CFES Engineering Academic Climate
Transcript of CFES Engineering Academic Climate
-
7/31/2019 CFES Engineering Academic Climate
1/24
Engineering Academic Climate
Report on the 2011 CFES Academic SurveyMichael Ross, Academic Commissioner
-
7/31/2019 CFES Engineering Academic Climate
2/24
ContentsExecutive Summary ................................ ........................................... ............................................... ..2
1.0 Introduction................................................................................... ............................................. ..3
2.0 Survey Format ................................................................ .......................................... ....................4
3.0 Results ........................................... ................................................ ....................................... .......4
3.1 Category Breakdown .. ................................................. ............................................. .................4
3.2 Student Breakdown by Province................................................................ .................................4
3.3 Academic Opportunities ............................................ ............................................... .................5
3.4 Value of Extracurricular Activities ................................................................ ...............................6
3.5 Graduate Attributes................................................................................. ..................................7
3.5.1 Most Important Attributes....................................................................... ............................7
3.5.2 Least Important Attributes .......................................... ............................................... .........8
3.5.3 Most Effectively Taught Attributes .......................................................................................9
3.5.4 Least Effectively Taught Attributes .............................................. ....................................... 10
4.0 Discussion of Results .................................... ................................................. .............................. 10
4.1 Engineering Attributes ....................................... ............................................... ....................... 11
4.1.1 Importance of Attributes ................................ ......................................... .......................... 11
-
7/31/2019 CFES Engineering Academic Climate
3/24
Executive SummaryA survey of 1,129 Canadian engineering students, 74 engineering professionals, and 22
engineering professors was carried out over the all of 2011, with the goal of examining the perspectives
of the different groups towards the twelve engineering graduate attributes developed by the Canadian
Engineering Accreditation Board. The results suggest a set of minor discrepancies between what each
group of individuals feel is important to an engineering graduate, as well as a discrepancy between whatis felt to be important and what is perceived to be the most effectively taught at Canadian post-
secondary institutions. In particular, communication skil ls were perceived to be both very important to
engineering graduates and very poorly taught.
The results of this survey are not meant to be interpreted strictly scientifically, but it is felt that
they are representative of the opinions of students in Canadian engineering institutions.
-
7/31/2019 CFES Engineering Academic Climate
4/24
1.0 Introduction
The Canadian Federation of Engineering Students (CFES) is a national organization whose goal is
to provide bilingual opportunities in support of an all -encompassing education for engineering students
in Canada [1]. The CFES is composed of student representatives from all post-secondary institutions in
Canada that have at least one engineering program accredited by the Canadian Engineering
Accreditation Board (CEAB), and is run by a team of volunteers from across the country. As an
organization, the CFES is invited to provide input in various Engineers Canada committees, and serves torepresent the interests of approximately 60,000 engineering students across Canada.
Recently, there has been a perceived lack of soft skills taught at Canadian engineering
institutions relative to the core engineering fundamentals, leading t o concerns about well-rounded
engineering graduates and the availability of complementary education options for engineering
students. At the annual CFES Congress in 2010, a motion was passed to develop a draft paper detailing
the merits of taking courses beyond engineering; this paper suggested that the CFES supports theinclusion of complementary education courses in engineering curricula, but used statistics primarily
from a survey of students and alumni from the University of Ill inois as well as the Eu ropean Journal of
Engineering Education [2]. The report from the University of Illinois was based on approximately 300
responses [3], and it was felt that a larger survey could easily be performed by the CFES.
In order to further develop the need for complementary education options in Canada, i t is clear
that up-to-date statistics for Canadian students and graduates are required. The survey presented in this
report was the responsibility of the CFES Academic Commissioner, and was conducted over a period of
two months between September and October 2011. The primary goals of the survey were to examine
the perceived importance of various aspects of engineering education, as well as the perceived quality
-
7/31/2019 CFES Engineering Academic Climate
5/24
education in these attributes. These attributes were chosen as they appear to be an objective and
international standard for measuring engineering education.
Additional questions in the survey were used to examine the opportunities for students to get
engaged in co-op work placements, as well as to participate in undergraduate research opportunities.
2.0 Survey FormatThe survey was produced using the Survey Monkey software, and was advertised in several
phases. Advertising for the survey included: approaching individual engineering student societies to
promote the survey to their student body, approaching individual post-secondary institutions to
promote the survey to their student body and staff, and approaching the provincial engineering
associations to promote the survey through their advertising media. As this survey was directed more
towards the opinions of the students, a greater focus was placed on soliciting student responses, which
included Facebook and LinkedIn advertising campaigns.
The survey had options to be answered in either English or French, and had three separate
branches depending on if the respondent self-identified as an engineering student, professor, or
professional. The average student taking the survey was asked 16 questions, most of which were to
learn background information of the student such as which language they would prefer for the survey,
which institution they attended, and which degree program they were studying.
3.0 Results
-
7/31/2019 CFES Engineering Academic Climate
6/24
Table 2: Provincial Breakdown
Responses Turnout
Alberta 92 1.4%
British Columbia 139 3.1%
Manitoba 8 0.8%
New Brunswick 197 12.4%
Newfoundland and Labrador 18 2.3%Nova Scotia 166 11.4%
Ontario 351 1.4%
Prince Edward Island 18 17.6%
Qubec 125 0.8%
Saskatchewan 15 0.8%
3.3 Academic Opportunities
Three questions were asked about students academic opportunities: Figure 1 represents the
responses to the question Are you currently part of a program that includes a co-op work term? and
Figure 2 represents the responses to the question Have you ever had the opportunity to participate in
undergraduate research? The students who answered Yes to the latter question were then asked a
follow-up question as to whether or not they ended up participating in undergraduate research, the
results of which are also included in Figure 2.
Fig. 1: Co-op Participation
-
7/31/2019 CFES Engineering Academic Climate
7/24
3.4 Value of Extracurricular Activities
Survey respondents who self -identified as Engineering Professionals were asked the question
When hiring an engineering graduate, what is the order of importance for the following attributes?
The results of this question are presented as Figure 3:
15.6%
11.9%
72.5%
Fig. 2: Undergraduate Research
Opportunity
Did participate
Did not participate
Have not been offered
Fig. 3: Value of Extracurricular
Activities
-
7/31/2019 CFES Engineering Academic Climate
8/24
weighted average of the responses, with higher numbers represented the extracurricular activities that
were viewed as most important.
3.5 Graduate AttributesFour questions were asked about the importance and education level of the twelve graduate
attributes as developed by the CEAB. For each question, survey participants were asked to pick up to
three responses they felt were most representative of their views. Each question also contained a link to
the CEAB definitions of the graduate attributes.
3.5.1 Most Important Attributes
Figure 4 represents the results to the question Which of the following attributes do you
consider the most important for an engineering graduate? The results presented were broken down
into the three categories of student, professor, and professional:
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Fig. 4: Most Important Attributes
Professionals
St d t
-
7/31/2019 CFES Engineering Academic Climate
9/24
3.5.2 Least Important Attributes
Figure 5 represents the results to the question Which of the following attributes do you
consider the least important for an engineering graduate?
0%
5%
10%15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Fig. 5: Least Important Attributes
Professionals
Students
Professors
-
7/31/2019 CFES Engineering Academic Climate
10/24
3.5.3 Most Effectively Taught Attributes
Figure 6 represents the results to the question Which of the fol lowing attributes do you feel are
the most effectively mastered by engineering students as a result of their post-secondary education?
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Fig. 6: Most Effectively Taught Attributes
Professionals
Students
Professors
-
7/31/2019 CFES Engineering Academic Climate
11/24
3.5.4 Least Effectively Taught Attributes
Figure 7 represents the results to the question Which of the fol lowing attributes do you feel are
the least effectively mastered by engineering students as a result of their post-secondary education?
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%Fig. 7: Least Effectively Taught Attributes
Professionals
Students
Professors
-
7/31/2019 CFES Engineering Academic Climate
12/24
results therefore should not be interpreted as scientifically accurate, but will be used for discussion
purposes in general discussions regarding the differences in results.
4.1 Engineering AttributesIn general, it should be noted that individuals taking this survey answered chose a higher
average number of most important attributes than least important attributes, when offered a
choice of up to three of each. As wel l, when given a choice between most effectively taught and least
effectively taught, respondents chose a higher number of the attributes that were least effectively
taught, although the difference between the two was much less than when asked about importance.
This suggests that, while these attributes are viewed in general as important, there is not a strong
consensus that these attributes are all viewed as well-taught. It also suggests a general reluctance to
label three of these attributes as the each being the least important.
In order to effectively discuss the results, the twelve attributes will be broken into two broad
groups: a group of hard engineering skills (knowledge base, problem analysis, investigation, design,
use of engineering tools, and individual and team work), and a group of soft engineering skills
(communication skills, professionalism, impact on the environment, ethics, economics, and life -long
learning). These groupings are more-or-less arbitrary, and represent simply a general perception of the
skill-set required for any given attribute.
4.1.1 Importance of Attributes
The questions regarding the importance of engineering attributes provided interesting results.When asked which attributes respondents felt were the most important, the general trend seemed to
suggest that, for knowledge base, problem analysis, investigation, use of tools, and professionalism all
three categories of respondent ere more or less completel agreed on the importance Team ork and
-
7/31/2019 CFES Engineering Academic Climate
13/24
When asked about the least important attributes, the results were similar with a few notable
exceptions: engineering students were significantly more likely to feel that investigation was least
important, engineering professors were significantly more likely to feel that life -long learning was least
important, and again engineering professionals were twice as likely to answer that impact on the
environment was the least important engineering graduate attribute than either students or professors.
4.1.2 Effectiveness of Education
The questions regarding the effectiveness of engineering education across the twelve attributes
presents the most visual distinction between the hard and soft ski lls. Of the six attributes considered
hard skills, all but investigation were considered to be better taught than the any of the soft skills
across students, professors, and professionals, and on average investigation was more -or-less tied with
communication skil ls for sixth place. A similar trend is noted in the responses for the least effectively
taught attributes, where all of the hard skills apart from design have significantly lower response rates
than any of the soft skil ls. For both questions, the response rates across the three groups of respondents
were very similar, producing nearly-identical trends for both questions.
There are several potential explanations for this trend. First of all, it could be said that, on
average, engineers and engineering students feel hard skills are taught approximately two to four
times better than soft skills, based on the average response rate for each group. While it certainly
appears as though there is a high degree of agreement on this question, it is also w orth pointing out that
attributes such as life- long learning, professionalism, and communication are inherently more difficult to
measure, especially compared to knowledge base, problem analysis, and use of engineering tools. It istherefore l ikely that some of the disparity between the two skill-sets is due to the difficulty in measuring
the effective learning of certain skills.
-
7/31/2019 CFES Engineering Academic Climate
14/24
Table 3: Attribute Comparison for Students
Most Important Least Important Best Taught Worst Taught
Problem analysis Investigation Knowledge base Communication skills
Knowledge base Economics Problem analysis Professionalism
Communication skills Use of tools Team work Economics
Design Life-long learning Use of tools Environmental impact
Team work Environmental impact Design Ethics
Environmental impact Ethics Communication skills Life- long learning
Table 4: Attribute Comparison for Professionals
Most Important Least Important Best Taught Worst Taught
Problem analysis Environmental impact Knowledge base Communication skills
Communication skills Economics Problem analysis Professionalism
Knowledge base Use of tools Use of tools Economics
Team work Design Team work EthicsEconomics Investigation Design Design
Professionalism Life-long learning Investigation Life-long learning
Table 5: Attribute Comparison for Professors
Most Important Least Important Best Taught Worst Taught
Problem analysis Life- long learning Knowledge base Communication skills
Communication skills Use of tools Problem analysis Ethics
Knowledge base Economics Team work Professionalism
Design Environmental impact Use of tools Life-long learning
Team work Investigation Design Environmental impact
-
7/31/2019 CFES Engineering Academic Climate
15/24
Graduate attributes such as engineering knowledge base, problem analysis, team work, and
design are considered to be both very important and well taught in post-secondary institutions.
Attributes such as communication skills and impact on the environment, on the other hand, areconsidered very important and poorly taught.
Some attributes, such as teamwork, communication skills, design, and environmental impactwere considered to be of similar importance to students and faculty, while being viewed very
differently by professional engineers.
Though it is understood that changing engineering curricula is difficult, it is recommended that
some of the following recommendations be examined:
Update curricula to be more reflective of the needs of actual engineers in the workplace. Inparticular, the teaching and development of attributes such as communication and team work
that appear to be more highly valued by professional engineers than students or professors
could be improved.
Incorporate more learning of soft skills in engineering education. Communication skills,professionalism, and l ife-long learning cannot be easily taught in the same way as math and
science, and a diversification of teaching styles, perhaps through complementary education,
may be worth pursuing in order to reduce the disparity in teaching quality of these attributes.
Increase opportunities for students to participate in undergraduate research, co-op workplacements, and leadership and volunteering. These opportunities are clearly valued by both
students and employers, and can help develop skills that would not normally be developed in a
classroom setting.
-
7/31/2019 CFES Engineering Academic Climate
16/24
5. Engineers Canada. Canadian Engineers for Tomorrow: Trends in Engineering Enrolment andDegrees Awarded. http://www.engineerscanada.ca/files/w_report_enrolment_eng.pdf
(Accessed December 1, 2011). 2011.
http://www.engineerscanada.ca/files/w_report_enrolment_eng.pdfhttp://www.engineerscanada.ca/files/w_report_enrolment_eng.pdfhttp://www.engineerscanada.ca/files/w_report_enrolment_eng.pdf -
7/31/2019 CFES Engineering Academic Climate
17/24
Appendix A: Turnout Breakdown
-
7/31/2019 CFES Engineering Academic Climate
18/24
UniversityofAlberta 70 1.8% 3892
UniversityofCalgary 22 0.8% 2714
SimonFraserUniversity 5 0.9% 565
UniversityofBritishColumbia 131 4.8% 2734
UniversityofNorthernBritishColumbia 2 3.6% 56
UniversityofVictoria 1 0.1% 1114
UniversityofManitoba 8 0.8% 1064
UniversitdeMoncton 0 0.0% 325
UniversityofNewBrunswick 197 15.5% 1267
MemorialUniversityofNewfoundland 18 2.3% 787
AcadiaUniversity 1 1.2% 86
DalhousieUniversity 160 14.7% 1090
NovaScotiaAgriculturalCollege 0 0.0% 47
SaintMary'sUniversity 3 1.9% 157
SaintFrancisXavierUniversity 2 2.5% 79
-
7/31/2019 CFES Engineering Academic Climate
19/24
UniversityofPrinceEdwardIsland 18 17.6% 102
ConcordiaUniversity 10 0.4% 2784
EcoledeTechnologieSuprieure 25 0.8% 3221
EcolePolytechniquedeMontral 9 0.3% 3295
McGillUniversity 31 1.2% 2669
UniversitdeSherbrooke 15 1.3% 1150UniversitduQubecAbitibi-Tmiscamingue 1 1.9% 52
UniversitduQubecChicoutimi 3 1.2% 255
UniversitduQubecMontral 0 0.0% 53
UniversitduQubecRimouski 2 2.4% 83UniversitduQubecTrois-Rivires 6 3.6% 165
UniversitduQubecenOutaouais 0 0.0% 32
UniversitLaval 23 0.9% 2470
UniversityofRegina 6 0.8% 751
UniversityofSaskatchewan 9 0.7% 1249
-
7/31/2019 CFES Engineering Academic Climate
20/24
Appendix B: Provincial Results
-
7/31/2019 CFES Engineering Academic Climate
21/24
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Most Important
Alberta
British Columbia
Manitoba
New Brunswick
Newfoundland a nd Labrador
Nova Scotia
Ontario
Prince Edward Island
Quebec
Saskatchewan
-
7/31/2019 CFES Engineering Academic Climate
22/24
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Least Important Attributes
Alberta
British Columbia
Manitoba
New Brunswick
Newfoundland and Labrador
Nova Scotia
Ontario
Prince Edward Island
Quebec
Saskatchewan
-
7/31/2019 CFES Engineering Academic Climate
23/24
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Most Effectively Mastered Attributes
Alberta
British Columbia
Manitoba
New Brunswick
Newfoundland and Labrador
Nova Scotia
Ontario
Prince Edward Island
Quebec
Saskatchewan
-
7/31/2019 CFES Engineering Academic Climate
24/24
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Least Effectively Mastered Attributes
Alberta
British Columbia
Manitoba
New Brunswick
Newfoundland and Labrador
Nova Scotia
Ontario
Prince Edward Island
QuebecSaskatchewan