The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Comparison of Institutional Approaches to CEAB Graduate Attribute Requirements
Open accessAbstract
This paper describes and compares the different approaches of seven Canadian institutions to the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) requirements for continuous quality improvement using graduate attributes. Program approaches are compared by: program objectives & management, indicators, curriculum mapping, assessment & data collection and curriculum improvement. The significant differences include approaches to curriculum mapping, data collection and curriculum improvement.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“More specifically, faculty are required to demonstrate processes that support ongoing program development, including the establishment of student performance indicators for each attribute, their alignment within a course map, and the associated assessment and evaluation methodologies [3].”
From Examining longitudinal patterns and course-level correlations in CEAB graduate attributes (2026) · cites this paper as [3]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- P. Wolf, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Volume 2007, Issue 112 (p 15-20).
- R. W. Brennan, R. Hugo, and W. D. Rosehart, "CDIO as an Enabler for Graduate Attributes Assessment: A Canadian Case Study," International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education (IJQAETE), vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 45-54, 2012.
- D. R. Brodeur and E. F. Crawley, "CDIO and quality assurance: Using the standards for continuous program improvement," Engineering Education Quality Assurance, pp. 211-222, 2009.
- G. Cloutier and R. Hugo, "Mapping the relationship between the CDIO syllabus and the 2008 CEAB graduate attributes," in Proceedings of the 6th International CDIO Conference. (Montreal, QC; June 15-18) 10 pp., 2010.
- B. Kerr, "Using a Web-based assessment tool for accreditation and program improvement," in 4th International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL), (Piestany, Slovakia:Sept 21-23) pp. 534-538, 2011.
- B. Frank and D. Strong, "Development of a Design Skill Assessment Tool," in Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association, (Kingston, ON: June 7-9) 6 pp., 2010.
- B. Frank, D. Strong, and R. Sellens, "The Professional Spine: Creation of a Four-year Engineering Design and Practice Sequence," Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association. (Saint John's, NFLD: June 6-8).11 pp., 2011
- B. Frank and S. Fostaty-Young, "What can our students do: Year 2 of graduate attribute assessment at Queen's University," Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association. (Saint John's, NFLD: June 6-8).6 pp., 2011
- G. Cloutier and R. Hugo, "Mapping the Relationship Between the CDIO Syllabus and the CEAB Graduate Attributes: An Update," Proceedings of the 7th International CDIO Conference. (Copenhagen, Denmark: June 20-23). 10 pp., 2011
- L. Romkey and S. McCahan, "A Workshop On Learning Objectives For Engineering Faculty Members," Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association. (Saint John's, NFLD: June 6-8).1 pp., 2011
- S. McCahan and L. Romkey, "Beyond Bloom's: Useful Constructs For Developing Graduate Attribute Indicators," Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association. (Saint John's, NFLD: June 6-8).1 pp., 2011
- S. McCahan, G. Allen, and L. Romkey, "Development of the Graduate Attribute Quality Assurance Process at the University of Toronto," Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association. (Saint John's, NFLD: June 6-8).6 pp., 2011
- C. Variawa and S. McCahan, "Investigation Of Language Used In Engineering Assessment," Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association. (Saint John's, NFLD: June 6-8).1 pp., 2011
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hernández-Campos, M., Hilliger, I., & García-Peñalvo, F.-J. (2025) · Proceedings of the 15th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference · doi:10.1145/3706468.3706518 · Cited by 9
Examining longitudinal patterns and course-level correlations in CEAB graduate attributes
Poitras, E. G., Poitras, G. J., & Ozyonum, E. (2026) · Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · doi:10.24908/pceea.2026.21655
Metadata
- Authors
- Kaupp, J., Frank, B., Brennan, R., McCahan, S., Narayanan, L., Ostafichuck, P., Sepehri, N., & Watts, K. C.
- Affiliations
- University of Calgary (CA)
- University of Toronto (CA)
- Concordia University (CA)
- University of Manitoba (CA)
- Dalhousie University (CA)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)
- Publisher
- Queen's University Library
- Published
- 2012-06-20
- ISSN
- 2371-5243 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1908825148
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 2.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Engineering Education and Curriculum Development
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education and Employability
- Keywords
- Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board, graduate competencies, continuous quality improvement, engineering accreditation, curriculum mapping, curriculum improvement, institutional approach
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Comparison of Institutional Approaches to CEAB Graduate Attribute Requirements. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.24908/pceea.v0i0.4642
- The paper
- Kaupp, J., Frank, B., Brennan, R., McCahan, S., Narayanan, L., Ostafichuck, P., Sepehri, N., & Watts, K. C. (2012). A Comparison of Institutional Approaches to CEAB Graduate Attribute Requirements. Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA). https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.v0i0.4642
