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


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


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.


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


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


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


7/24

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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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.


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


17/24

Appendix A: Turnout Breakdown


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


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


20/24

Appendix B: Provincial Results


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


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


Quebec

Saskatchewan


23/24

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Most Effectively Mastered Attributes

Alberta

British Columbia

Manitoba

New Brunswick


Nova Scotia

Ontario


Quebec

Saskatchewan


24/24

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Least Effectively Mastered Attributes

Alberta

British Columbia

Manitoba

New Brunswick


Nova Scotia

Ontario


QuebecSaskatchewan

cfes engineering academic climate

Documents