are for higher education and they should

see how the courses they are taking help them make

progress to that end.

O’Connell et al. (2017) provide a list of transfer-

able skills and attributes including: knowledge and un-

derstanding, ethical and professional understandings,

computer-based skills, written and oral communications,

adaptability and exibility, time management and orga-

nizational skills, management and leadership, teamwork

and interpersonal skills, information literacy skills, prob-

lem solving, research skills, and synthesis/creativity.

While this list would nd signicant overlap with the CE-

AB-GA denitions, it would overlap less with the UGAs,

again suggesting further study. This seems to indicate

inclusion of these items in the UGAs and that creatively

thinking about what the graduates will need in the future

would better position them as an employability tool for

graduates in a rapidly changing world. Further, it could

Intersecting Roadmaps of Graduate Attributes

S. ElAtia, J. P. Carey, M. Jamieson, B. AliBrahim & M. Ivey

Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur

51:1 (2021)

support the role of the UGAs as providing a sense of

who students could become after engaging in a universi-

ty education, how they will benet from this engagement,

and what they will be able to contribute to society. UGAs

should speak to and demonstrate the transformative na-

ture of higher education. This model engages students

with knowledge on the basis of who they are and the

complex or wicked problems before us. It moves high-

er education beyond being student-centred or knowl-

edge-centred to focus on the relations between students

and knowledge (Ashwin, 2020) and the communities and

world they live in.

As the employment of the dialectical method to map

out the UGAs to program specic GAs oers a lucid cri-

tique to each set of graduate attributes, it also brings to

light the importance of the coexistence of the two sets,

as each one of them contributes to a dierent aspect of

higher education outcomes; the UGAs and program-spe-

cic GAs each ensure the graduates’ competence at dif-

ferent skills, both as employable global citizens as well as

professionals. The overlap in the mapping process also

brings to light the possibility of reducing program-specif-

ic requirements to the aspects that do not map out to the

general UGAs to avoid redundancy.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The mapping process carried out for this project was

a timely and illuminating task. The constructive debate

during the dialectical mapping process and result in-

terpretation led to a synthesis of new ideas regarding

graduate attributes, their measurement, their use, their

integration, and their implementation in professional and

general university programs, as well as in the larger uni-

versity context. During the exercise, it became evident

that a continual improvement process for the graduate

attributes is essential to embed the attributes at the

program and course level. This process should include

further constructive debate among stakeholders regard-

ing the characteristics of higher education graduates,

the measurement of such characteristics, and the use of

such measures as metrics for institutional funding deter-

minants and employability criteria. If the graduate attri-

butes are to be used as a means to set institutional goals

for student development and achievement, the attributes

should be reective of the discipline and institutional

identity of the graduates, and not solely of the employ-

ability characteristics or funding metrics. For profession-

al programs like engineering, this may be reected in

the requirements for the practice of the profession. For

more generalized degree programs this may be more

challenging to elucidate but necessary to determine the

appropriate set of graduate attributes reective of stu-

dent development requirements. Consideration should

be given to professional identity of graduates and their

intellectual development including cognitive, aective,

social, and psychomotor development. The purpose of

higher education should be reected in the graduate

attributes and their measurement and not merely be a

measure of the institution’s ability to produce graduates

with the current employability characteristics or funder

metrics. The study also highlighted the need for more

revisions and updates of UGAs by including various

stakeholders who can substantially contribute to the im-

plementation and assessment of UGAs.

There are two further and important items for con-

sideration: it would be of utmost importance for the va-

lidity of the mapping process to include instructor and

student feedback. The success of the graduate attributes

lies in the adoption of the vision of what attributes a pro-

gram graduate should have by both the instructors and

the students. Without a shared vision of the goals of the

program and courses within the program implementa-

tion of the graduate attributes, their measurement, and

their contribution to shaping student development, will

be hollow. Second, the university central administration

must have an active role in the mapping process to in-

form and ensure a concrete implementation of the UGAs

in programs consistent with goals of the institution, as

well as lead implementation buy-in. Unless these stake-

holder groups are actively involved, any attempts to truly

demonstrate student and institutional achievement of

the UGAs will remain elusive.

Thus far, the implication of this study is the gener-

ic UGAs, which will not be sucient to encompass all

programs within a university institution, especially those

of a professional nature and that require federal and/or

provincial accreditations. In such situations, program

administrators must rst abide by the accrediting body

requirements. A concern arises regarding an excessive

program administrative burden with the implementation

and assessment of several sets of graduating attributes

that is inconsistent with the drive to reduce costs. This

project concludes that all graduating attributes must be

Intersecting Roadmaps of Graduate Attributes

S. ElAtia, J. P. Carey, M. Jamieson, B. AliBrahim & M. Ivey

Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur

51:1 (2021)

implemented within discipline-specic frameworks to

ensure there is sucient disciplinary knowledge, consis-

tency, and limited redundancy, which serves to ensure

the implementation of a meaningful continual improve-

ment process.

Acknowledgements

Oce of the Provost and Vice-President (Academic),

Teaching and Learning Enhancement Fund, University

of Alberta Kule Institute for Interdisciplinary Research

Grant, University of Alberta

References

Arum, R., & Roska, J. (2010). Academically adrift:

Limited learning on college campuses. University of

Chicago Press.

Ashwin, P. (2020). Transforming university education: A

manifesto. Bloomsbury Academic.

Barrie, S. C. (2006). Understanding what we mean by

generic attributes of graduates. Higher Education,

51, 215–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-

6384-7

Bendixen, C., & Jacobsen, J. C. (2017). Nullifying quali-

ty: The marketisation of higher education. Quality in

Higher Education, 23(1), 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1

080/13538322.2017.1294406

Bennett, N., Dunne, E., & Carre, C. (1999). Patterns

of core generic skill provision in higher educa-

tion. Higher Education, 37, 71–93. https://doi.

org/10.1023/A:1003451727126

Berniker, E., & McNabb, D. E. (2006). Dialectical inquiry:

A structured qualitative research method. The Qual-

itative Report, 11(4), 643–664. https://nsuworks.

nova.edu/tqr/vol11/iss4/2

Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through construc-

tive alignment. Higher Education, 32, 1–18.

Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. (2003). Teaching for quality

learning at university: What the student does (2nd

ed.). Society for Research into Higher Education &

Open University Press.

Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board. (2017).

Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board: Accred-

itation criteria and procedures. Canadian Council

of Professional Engineers. https://engineerscanada.

ca/sites/default/les/accreditation-criteria-proce-

dures-2017.pdf

Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board. (2018).

Continual improvement rubric v3.2. https://engineer-

scanada.ca/accreditation/accreditation-resources

Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board. (2019).

Accreditation criteria and procedure. Canadian

Council of Professional Engineers. https://engineer-

scanada.ca/sites/default/les/accreditation/Accredi-

tation-Criteria-Procedures-2019.pdf

Cloutier, G., Hugo, R., & Sellens, R. (2011, June 20–23).

Mapping the relationship between the CDIO sylla-

bus and the CEAB graduate attributes: An update

[Paper presentation]. The 7th International CDIO

Conference, Denmark, Copenhagen. http://www.

cdio.org/les/document/le/b4-cloutier2011ceabcan-

ada.pdf

Committee on Accreditation of Canadian Medical

Schools. (2019). Standards for accreditation of

medical education programs leading to the M.D.

degree. https://cacms-cafmc.ca/sites/default/les/

documents/CACMS_Standards_and_Elements_-_

AY_2019-2020.pdf

Dew, S., Csorba, E., Chelen, D., Youse, N., Andrews,

N., & More, C. (2013). Graduate attributes at the

University of Alberta: A report of the Committee on

the Learning Environment (CLE) Subcommittee on

Attributes and Competencies. https://www.ualberta.

ca/centre-for-teaching-and-learning/media-library/

ctl-reports/a-report-of-the-committee-on-the-learn-

ing-environment-cle-subcommittee-on-attri-

butes-and-competencies.pdf

Doré, S., Terriault, P., Belleau, C. (2019). Gathering the

voice of students for accreditation purposes through

their denition of “Engineer.” Proceedings of the

Canadian Engineering Education (CEEA) Confer-

ence June 3-6, 2019, Ottawa, ON, 1–7. https://doi.

org/10.24908/pceea.vi0.13715

Drummond, I., Nixon, I., & Wiltshire, J. (1998). Per-

sonal transferrable skills in higher education: The

problems of implementing good practice. Quality

Intersecting Roadmaps of Graduate Attributes

S. ElAtia, J. P. Carey, M. Jamieson, B. AliBrahim & M. Ivey

Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur

51:1 (2021)

Assurance in Education, 6(1), 44–58. https://doi.

org/10.1108/09684889810200359

Easa, S. M. (2013). Framework and guidelines for grad-

uate attribute assessment in engineering educa-

tion. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 40(6),

547–556. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2012-0485

ElAtia, S., & Ipperciel, D. (2015a). At the intersec-

tion of computer sciences and online education:

Fundamental consideration in MOOCs education.

Queen’s University Educational Letter, 11(2),

2–7. https://educ.queensu.ca/sites/webpublish.

queensu.ca.educwww/les/les/Community/ed_let-

ter_spring_2015.pdf

ElAtia, S., & Ippeciel, D. (2015b). Towards a 21st century

competency-based model of higher education: The

pragmatics of accountability. International Journal

of Advances in Education, 1(1), 5–13. https://www.

semanticscholar.org/paper/Towards-a-21st-Cen-

tury-Competency-Based-Model-of-of-ElAtia-Ipper-

ciel/242c0c748d4f9164b0992391f863a9d950b-

b205a

ElAtia, S., & Ipperciel, D. (2017, October 16–19).

Graduate attributes assessment program: At the

intersection of teaching and learning (Conference

presentation]. World Conference on Online Learn-

ing, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

ElAtia, S., Ipperciel, D., Bakhshinategh, B., Zaiane, O.

R., & Thibaudeau, P. (2020). Graduate attribute as-

sessment program. The International Journal of In-

formation and Learning Technology, 38(1), 117–134.

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-03-2020-0025

ElAtia, S., Ipperciel, D., & Zaiane, O. R. (2016). Data

mining and learning analytics: Applications in edu-

cational research. Wiley & Sons.

Engineering Graduate Attribute Development. (2018).

GACIP summit meeting 2018: Aggregating data.

https://egad.engineering.queensu.ca/?page_

id=4291

Federation of Law Societies of Canada. (2018). Na-

tional requirement. https://sc.ca/wp-content/up-

loads/2018/01/National-Requirement-Jan-2018-FIN.

pdf

French, E., Summers, J., Kinash, S., Lawson, R., Taylor,

T., Herbert, J., Fallshaw, E., & Hall, C. (2014). The

practice of quality in assuring learning in higher ed-

ucation. Quality in Higher Education, 20(1), 24–43.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2014.889432

Gopakumar, G., Dysart-Gale, D., & Ali Akgunduz, A.

(2013). Creating faculty buy in: Leadership challeng-

es in implementing CEAB graduate attributes. Pro-

ceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education

Association Conference- École Polytechnique de

Montréal June 2013, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.24908/

pceea.v0i0.4850

Green, W., Hammer, S., & Star, C. (2009). Facing

up to the challenge: Why is it so hard to devel-

op graduate attributes? Higher Education Re-

search & Development, 28(1), 17–20. https://doi.

org/10.1080/07294360802444339

Gwyn, M. (2016). Incorporating employer and student

assessments into a graduate attribute assessment

plan. Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Ed-

ucation Association (CEEA) Conference- Dalhousie

University June 19-22, 2016, 1–5. http://web.uvic.

ca/~mgwyn/CEEA2016/Gwyn.pdf

Gwyn, M. (2017). Finding the gaps: The development

of a network for graduate attribute professionals.

Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Edu-

cation Association (CEEA) Conference- June 4-7,

2017 University of Toronto, 1–4. https://ojs.library.

queensu.ca/index.php/PCEEA/article/view/10302

Gwyn, M. L., & Gupta, R., (2015). Co-op employer

evaluations of the graduate attributes: A comparison

of two approaches. Proceedings of the Canadian

Engineering Education (CEEA) Conference- Mc-

Master University May 31-June 3, 2015, 1–5. https://

doi.org/10.24908/pceea.v0i0.5788

Hamou-Lhadj, A., Lynch, W., & Akgunduz, A., (2015).

COGAF: A management framework for graduate

attribute assessment. Proceedings of the Canadian

Engineering Education (CEEA) Conference- Mc-

Master University May 31-June 3, 2015, 1–6. https://

doi.org/10.24908/pceea.v0i0.5762

Harris, J., Steele, A., & Russell, D. (2011). Progress on

dening the CEAB attributes at Carleton University.

Proceedings of the 2nd Annual CEEA Conference:

Memorial University, St. John’s, Newfoundland,

Intersecting Roadmaps of Graduate Attributes

S. ElAtia, J. P. Carey, M. Jamieson, B. AliBrahim & M. Ivey

Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur

51:1 (2021)

June 6-8, 2011, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.

v0i0.3628

Hattie, J. (2009). The black box of tertiary assessment:

An impending revolution. In L. H. Meyer, S. David-

son, H. Anderson, R. Fletcher, P. M. Johnston, & M.

Rees (Eds.), Tertiary assessment & higher educa-

tion student outcomes: Policy, practice & research

(pp. 259–275). Ako Aotearoa.

International Engineering Alliance. (2015). A history

of the International Engineering Alliance and its

constituent agreements: Toward global engineering

education and professional competence standards.

http://www.ieagreements.org/assets/Uploads/Docu-

ments/History/IEA-History-1.1-Final.pdf

Ipperciel, D., & ElAtia, S. (2014). Assessing graduate at-

tributes: Building a criteria-based competency mod-

el. The International Journal of Higher Education,

3(3), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v3n3p27

Ivey, M., Dew, S., Mandal, M., Mohamed, Y., Nychka,

J. A., Raboud, D. & Carey, J. P. (2017). Using post

course assessments to involve instructors in the

continuous improvement process. Proceedings of

the Canadian Engineering Education Association

(CEEA) Conference- June 4-7, 2017 University of

Toronto. https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.v0i0.9519

Ivey, M., Mohamed, Y., Musilek, P., Raboud, D., Rajen-

dran, A., & Carey, J. P. (2018). Using a common

course syllabus as part of the quality control loop

and accreditation data collection process. Pro-

ceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education

(CEEA) Conference June 3-6, 2018, Vancouver, BC,

1–7. https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.v0i0.12983

Jamieson, M. V. (2016). Application of blended and

active learning to chemical engineering design

instruction [Master’s thesis, University of Alberta].

University of Alberta Education and Research

Archive. https://doi.org/10.7939/R3GF0N69K

Jamieson M. V., & Donald, J. R. (2020). Building the

engineering mindset: Developing leadership and

management competencies in the engineering

curriculum. Proceedings of the Canadian Engineer-

ing Education Association (CEEA) Conference, 1–8.

https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi0.14129

Jamieson, M. V., & Shaw, J. M. (2016). Pre and post

course student self-assessment of CEAB graduate

attributes - A tool for outcomes assessment, student

skill and course improvement. Proceedings of

the Canadian Engineering Education Association

(CEEA) Conference- Dalhousie University June

19-22, 2016, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.

v0i0.6497

Jamieson, M. V., & Shaw, J. M. (2018a). Graduate attri-

bute based continuous improvement in a blended

learning engineering design course – a writing

seminar case study. Proceedings of the Canadian

Engineering Education Association (CEEA) Confer-

ence June 3-6, 2018 Vancouver BC, 1–7. https://doi.

org/10.24908/pceea.v0i0.13022

Jamieson, M. V., & Shaw, J. M. (2018b). Teaching engi-

neering innovation, design, and leadership within a

community of practice. Proceedings of the Cana-

dian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)

Conference June 3-6, 2018 Vancouver BC, 1–7.

https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.v0i0.9531

Jamieson, M. V., & Shaw, J. M. (2019a). A continual

improvement process for teaching leadership

and innovation in a community of practice. Pro-

ceedings of The American Society for Engineer-

ing Education Annual Conference & Exposition,

Tampa, Florida, 1–23. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.

org/89f6/06388bb8b2c85e43936cc594cd6c357f0d.

pdf

Jamieson, M. V., & Shaw, J. M. (2019b). Learning to

learn: Dening an engineering learning culture.

Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Educa-

tion Association (CEEA-ACEG) Conference June

8-12 Ottawa Ontario,1–12. https://doi.org/10.24908/

pceea.vi0.13707

Kanuka, H., & Cowley, S. (2017). Graduand student

attributes: A Canadian case. The Canadian Jour-

nal of Higher Education, 47(1), 61–79. https://doi.

org/10.47678/cjhe.v47i1.186485

Kaupp, J., & Frank, B. (2016). EGAD National snap-

shot survey: Change, progress and improvement.

Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Educa-

tion Association (CEEA) Conference – Dalhousie

University June 19-22, 2016, 1–12. https://doi.

Intersecting Roadmaps of Graduate Attributes

S. ElAtia, J. P. Carey, M. Jamieson, B. AliBrahim & M. Ivey

Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur

51:1 (2021)

org/10.24908/pceea.v0i0.6503

Kaupp, J., Frank, B., Brenman, R., McCahan, S.,

Narayanan, L., Ostachuk, P., Sepehri, N., & Watts,

K. C. (2012). A comparison of institutional approach-

es to CEAB graduate attributes requirements.

Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Educa-

tion Association Conference. University of Manitoba

June 17-20, 2012, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.24908/

pceea.v0i0.4642

Lawson, R., Taylor, T., Herbert, J., Fallshaw, E., French,

E., Hall, C., Kinash, S., & Summers, J. (2012).

Strategies to engage academics in assuring grad-

uate attributes. Eighth International Conference on

Education (ICE 2012): Educational Leadership &

Management, 5-7 Jul 2012, Samos, Greece. https://

eprints.usq.edu.au/21517/

Maguire, K., & Gibbs, P. (2013). Exploring the notion of

quality in quality higher education assessment in

a collaborative future. Quality in Higher Education,

19(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.201

3.774220

Mason, R. (1969). A dialectical approach to strategic

planning. Management Science, 15(8), 403–414.

Meikleham, A., Brennan, R., & Hugo, R. (2018). Utilizing

the CDIO syllabus to reveal CEAB graduate attribute

pathways in a mechanical engineering curriculum.

Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Educa-

tion Association (CEEA) Conference June 3-6, 2018

Vancouver BC, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.

v0i0.12988

O’Donnell, P., Rakhshani, B., Rae, A., & Smith, R.

(2017). The adaptable graduate. In C. Normand &

L. Anderson (Eds.), Graduate attributes in higher

education: Attitudes on attributes from across the

disciplines (pp. 19–38). Routledge.

Oliver, B. (2013). Graduate attributes as a focus for

institution-wide curriculum renewal: Innovations and

challenges. Higher Education Research & Develop-

ment, 32(3), 450–463.

Oliver, B., & Jorre de St. Jorre, T., (2018). Graduate at-

tributes for 2020 and beyond: recommendations for

Australian higher education providers. Higher Ed-

ucation Research & Development, 37(4), 821–836.

https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1446415

Osserman, R. (2006) Mapping: Mathematics. Encyclo-

pedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/

Osserman, R. (1995) Poetry of the universe: A mathe-

matical exploration of the cosmos. Anchor Books.

Parker, A. M., Watson, E., Ivey, M., Carey, J. P. (2019).

Approaches to graduate attribute and continual

improvement processes in faculties of engineering

across Canada: a narrative review of the literature.

Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Educa-

tion Association (CEEA-ACEG) Conference June

8-12 Ottawa Ontario. https://doi.org/10.24908/

pceea.vi0.13736

Platanitis, G., & Pop-Iliev, R. (2011). Does program com-

pliance with CDIO warrant automatic compliance

with CEAB accreditation criteria for 2014? Proceed-

ings of the 2nd Annual CEEA Conference: Memorial

University, St. John’s, Newfoundland, June 6-8,

2011. https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.v0i0.3597

Salustri, F. A., & Neumann, W. P. (2016). Providing a

uniform design experience in an undergraduate

mechanical engineering program. Proceedings of

the Canadian Engineering Education Association

(CEEA) Conference- Dalhousie University June

19-22, 2016. https://www.researchgate.net/publica-

tion/313891202_Providing_a_Uniform_Design_Ex-

perience_in_an_Undergraduate_Mechanical_Engi-

neering_Program

Salustri, F. A., & Neumann, W. P. (2017). Creating a

human-centric engineering design course. Pro-

ceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education

Association (CEEA) Conference- June 4-7, 2017

University of Toronto. https://doi.org/10.24908/

pceea.v0i0.9774

Seniuk Cicek, J., Ingram, S., Sepehri, N., Burak, J. P.,

Labossiere, P., Mann, D., Ruth, D., Parker, A., Fer-

ens, K., Godavari, N., Oleszkiewicz, J., & Topping,

A. (2014). Rubrics as a vehicle to dene the twelve

CEAB graduate attributes, determine graduate

competencies, and develop a common language for

engineering stakeholders. Proceedings of the Cana-

dian Engineering Education Association Conference

University of Calgary. June 8-11, 2014, 1–7. https://

doi.org/10.24908/pceea.v0i0.5876

Intersecting Roadmaps of Graduate Attributes

S. ElAtia, J. P. Carey, M. Jamieson, B. AliBrahim & M. Ivey

Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur

51:1 (2021)

Sepehri, N., Kinsner, W., Burak, J. P., Shafai, C., Annak-

kage, U., Mann, D., Kuhn, D., Shalaby, A., Alfaro, M.,

Morrison, J., Ferens, K., Birouk, M., Labossiere, P.,

Torchia, M., & Beddoes, J. (2013). The process of

continual improvement of engineering programs at

the University of Manitoba: Now and next. Pro-

ceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education

Association Conference- École Polytechnique de

Montréal June 2013. https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/

index.php/PCEEA/article/view/4901

Shehata, M. H., & Schwartz, M. (2015). Co-curricular

activities and their role in supporting experiential

learning. Proceedings of the Canadian Engineer-

ing Education (CEEA) Conference- McMaster

University May 31-June 3, 2015, 1–5. https://doi.

org/10.24908/pceea.v0i0.5791

Spracklin-Reid, D., & Fisher, A. (2012). Course-based

learning outcomes as the foundation for assessment

of graduate attributes. Proceedings of the Canadian

Engineering Education Association Conference.

University of Manitoba June 17-20, 2012, 1–4.

https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.v0i0.4928

Spracklin-Reid, D., & Fisher, A. (2014). Curriculum

mapping in engineering education: Linking attri-

butes, outcomes, and assessments. Proceedings of

the Canadian Engineering Education Association

Conference University of Calgary. June 8-11, 2014,

1. https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.v0i0.5897

Stiver, W. (2011). CEAB’s graduate attributes and

Ontario’s UUDLEs. Proceedings of the 2nd Annual

CEEA Conference: Memorial University, St. John’s,

Newfoundland, June 6-8, 2011, 1–5. https://doi.

org/10.24908/pceea.v0i0.3605

Stiver, W., Bradford, A., Chang, S., Farahbakhsh, K., Lu-

bitz, D., Ryks, J., van Heyst, B., Zhou, H., & Zytner,

R. (2010). Engineering graduate attributes – Inves-

tigation. Proceedings of the 1st CEEA Conference:

Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario June 7-9,

2010, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.v0i0.3143

Stoe, C. J., & Pryor, J. M. (1980). Competency-based

education and library instruction. Library Trends,

29(1), 55–67. https://www.researchgate.net/pub-

lication/306283368_Competency_Based_Educa-

tion_and_Library_Instruction

Treleaven, L., & Voola, R. (2008). Integrating the

development of graduate attributes through con-

structive alignment. Journal of Marketing Educa-

tion, 30(2), 160–173. https://search.ebscohost.

com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=E-

J801781&site=eds-live&scope=site

Watson, E., Ivey, M., Mohamed, Y., Musilek, P., Raboud,

D., Rajendran, A., & Carey, J. P. (2018). Building a

culture that values learning outcomes as an integral

part of eective program development - one faculty’s

example. Proceedings of the Canadian Engineer-

ing Education Association (CEEA) Conference

June 3-6, 2018 Vancouver BC, 1–4. https://doi.

org/10.24908/pceea.v0i0.12979

Contact Information

Samira ElAtia

[email protected]

Notes

1 Parker et al. (2019) provide a comprehensive summary

of the Canadian engineering graduate attribute literature

from 2010 to 2017.

2 In this paper and to avoid confusion, we will refer to the

general University Graduate Attributes as (UGAs), and

we will refer to the Canadian Engineering Accreditation

Board attributes as CEAB-GAs.

3 The International Engineering Alliance (IEA) is a

non-prot organization that establishes and enforces

international standards for engineering education to en-

sure quality and mobility.

4 Queen’s University, the University of Calgary, UBC, the

University of Toronto, Dalhousie, and the University of

Guelph (Frank et al., 2011; Kaupp et al., 2012; Kaupp

& Frank, 2016; Stiver et al., 2010; Stiver, 2011), Ryer-

son University (Easa, 2013; Salustri & Neumann, 2016;

Shehata & Schwartz, 2015), Concordia University (Go-

pakumar et al., 2013; Hamou-Lhadj et al., 2015), the Uni-

versity of Manitoba (Seniuk-Cicek et al., 2014; Sepheri,

2013), the University of Alberta (Dew et al., 2013; ElAtia

& Ipperciel, 2015a, 2015b; ElAtia et al., 2016; ElAtia et

al., 2020; Ivey, 2017; Ivey et al., 2018; Parker et al., 2019;

Watson et al., 2018), the University of Victoria (Gwyn,

2016, 2017; Gwyn & Gupta, 2015), and Memorial Univer-

sity (Spracklin-Reid & Fisher, 2012, 2014).

Intersecting Roadmaps of Graduate Attributes

S. ElAtia, J. P. Carey, M. Jamieson, B. AliBrahim & M. Ivey

Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur

51:1 (2021)

5 It is worth noting that other engineering schools manage

more than one set of Graduate Attributes.

6 Engineering program and course design using the CE-

AB-GA competency-based performance criteria in a

continual improvement feedback process utilizing a cur-

riculum design process concept map (Hattie, 2009) and

illustrating constructive alignment (Biggs, 1996). Dia-

gram Jamieson (2016).

7 UGAs are widely supported by students and student

unions within the university. The majority of the resis-

tance to the integration of the UGAs comes from univer-

sity professors.

8 UGA: Ethical Responsibility (ER); Scholarship (SC);

Critical Thinking (CT); Communication (CM); Collabora-

tion (CL); Creativity (CR); Condence (CF); CEAB-GA:

Knowledge base in engineering (KB); Problem analysis

(PA); Investigation (IN); Design (DE); Use of Engineering

tools (ET); Individual and team work (TW); Communi-

cation skills (CS); Professionalism (PR); Impact of en-

gineering on society and environment (IS); Ethics and

equity (EE); Economics and project management (EP);

Lifelong learning (LL)

Intersecting Roadmaps of Graduate Attributes

S. ElAtia, J. P. Carey, M. Jamieson, B. AliBrahim & M. Ivey

Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur

51:1 (2021)

Appendix A

Table A

List of Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board graduate attribute denitions with acronyms – referred to in text at

CEAB-GAs

Term Denition

1. A knowledge base for

engineering (KB)

Demonstrated competence in university level mathematics, natural sciences, engineering

fundamentals, and specialized engineering knowledge appropriate to the program.

2. Problem analysis (PA) An ability to use appropriate knowledge and skills to identify, formulate, analyze, and solve

complex engineering problems in order to reach substantiated conclusions.

3. Investigation (IN) An ability to conduct investigations of complex problems by methods that include appropri-

ate experiments, analysis and interpretation of data, and synthesis of information in order

to reach valid conclusions.

4. Design (DE) An ability to design solutions for complex, open-ended engineering problems and to design

systems, components or processes that meet specied needs with appropriate attention to

health and safety risks, applicable standards, and economic, environmental, cultural and

societal considerations.

5. Use of engineering tools

(ET)

An ability to create, select, apply, adapt, and extend appropriate techniques, resources, and

modern engineering tools to a range of engineering activities, from simple to complex, with

an understanding of the associated limitations.

6. Individual and team work

(TW)

An ability to work eectively as a member and leader in teams, preferably in a multi-disci-

plinary setting.

7. Communication skills (CS) An ability to communicate complex engineering concepts within the profession and with

society at large. Such ability includes reading, writing, speaking and listening, and the abili-

ty to comprehend and write eective reports and design documentation, and to give and

eectively respond to clear instructions.

8. Professionalism (PR) An understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the professional engineer in society,

especially the primary role of protection of the public interest.

9. Impact of engineering on

society and the environ-

ment (IS)

An ability to analyze social and environmental aspects of engineering activities. Such

ability includes an understanding of the interactions that engineering has with the eco-

nomics, social, health, safety, legal, and cultural aspects of society, the uncertainties in the

prediction of such interactions; and the concepts of sustainable design and development

and environmental stewardship.

10. Ethics and equity (EE) An ability to apply professional ethics, accountability, and equity.

11. Economics and project

management (EP)

An ability to appropriately incorporate economics and business practices including project,

risk, and change management into the practice of engineering and to understand their

limitations.

12. Life-long learning (LL) An ability to identify and to address their own educational needs in a changing world in

ways sucient to maintain their competence and to allow them to contribute to the ad-

vancement of knowledge.

Intersecting Roadmaps of Graduate Attributes

S. ElAtia, J. P. Carey, M. Jamieson, B. AliBrahim & M. Ivey

Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur

51:1 (2021)

APPENDIX B

Table B

List of Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board graduate attribute aspects and indicators as developed by the

University of Alberta Faculty of Engineering implementation team in conjunction with each program. Mechanical

Engineering is used as an example and discipline specic indicators are highlighted in grey.

1. A Knowledge Base for Engineering

Aspect Indicator

Mathematics Completes a sequence of math courses involving calculus, dierential

equations and linear algebra

Mathematics Self-assessment of knowledge base for mathematics

Chemistry Completes a sequence of physical chemistry courses

Physics Completes a sequence of foundational physics courses

Natural Sciences Self-assessment of knowledge base for natural sciences

Engineering Fundamentals Completes a sequence of foundational engineering courses

Engineering Fundamentals Self-assessment of knowledge base for engineering fundamentals

Specialized Engineering Knowledge Self-assessment of specialized engineering knowledge

Thermal Sciences Applies the principles of thermodynamics to solve multicomponent

power or refrigeration cycles

Solid Mechanics Applies the concepts of strength of materials to analyze failure by:

applied load; or by deection; or due to instability

Fluid Mechanics Apply the extended Bernoulli equation to a ow system that includes

local and distributed losses or pumps/turbines

Mechanics Apply the concepts of kinematics and dynamics to system of rigid

bodies that form a mechanism

Dynamics and Control Apply either root locus or Bode plots to design a lead/lag compensator

Bio Med Apply the basic concepts of solid mechanics to soft or hard tissue

2. Problem Analysis

Aspect Indicator

Understand the Problem Able to state the essential problem to address

Understand the Problem Self-assessment of ability to understand the problem

Assemble Knowledge Assembles the relevant models and formulae

Assemble Knowledge Self-assessment of ability to assemble requisite knowledge to solve

the problem

Intersecting Roadmaps of Graduate Attributes

S. ElAtia, J. P. Carey, M. Jamieson, B. AliBrahim & M. Ivey

Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur

51:1 (2021)

Apply Models Applies the appropriate formulae or technique to generate a result

Apply Models Self-assessment of ability to assemble requisite knowledge to solve

the problem

Evaluate Assesses the result for reasonableness and applicability to models

used

Evaluate Self-assessment of ability to solve the problem

3. Investigation

Aspect Indicator

Recognizes Unknowns Identies the unknown information or behavior to solve a problem

Measures Data Employs appropriate techniques to collect data

Analyzes Data Analyzes and interprets data

Analyzes Data Assess data uncertainty and error

Reaches Conclusions Reaches supported conclusions from the investigation and compares

to model or theory

Self-Assessment Self-assessment of ability to apply investigation

4. Design

Aspect Indicator

Requirements Determines appropriate regulatory, legal, environmental, social, and

ethical constraints and sensitivities

Requirements Elicits and articulates project requirements from the client

Creativity Synthesizes plausible solutions

Analysis Analyzes performance of proposed solution

Iteration Recognizes iterative process, rening solution until requirements met

Assessment Assesses impact of solution against social and environmental factors

as appropriate

Assessment Assesses eectiveness of solution against customer's requirements,

as well as impact on social and environmental factors

Self-Assessment Self-assessment of ability to design

5. Use of Engineering Tools

Aspect Indicator

Computation Uses computer programming to solve engineering problems

Intersecting Roadmaps of Graduate Attributes

S. ElAtia, J. P. Carey, M. Jamieson, B. AliBrahim & M. Ivey

Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur

51:1 (2021)

System Description Uses Computer Aided Design (CAD) software to dene complex

structural systems

System Modeling Uses nite numerical methods to numerically solve engineering

problems

Analysis Applies software to analyze thermos-uids or lumped parameter

dynamic models

Measurement Understanding of base measurement tools including one of: pressure,

temperature, length, strain, current and voltage

Self-Assessment Self-assessment of ability to use engineering tools

6. Individual and Team Work

Aspect Indicator

Time Management Completes essential tasks on time with an appropriate amount of

eort

Team work - Roles Understands and performs assigned role

Team work - Responsible Meets expected responsibilities and tasks

Team work - Participates Actively contributes to team discussion and planning

Team work - Respect Respects contributions of other team members

Team work - Member Self-assessment as team member

Team work - Leader Self-assessment as leader

7. Communication Skills

Aspect Indicator

Organized Message Presents information in an organized fashion

Writing Uses proper grammar and punctuation

Writing Uses language eectively

Reading Comprehends written document

Speaking Prepares and delivers an eective oral presentation

Use of Graphics Makes eective use of graphical elements to support message

Self-Assessment Self-assessment of ability to communicate complex engineering

concepts

Intersecting Roadmaps of Graduate Attributes

S. ElAtia, J. P. Carey, M. Jamieson, B. AliBrahim & M. Ivey

Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur

51:1 (2021)

8. Professionalism

Aspect Indicator

Legal Responsibilities Understands responsibilities and consequences set out under EGGP

Act and OHS legislation

Licensure Requirements Understands requirements for licensure in province, across Canada

and in USA

Safety Understands concepts of safety and risk management

Self-Assessment Self-assessment of professionalism

9. Impact of Engineering on Society and Environment

Aspect Indicator

Awareness of the Impacts of Technology

on Society

Completes ITS Elective

Impact Assessment Analyzes environmental impact of proposed engineering project

Impact Assessment Understands concepts of environmental impact in an engineering

context

Sustainable Design Understands concept of sustainability in engineering context

Sustainable Design Designs to meet sustainability criteria

Self-Assessment Self-assessment of awareness of impact of engineering on society

and the environment

10. Ethics and Equity

Aspect Indicator

Awareness of Ethical Issues Feels condent in ability to address ethical dilemmas

Code of Ethics Identies provisions of the APEGA Code of Ethics

Makes Ethical Choices Makes ethical choices in complex situations

Awareness of Equity Issues Identies situations containing equity issues

Awareness of Equity Issues Is aware of provisions within the Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship

and Multiculturalism Act

Awareness of Equity Issues Feels condent in ability to address equity

11. Economics and Project Management

Aspect Indicator

Engineering Economics Completes Engineering Economics required course

Intersecting Roadmaps of Graduate Attributes

S. ElAtia, J. P. Carey, M. Jamieson, B. AliBrahim & M. Ivey

Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur

51:1 (2021)

Engineering Economics Self-assessment of ability to incorporate engineering economics into

engineering practice

Economic Assessment Includes economic analysis within design project

Project Management Prepares and follows a project management process

Project Management Feels competent to manage a project

12. Life-Long Learning

Aspect Indicator

Curious Demonstrates an interest in sustaining learning

Able to Assess Needs Develops a research plan identifying information needed

Resourceful Identies and accesses appropriate sources of knowledge/ training

Discriminating Evaluates information sources critically for accuracy and relevancy

Self-Assessment Self-assessment of ability to address learning needs

Table C

Example of engineering graduate attribute mapping table

CEAB-GA #10: Ethics and Equity

Faculty of Engineering University

Sub-attribute Indicator Sub-attribute (Can-do statement)

Awareness of

Ethical Issues

Feels condent in ability to

address ethical dilemmas

1a. Global citizenship (Can consider issues from a global perspective)

1b. Community engagement (Can consider issues from the perspective

of their impact on the community)

1c. Social and environmental awareness (Can adopt the perspective of

the public good and take into consideration our embeddedness within

society and nature)

1d. Professionalism (Is willing to meet the level of expertise and deonto-

logical expectations of her intended profession)

Code of Ethics Identies provisions of the

APEGA Code of Ethics

1d. Professionalism (Is willing to meet the level of expertise and deonto-

logical expectations of her intended profession)

Makes Ethical

Choices

Makes ethical choices in

complex situations

1a. Global citizenship (Can consider issues from a global perspective)

1b. Community engagement (Can consider issues from the perspective

of their impact on the community)

1c. Social and environmental awareness (Can adopt the perspective of

the public good and take into consideration our embeddedness within

society and nature)

1d. Professionalism (Is willing to meet the level of expertise and deonto-

logical expectations of her intended profession)

Intersecting Roadmaps of Graduate Attributes

S. ElAtia, J. P. Carey, M. Jamieson, B. AliBrahim & M. Ivey

Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur

51:1 (2021)

CEAB-GA #10: Ethics and Equity

Faculty of Engineering University

Sub-attribute Indicator Sub-attribute (Can-do statement)

Awareness of

Equity Issues

Identies situations

containing equity issues

5a. Openness to diversity (Can engage with a diversity of people [in

terms of race, religion, cultures, classes, sex orientation and appear-

ance])

Awareness of

Equity Issues

Is aware of provisions

within the Alberta Human

Rights, Citizenship and

Multiculturalism Act

5a. Openness to diversity (Can engage with a diversity of people [in

terms of race, religion, cultures, classes, sex orientation and appear-

ance])

Awareness of

Equity Issues

Feels condent in ability to

address equity

5a. Openness to diversity (Can engage with a diversity of people [in

terms of race, religion, cultures, classes, sex orientation and appear-

ance])