Conference Proceedings 2023 Canadian Engineering Education Association-Association canadienne de l'éducation en génie

DEVELOPMENT OF OUTCOME-BASED ASSESSMENT

METRIC FOR ENGINEERING PROGRAM
ACCREDITATION

Hooman Nabovati1, Paula Ogg2, Mouhamed Abdulla1, and Jon Berge1

1. Faculty of Applied Science and Technology, 2. Sheridan Centre for Academic Excellence
Sheridan College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning, Ontario, Canada
hooman.nabovati@sheridancollege.ca

Abstract – The Canadian Engineering Accreditation
Board (CEAB) requires engineering programs to assess
twelve high-level educational graduate attributes. For
evidence of teaching and learning of these engineering
attributes, we developed a framework founded on
pedagogical practices from backwards design,
constructive alignment, outcome-based education, and
student-centred learning. This quantifiable framework
offers a rigorous and tunable approach to systematically
aggregate performance results over a specified duration.
Alongside evaluation tools to measure graduate attributes,
we created a comprehensive common skills rubric to
evaluate performance-based learning activities. Overall,
the proposed framework offers an accurate and
sustainable solution for the assessment of CEAB graduate
attributes used for Bachelor of Engineering programs.
With high precision, results from this assessment process
can shed light on a set of factors that impact students’
performance in achieving outcomes of a particular
engineering program. The results can also build a
foundation that triggers continual improvement in
teaching and learning courses in engineering programs.
Keywords: Engineering Accreditation, Outcome-Based
Metric, Graduate Attributes, Common Skills Rubric,
Engineering Education.
1. INTRODUCTION
The Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board
(CEAB) requires programs to evaluate twelve graduate
attributes (the list is shown in Fig. 2). The accreditation
board demands that programs assess graduate attributes at
different levels across the curriculum, namely, as either
introduced, developed, or applied/advanced [1]. To further
expand on the process, the Engineering Graduate
Attribution Development (EGAD) project suggested a six-
step approach for mapping indicators to the curriculum,
i.e., defining program objectives and indicators, mapping
indicators across the curriculum, collecting data,
analyzing, and interpreting the data, improving the
curriculum and related processes, and finally managing and
implementing change [2]. In fact, as part of the consent
renewal process for engineering degrees, colleges should
regularly show evidence that programs are meeting the
academic standards, and that students are achieving the
program and course level outcomes.
Currently, for the consent renewal process, analysis is a
manual endeavour that is mostly qualitative in nature. It
entails collecting sample work, assignments, and exam
papers from students, reviewing documents, and sharing
anecdotes. It may also include focus group discussions,
questionnaires, and surveys administered by the respective
provincial Ministry for post-secondary education. For data-
informed decision making, quantitative process is surely
more appealing. A systematic and more sustainable
approach to measure and explicitly reveal data points of the
graduate attributes is therefore needed.
In this paper, we develop a framework to aggregate
results incoming from diverse data sources to derive a
substantiated conclusion on the assessment of CEAB
graduate attributes. Empowered by pedagogical practices
of backwards design, constructive alignment, outcome-
based education, and student-centred learning, a
comprehensive common skills rubric is developed. The
rubric is used to evaluate performance-based activities
such as projects, presentations, work-integrated learnings,
and laboratory assignments using defined indicators.
Educators and subject matter experts in the field
determined where there were relevant indicators of the
graduate attributes in each course within the engineering
program. Using formal evaluation tools and the common
skills rubric, the indicators measure the related graduate
attributes across the span of the program. The significance
of each evaluation based on the course evaluation plan and
the design of various assessment tools is quantified. A
discussion of the mechanics of implementing the proposed
framework and algorithm to assess graduate attributes is
provided.
Remarks on how this pedagogical quantification
approach can be used as an effective tool to identify
teaching and learning gaps is also presented in this work.

CEEA-ACÉG23; Paper 132

Okanagan College & UBC-Okanagan; June 18 – 21, 2023 – 1 of 7 – Peer reviewed
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Conference Proceedings 2023 Canadian Engineering Education Association-Association canadienne de l'éducation en génie
2. PEDAGOGICAL APPROACH
For our engineering program, we carefully defined
indicators for each of the graduate attributes. This is done
using pedagogical practices from backwards design [3],
constructive alignment [4], outcome-based learning [5][6],
student-centred learning. Best practices from the conceive,
design, implement, operate (CDIO) standards are also
incorporated [7], [8].
In this treatment, we also looked at different taxonomies
of verbs to differentiate rubric descriptions with an
engineering context. Beyond Bloom’s taxonomy, the
structure of observed learning outcomes (SOLO)
taxonomy (see e.g., [9]) was particularly useful. It is used
to scaffold and show graduate attributes as a function of (i)
different levels of learning (i.e., introduced, developed, or
applied); (ii) semester and year of study; and (iii) for
diverse target audiences (i.e., self, team, project work, or
for society at large).
As part of our process, we did a comparative analysis of
what other engineering programs did to satisfy the CEAB
requirements. In particular, we examined the McGill [10]
indicators and assessment rubric and McMaster [11]
indicators. Using our backwards design and student-
centred approach, we choose to write our rubric using
SOLO rather than Bloom and reading from left to right
with an A+ in the first top quadrant on how to achieve
success towards a B developing and a C emerging skill. We
also choose to use positive active voice language that a
student could pose a question about on how to move
towards success. Additionally, we examined the Ryerson
indicators [12]. Again, we choose to use our backwards
design and student-centred approach to write our indicators
from the accomplishing standard in 4th year down towards
the introductory standard in 1st year. Similar to our rubric,
Ryerson wrote all indicators in positive active voice
language. We feel that the essence of our indicators is in
alignment with the other engineering programs.
Of course, it is not expected that students in first
semester have mastery of graduate attributes such as
design, problem analysis, or investigation. Likewise,
waiting until the end of a program to introduce ethics and
equity is professionally unsuitable. Ultimately, scaffolding
with explicit criteria is essential for students’ success and
future.
3. RATIONALE FOR ASSESSING GRADUATE
ATTRIBUTES
The graduate attributes are defined by CEAB and the
curriculum of the Bachelor of Engineering (Electrical
Engineering) program at Sheridan College has been
developed to support graduates in achieving these
outcomes. Assessment of the graduate attributes is
essential to evaluate the effectiveness of the program in
achieving its high-level academic goals. This ongoing
CEEA-ACÉG23; Paper 132
Okanagan College & UBC-Okanagan; June 18 – 21, 2023 – 2 of 7 –
process is a critical to ensure the academic quality in the
Bachelor of Engineering (Electrical Engineering) program.
Achieving these attributes ensure that graduates possess
the professional skill set and technical competency
required to build a successful careers as future professional
engineers and in return positively contribute to society.
The purpose and rationale of the assessment of graduate
attributes for the Bachelor of Engineering (Electrical
Engineering) program is visualized in the diagram of Fig.
1. We should highlight that graduate attributes cannot be
measured directly through students’ learning activities and
regular evaluations. As a workaround, a set of measurable
learning outcomes, called indicators, can be defined at the
program level. These indicators cover various aspects and
qualities of the graduate attributes. The indicators are
measured granularly for all pertinent learning outcomes
used to assess graduate attributes. The indicators are
assessed in various courses using a variety of tools,
including, examinations, projects, case studies, laboratory
practice, peer-evaluations, and surveys.
Inputs
• Engineering
Curriculum
• Evaluation Tools
• Learning Outcomes
1. Program-Specific 4. Continual
4. Internal and
Indications Improvement
External Quality
Assurance
(Introductory,
Development, Applied)
3. Data Analysis of
3. Program
Assessment Results
Learning
2. Assessment of CEAB
Graduate Attributes
Outcomes
3. Data Storage of
Assessment Results
Output
Requirements for
CEAB Accreditation
Fig. 1. Importance of measuring graduate attributes in the
Bachelor of Engineering (Electrical Engineering) program.
We defined program learning outcomes aligned with the
graduate attributes. Therefore, the assessment of the
graduate attributes provides an accurate and sustainable
evaluation of the program outcomes. The results of this
assessment can be used to improve academic quality within
the program through internal and external quality
assurance procedures.
Furthermore, we analyze the results obtained from the
assessment of graduate attributes, and when there is an
insufficiency in students' performance on any of the
graduate attributes, we initiate the process of continual
improvement. This approach may lead to curriculum
changes that are escalated to institutional processes and
standards for implementing the change. The results also
support the revisions that may be required on selections of
Peer reviewed
Conference Proceedings 2023 Canadian Engineering Education Association-Association canadienne de l'éducation en génie

1. CEAB Graduate Attributes 3. Identify Courses for Assessment 4. Assessment of Indicators

• Knowledge base for engineering • Mathematics This is done at different levels of
• Problem analysis • Natural Sciences learning (i.e., introduced,
• Investigation • Engineering Science developed, and applied or
• Engineering Design • Engineering Design advanced) using course
• Use of engineering tools • Complementary Studies evaluation tools and common
• Individual and teamwork skills rubric (see Fig.3).
• Communication skills
• Professionalism
• Impact of engineering on Soc. and Env.
• Ethics and equity 2. Curriculum Mapping of LO to Indicators Mapping
• Economics and project management Graduate Attributes Common Skills Rubric
• Life-long learning
5. Course-Level Assessment
6. Aggregating the Assessment Results of Indicators for Selected
Results to evaluate Indicators Learning Activities

Indicator GA#
Graduate Attribute
6. Aggregating the Assessment
Results to evaluate Graduate
Attributes
Indicator GA#

Fig. 2. Systematic algorithm of data aggregation to assess graduate attributes.

assessment tools, and application of them to evaluate
students' learning activities.
Ultimately, the assessment results of indicators are
aggregated to measure the graduate attributes. The
assessment results of graduate attributes are then collected
throughout the program to create a repository of the
outcomes. This repository serves as evidence of the
effectiveness and cohesion of the program curriculum. This
procedure is an essential step for obtaining accreditation
from CEAB.
4. FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING GRADUATE
ATTRIBUTES
The evaluation of graduate attributes is performed using
a variety of assessment tools and in the context of learning
activities. Subject matter experts analyze the content of
each course to identify the most relevant graduate
attributes. For this process a repository is created that
contains all curriculum mappings. It also ensures that all
graduate attributes are evaluated adequately throughout the
program.
The process of assessing graduate attributes is described
in Fig. 2. As noted earlier, graduate attributes are measured
through the indicators at different levels of learning, either
at an introductory, developed, or applied/advanced. To
determine the level of learning, we developed a rubric that
examines learning outcomes of courses, level of
scaffolding, and year and semester in which the course is
offered. The rubric provides consistency in allocating the
levels of learning to each course.
In our metric, each graduate attribute is represented by
variable GA. This variable is generally assessed over three
to five courses. In the Bachelor of Engineering (Electrical
Engineering) program, each graduate attribute is evaluated
through three to five indicators, represented by variable
𝐺𝐺𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖 , where 1 ≤ 𝑖𝑖 ≤ 𝑁𝑁, such that 𝑁𝑁 represents the number
of indicators that are defined for a specific GA. These
indicators are assessed using various evaluation tools
including exams, tests, and performance-based evaluations
such as projects, laboratory assignments, and case studies.
The use of the common skills rubric ensures a high
degree of uniformity in the evaluation of performance-
based evaluations. For our assessment process, the results
are distributed across four different levels of learning
denoted by 𝐿𝐿 = 1, 2, 3, or 4. These learning levels are
defined for the grade ranges shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Levels of learning.
Level Grade Range
𝐿𝐿1 49% and below
𝐿𝐿2 50% to 64%
𝐿𝐿3 65% to 79%
𝐿𝐿4 80% and above
The assessment tools used to evaluate the indicators are
not equally significant. Their weights in the assessment
process should carefully be determined. The contribution
of evaluation tools to students’ final grades are clearly
defined in the evaluation plan of each course. When
evaluations assess multiple indicators, their weights are
adjusted proportionally. For instance, if a final exam
contributes 40% to the final grade of a course and only 25%
of the exam questions evaluate a specific indicator, the

CEEA-ACÉG23; Paper 132

Okanagan College & UBC-Okanagan; June 18 – 21, 2023 – 3 of 7 – Peer reviewed
Conference Proceedings 2023 Canadian Engineering Education Association-Association canadienne de l'éducation en génie
weight of evaluation for this indicator and through the final
exam should be adjusted to (0.4 × 0.25 × 100) = 10%. In
other words, the distribution of the assessment results for
that specific indicator will contribute to the overall
assessment of the graduate attribute with the weight of
10%. We should also remark that the indicators are
assessed at the question level in theoretical exams and
students’ grade distribution in the exam is not necessarily
equivalent to the assessment results of the associated
indicators. We begin aggregating the results when we have
obtained the assessment results for various indicators of the
graduate attribute 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 and determined the weight or
significance of the assessment tools for each result. Each
indicator such as 𝐺𝐺𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖 can be assessed by taking the
weighted average of all 𝑀𝑀 assessment results. It should be
noted that the value of M may be considerable since the
indicator could potentially be assessed several times across
multiple courses and through various tools. The overall
assessment of the indicator and in the level of learning 𝐿𝐿
can be calculated as follows:
∑𝑀𝑀
𝑗𝑗=1 𝑤𝑤𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 𝑛𝑛𝑗𝑗 (𝐿𝐿)
𝐺𝐺𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖 (𝐿𝐿) = (1)
∑𝑀𝑀
𝑗𝑗=1 𝑤𝑤𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗
Where 𝐿𝐿 could be either 1, 2, 3 or 4, and 1 ≤ 𝑖𝑖 ≤ 𝑁𝑁. In this
equation, the variable 𝑛𝑛𝑗𝑗 (𝐿𝐿) represents the number of
grades in level 𝐿𝐿 assessed through the 𝑗𝑗𝑡𝑡ℎ assessment and
𝑤𝑤𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 is the weight of the 𝑖𝑖 𝑡𝑡ℎ indicator for this assessment.
Despite being defined at different pedagogical levels, all
indicators make an equal contribution to the assessment of
the associated graduate attribute. The indicators cover
various aspects and qualities defined by the graduate
attributes. Therefore, the overall assessment of a graduate
attribute can be calculated as the average of all its
indicators with equal weights.
𝑁𝑁
1 (2)
𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺(𝐿𝐿) = � 𝐺𝐺𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖 (𝐿𝐿)
𝑁𝑁
𝑖𝑖=1
where 𝐿𝐿 is either 1, 2, 3 or 4, and 𝑁𝑁 represents the number
of indicators that are defined for the graduate attribute 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺.
This method can be easily adjusted to evaluate different
levels of content, introductory, developed, or applied/
advanced. This can be performed by calculating the
weighted average, as described in (1), on the assessment
results that are specific to a particular level of content.
5. ASSESSING THE INDICATORS THROUGH
LEARNING ACTIVITIES
We developed two different mechanisms to assess the
indicators. Instructors choose either of these mechanisms
based on assessment tools that are outlined and
CEEA-ACÉG23; Paper 132
Okanagan College & UBC-Okanagan; June 18 – 21, 2023
recommended for each course. For exams and theoretical
tests, each question is mapped to a course learning
outcome. In the Bachelor of Engineering (Electrical
Engineering) program, the learning outcomes in each
course have been mapped to indicators. This means that the
mark that students achieve for each question represents
their performance in the associated indicator.
On the other hand, for performance-based evaluations
such as projects, case studies, and laboratory assignments,
including non-traditional assessment tools such as peer-
evaluations or surveys, the common skills rubric is utilized
to assess the indicators directly. The common skills rubric
is also recommended for assessment of the complementary
skills such as communication, teamwork, and leadership.
When we unpack the significant skills that emerge from
the graduate attribute indicators, we can develop a common
skills rubric targeting these discrete skills. This tool
enables proper consistency in evaluating skills scaffolded
across the curriculum from course-to-course and from
year-to-year. This comprehensive rubric provides a
reference for the best academic practices whereby we can
parse the criteria for various learning activities.
The student-centred language of the rubric provides
students with constructive and actionable feedback that
leads them toward academic success. The rubric is
designed to evaluate the indicators throughout the program
and can be modified according to requirements of each
learning activity. Instructors could modify the rubric by
removing the indicators that are not relevant and assigning
numerical grades to each section of evaluations. The rubric
Input
Course Evaluation Tools
Theoretical Tests Performance-based
and Exams Type of Projects and Labs
Evaluations
?
Customize the
Common-skills Rubric
Assign Grade of Each
Question to the
Associated Learning Assess the Indicators
Outcome or Indicator using the Customized
Rubric
Output
Assessment Results for all Indicators
Assigned to a Course
Fig. 3. Assessment of indicators through exams and
performance-based evaluation.
– 4 of 7 – Peer reviewed
Conference Proceedings 2023 Canadian Engineering Education Association-Association canadienne de l'éducation en génie

could evaluate different criteria of learning activity and
assess the indicators quantitively. This process is captured
by the flowchart of Fig. 3, which describes a
straightforward method for assessing indicators through
various course evaluations.
6. IMPLEMENTING THE GRADUATE ATTRIBUTE
ASSESSMENT PROCESS
To further elaborate the process, we discuss the
assessment of the design graduate attribute in the sixth
semester of the Bachelor of Engineering (Electrical
Engineering) program at Sheridan College. This graduate
describes the different levels of learning, L1 to L4, for the
design indicators, DE.1 to DE.5. The descriptors are
developed using a student-centred language and they
provide students with constructive feedback. To help
readers gain a better understanding of the implementation
of our assessment methodology, we show in Appendix A
an excerpt of the common-skills rubric. In fact, the excerpt
of the rubric refers exclusively to the graduate attribute of
design.
100 Embedded App. Dev.
(ELEE-30893D)
90 DE1 DE2 DE3 DE4 DE5

attribute is mainly assessed in four courses of Embedded 80 Design of Digital Sys.

Application Development (ELEE30893D), Electric DE5 Electric Machines
70 (ELEE-31436D)
(ELEE-31139D)
Machines (ELEE31139D), Control Systems

Percentage (%)
60
(ELEE31186D), and Design of Digital Systems
(ELEE31436D). In the evaluation plan of each course, we 50 DE4 DE4 DE4
DE4 DE4 DE4
explicitly connect the assessment tools (e.g., project, 40 Control Systems
DE4
midterm test, and final exam) to possible learning 30
(ELEE-31186D)
DE3 DE3 DE3
outcomes. With this first mapping, we were able to build a DE4
20
comprehensive evaluation matrix for each course. DE3 DE3 DE3
DE3 DE4
As a second mapping, we associated the learning 10
DE3
DE4 DE1 DE1 DE1

outcomes of each course to appropriate indicators of

related graduate attributes. We were then able to clearly
interconnect assessment tools to graduate attributes by
superimposing these two mappings together. The
mappings between learning outcomes, evaluation tools,
indicators, and graduate attributes are all specified on the
course documentations.
At the program level, the design graduate attribute
should be assessed through 5 indicators, that are defined as
follows.
• DE.1: Define design requirements, specifications,
and constraints.
• DE.2: Consider external factors including
environmental, social, economic impacts as well as
health and safety in an engineering design.
• DE.3: Generate divergent solutions to a design
problem.
• DE.4: Develop a refined design to implement an
engineering project.
• DE.5: Evaluate the performance of an engineering
design.
The mapping of these indicators to the course evaluation
tools for the four courses is depicted in Fig. 4. Note that the
percentages listed on the chart specify the maximum
amount of correlation between the indicators and the
assessment tools. Instructors that assess graduate attributes
may choose to adjust the weights so that it is proportional
to the significance of the indicator in students’ overall
learning.
For projects, the design indicators are best assessed
through the common skills rubric. The rubric essentially
Evaluations / B.Eng. Course
Fig. 4. Evaluation components to assess the design
graduate attribute in the sixth semester of the Bachelor of
Engineering (Electrical Engineering) program.
Upon successful assessment of the indicators in these
four courses, the design graduate attribute could be
assessed through the algorithm discussed previously. In
this case, equation 1 should be adjusted as M = 22 since the
indicators are assessed using 22 learning activities
throughout these four courses.
7. CONCLUSION
We have developed a regimented procedure to assess
the graduate attributes at both courses and program level.
The graduate attributes are assessed using learning
outcomes to indicator mapping or a comprehensive
common skills rubric. An algorithm is developed to
determine the weight of assessments and evaluate
indicators and graduate attributes. The developed
procedure provides an accurate, sustainable, and adaptable
solution to assess graduate attributes for the program
accreditation, continual improvement, and educational
quality control. The proposed algorithm reveals explicit
and quantitative data for informed decision making. It is
also instrumental to identify areas of teaching and learning
gaps to explore and revisit through a focus group to
ultimately improve students’ learning experience.

CEEA-ACÉG23; Paper 132

Okanagan College & UBC-Okanagan; June 18 – 21, 2023 – 5 of 7 – Peer reviewed
Conference Proceedings 2023 Canadian Engineering Education Association-Association canadienne de l'éducation en génie

Acknowledgements [7] M. Abdulla, Z. Motamedi, and A. Majeed,

“Redesigning Telecommunication Engineering
Courses with CDIO geared for Polytechnic Education,”
This pedagogical research is supported by the School of
In Proc. of the 10th Conference on Canadian Eng.
Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Technology, Education Association (CEEA'19), pp. 1-5, Ottawa,
Faculty of Applied Science and Technology, and the ON, Canada, Jun. 9-12, 2019. DOI:
Centre for Academic Excellence, at Sheridan College. 10.24908/PCEEA.VI0.13855
[8] E. F. Crawley, J. Malmqvist, S. Ostlund, D. R. Brodeur
References and Kristina Edström, Rethinking Engineering
Education: The CDIO Approach. New York, NY:
[1] Engineers Canada, “Accreditation Criteria Springer, 2014.
Procedures.” Canadian Engineering Accreditation [9] J.B. Biggs and K.F. Collis, Evaluating the Quality of
Board, 2022. [Online]. Available: Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy (Structure of the
https://engineerscanada.ca/sites/default/files/2022- Observed Learning Outcome). New York, NY:
11/Accreditation_Criteria_Procedures_2022.pdf Academic Press. 1982.
[2] EGAD Project, “Step 2: Mapping Indicators to the [10] McGill Faculty of Engineering, “Graduate Attributes
Curriculum. Engineering Graduate Attribution Key Documents,” McGill University, 2017, Sep 28.
Development.” EDAG Project. Accessed: Mar. 23, [Online]. Available
2023. [Online.] Available: https://www.mcgill.ca/engineering/files/engineering/ru
https://egad.engineering.queensu.ca brics_0.pdf
[3] G.P. Wiggins and J. McTighe, Understanding by [11] McMaster Faculty of Engineering, “Graduate Attribute
Design. Association for Supervision in Curriculum Indicators,” McMaster University, 2017. [Online].
Development (ASCD). Alexandria, VA. 2005. Available:
[4] J.B. Biggs and C.S. Tang, Teaching for Quality http://mechfaculty.mcmaster.ca/~lightsm/gradatt/
Learning at University: What the Student Does. New [12] Fang, L, "CEAB Graduate Attribute Assessment at
York, NY: Open University Press, McGraw-Hill, 2011. Ryerson University," Ryerson University, 2014, Dec.
[5] W.G. Spady, Outcome-Based Education: Critical [Online]. Available:
Issues and Answers. Arlington, VA: American https://egad.engineering.queensu.ca/wp-
Association of School Administrators, 1994. content/uploads/2018/07/Ryerson-CEAB-Graduate-
[6] R.F. Mager, Preparing Instructional Objectives. Attributes.pdf
Belmont, CA: Fearon, 1984.

CEEA-ACÉG23; Paper 132

Okanagan College & UBC-Okanagan; June 18 – 21, 2023 – 6 of 7 – Peer reviewed
Conference Proceedings 2023 Canadian Engineering Education Association-Association canadienne de l'éducation en génie

Appendix A: COMMON SKILLS RUBRIC FOR GRADUATE ATTRIBUTE OF DESIGN

GA Indicators Evaluation Levels

Level 4 (80 - 100%) Level 3 (65 - 79%) Level 2 (50 - 64%) Level 1 (below 49%)
DE. 1 Define design • Processes the design Analyzes the problem Explains the design Needs to identify the
requirements, assignments as an and provides an requirements. Needs design requirements
specifications, and open-ended problem accurate list of design to address the and constraints.
constraints. with possible solutions. requirements. constraints.
• Connects the solution
and constraints.
DE. 2 Consider external • Considers all external • Considers most of • Considers some • Needs to consider the
factors including factors including external factors external factors effect of external
environmental, environmental, social, including including factors in the
social, economic economic impacts, environmental, social, environmental, social, engineering design.
impacts as well as health, and safety in economic impacts, economic impacts, • Needs to evaluate the
health and safety the engineering health, and safety in health, and safety in importance of each
in an engineering design. the engineering the engineering factor and clearly
design. • Prioritizes the design. design. prioritizes them.
contributing factors. • Lists the contributing
factors.
DE. 3 Generate Generates multiple Presents some design Needs to present a Needs to study the
divergent solutions design alternatives that solutions that address complete design design problem and
Design

to a design address the design some of key design solution. identify multiple
problem. problem. requirements. solutions considering
the constraints.
DE. 4 Develop a refined • Evaluates several Develops one solution Develops one solution Needs to consider the
design to design alternatives. that meets the design that meets some of the design requirements
implement an Chooses the solution requirements and design requirement. and constraints.
engineering that meets the design constraints.
project requirements and
constraints.
• Modifies the chosen
solution following a
systematic approach.
DE. 5 Evaluate the • Evaluates the Validates the design by • Assesses the Needs to evaluate the
performance of an performance of the comparing the performance of the design solution.
engineering design accurately. performance of the solution with general
design • Addresses the solution with the statements.
practicality of the design requirements. • Needs to build the
solutions. Connects statement based on
the discrepancies to the measurements or
the design constraints. analysis results.

CEEA-ACÉG23; Paper 132

Okanagan College & UBC-Okanagan; June 18 – 21, 2023 – 7 of 7 – Peer reviewed