Engineering Academic Climate

Report on the 2011 CFES Academic Survey

Michael Ross, Academic Commissioner

Contents
Executive 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 4.1.2 Effectiveness of Education ................................................................................................. 12 4.1.3 Attribute Comparison........................................................................................................ 12 5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................. 13 References ....................................................................................................................................... 14

1|P age

Executive Summary
A 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 what is felt to be important and what is perceived to be the most effectively taught at Canadian postsecondary institutions. In particular, communication skills 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.

2|P age

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 to represent 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 to 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 the inclusion of complementary education courses in engineering curricula, but used statistics primarily from a survey of students and alumni from the University of Illinois 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, it 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 of education across these aspects. In order to provide consistency in evaluating the different facets of engineering education, the survey respondents were asked to compare their opinions on the twelve graduate attributes developed by the CEAB [4]. These attributes are: A knowledge base for engineering Problem analysis Investigation Design Use of engineering tools Individual and team work Communication skills Professionalism Impact of engineering on society and the environment Ethics and equity Economics and project management Life-long learning

The survey is not meant to be a reflection on the appropriateness of these attributes in evaluating an engineering graduates abilities, nor is it meant to be an evaluation of the quality of

3|P age

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 Format

The 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
3.1 Category Breakdown
A total of 1,449 individuals started the survey, and a total of 1,225 individuals completed the survey, leading to a completion rate of 85%. The breakdown between the three categories is presented in Table 1: Table 1: Category Breakdown Responses Percent Students 1,129 92.2% Professionals 74 6.0% Professors 22 1.8%

3.2 Student Breakdown by Province

Table 2 represents the results of student turnout by province. The en rolment numbers for turnout percentages are based off the 2011 Enrolment report from the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board [5]. A detailed breakdown by province and institution is available as Appendix A.

4|P age

Table 2: Provincial Breakdown Responses Alberta 92 British Columbia 139 Manitoba 8 New Brunswick 197 Newfoundland and Labrador 18 Nova Scotia 166 Ontario 351 Prince Edward Island 18 Qubec 125 Saskatchewan 15

Turnout 1.4% 3.1% 0.8% 12.4% 2.3% 11.4% 1.4% 17.6% 0.8% 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

45.9% 54.1%

In a co-op program Not in a co-op program

5|P age

Fig. 2: Undergraduate Research Opportunity

15.6%

11.9%

Did participate Did not participate Have not been offered

72.5%

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:

Fig. 3: Value of Extracurricular Activities

3

0 Participation in undergraduate research Participation in a co-op program Participation in student leadership

For the question in Figure 3, the survey participants were asked to rate each opportunity as either the most important, the least important, or a neutral option. Figure 4 represents the results of a

6|P age

weighted average of the responses, with higher numbers represented the extracurricular activities that were viewed as most important.

3.5 Graduate Attributes

Four 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:

Fig. 4: Most Important Attributes

80%
70%

60%
50%

40%
30%

Professionals Students Professors

20%
10%

0%

Participants were asked to select up to three responses for this question. The average number of responses selected by participant category was as follows:
Students Professionals Professors 2.97 2.95 2.82

7|P age

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?

Fig. 5: Least Important Attributes

45%
40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% Professionals Students Professors

5%
0%

The average number of selections made by category for this question is as follows:
Students Professionals Professors 2.31 2.20 2.14

8|P age

3.5.3 Most Effectively Taught Attributes Figure 6 represents the results to the question Which of the following attributes do you feel are the most effectively mastered by engineering students as a result of their post-secondary education?

Fig. 6: Most Effectively Taught Attributes

90% 80%

70%
60% 50%

40%
30% 20% Professionals Students Professors

10%
0%

The average number of selections made by category for this question is as follows:
Students Professionals Professors 2.87 2.67 2.68

9|P age

3.5.4 Least Effectively Taught Attributes Figure 7 represents the results to the question Which of the following attributes do you feel are the least effectively mastered by engineering students as a result of their post-secondary education?

Fig. 7: Least Effectively Taught Attributes

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Professionals Students Professors

The average number of selections made by category for this question is as follows:
Students Professionals Professors 2.72 2.72 2.73

4.0 Discussion of Results

In general, the participation rate amongst students was very successful. Though the students who responded to the survey were not chosen in a strictly scientific manner, it is felt that with such high numbers the results should be representative of the views of Canadian engineering students. On the other hand, the turnout for professors and professional engineers was quite low. This was partly due to the fact that the marketing for these demographics was not as high of a priority. These

10 | P a g e

results therefore should not be interpreted as scientifically accurate, but will be used for discussion purposes in general discussions regarding the differences in resul ts.

4.1 Engineering Attributes

In 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 well, 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 imp ortance. 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 were more or less completely agreed on the importance. Teamwork and communication skills, on the other hand, provided rather interesting results in both attributes, the engineering professionals were 10-20% more likely to think these were the most important attributes than the students and professors, who were virtually tied. Attributes like design and impact on the environment, however, had an opposite trend professors and students were very close in their results and consistently thought these attributes were more important than the professionals did. The remaining attributes, ethics, economics, and life-long learning, had varying results amongst the three categories, with no significant-looking outliers. This suggests that, for design, team work, communication skills, and environmental impact, post-secondary engineering institutions are perhaps out of touch with the values of professionals in the field. This is particularly interesting for communication skills as an attribute, as it was also found to be one of the least effectively taught attribute at universities. While i t is perhaps discouraging to note that four times as many students as professionals feel that the impact of engineering on the environment is the most important engineering graduate attribute, it is interesting to note the areas where students do not quite appreciate what a professional engineer needs in the workplace. 11 | P a g e

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 skills 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 skills. 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 is therefore likely that some of the disparity between the two skill-sets is due to the difficulty in measuring the effective learning of certain skills. Regardless, if these twelve attributes are all to be valued as fundamental to the education and development of engineers-in-training, the fact that there is a high degree of consensus regarding the disparity in the effectiveness of education suggests that more focus may be required on the development of the softer skills required in engineering. 4.1.3 Attribute Comparison The top six attributes listed for each question in descending order, across the three categories of respondents, are presented in Tables 3-5. Attributes that appear in both the most important and least effectively taught columns are highlighted in bold.

12 | P a g e

Most Important Problem analysis Knowledge base Communication skills Design Team work Environmental impact

Table 3: Attribute Comparison for Students Least Important Best Taught Investigation Knowledge base Economics Problem analysis Use of tools Team work Life-long learning Use of tools Environmental impact Design Ethics Communication skills

Worst Taught Communication skills Professionalism Economics Environmental impact Ethics 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 Ethics Economics Investigation Design Design Professionalism Life-long learning Investigation Life-long learning Table 5: Attribute Comparison for Professors Least Important Best Taught Life-long learning Knowledge base Use of tools Problem analysis Economics Team work Environmental impact Use of tools Investigation Design Design Investigation

Most Important Problem analysis Communication skills Knowledge base Design Team work Environmental impact

Worst Taught Communication skills Ethics Professionalism Life-long learning Environmental impact Economics

From Tables 3-5, it is evident that communication as a graduate attribute is generally thought of as simultaneously very important and ineffectively taught at Canadian post-secondary institutions. Other graduate attributes that fall under both categories simul taneously include impact on the environment, professionalism, and economics and project management.

5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

The following conclusions were developed based on the results of this survey: In general, engineering stakeholders perceive hard skills such as problem analysis, engineering knowledge base, and use of engineering tools to be more effectively taught at Canadian postsecondary institutions than soft skills such as communication skills, professionalism, and impact of engineering on the environment.

13 | P a g e

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, are considered very important and poorly taught. Some attributes, such as teamwork, communication skills, design, and environmental impact were 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. In particular, 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 life-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 work placements, 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.

In general, it is felt that a survey such as this could be of great benefit to both the CFES and Engineers Canada, in increasing the understanding of the CFES of the needs of its members, and in increasing the communication between the CFES and the CEAB in terms of what students feel is important or missing in their education.

References
1. CFES Policy Manual, http://www.cfes.ca/content/governing-documents (Accessed December 1, 2011). 2. Marcynuk, K. Well-Rounded Engineers. Internal report for the Canadian Federation of Engineering Students. 2010. 3. Smerdon, Ernest T. An Action Agenda for Engineering Curriculum Innovation. Proceedings of the 11th IEEE-USA Careers Conference, San Jose, Ca. 2000. 4. Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board. Accreditation Criteria and Procedures 2008. http://www.engineerscanada.ca/e/files/report_ceab_08.pdf (Accessed December 1, 2011). 2008. 14 | P a g e

5. Engineers Canada. Canadian Engineers for Tomorrow: Trends in Engineering Enrolment and Degrees Awarded. http://www.engineerscanada.ca/files/w_report_enrolment_eng.pdf (Accessed December 1, 2011). 2011.

15 | P a g e

Appendix A: Turnout Breakdown

P ro v inc e / Ins ti tutio n A lberta University of Alberta University of Calgary B ritish Columbia | Colombie-Brittanique Simon Fraser University University of British Columbia University of Northern British Columbia University of Victoria Ma nitoba University of Manitoba N e w Brunswick | Nouveau-Brunswick Universit de Moncton University of New Brunswick

Responses 70 22 1.8% 0.8% 1.4% 0.9% 4.8% 3.6% 0.1% 3.1% 0.8%

E nrolment 3892 2714 6606 565 2734 56 1114 4469 1064

5 131 2 1

0 197

0.0% 15.5% 12.4% 2.3%

325 1267 1592 787

N e wfoundland and Labrador | Terre -Neuve-et-Labrador Memorial University of Newfoundland 18 N o va Scotia | Nouvelle-Ecosse Acadia University Dalhousie University Nova Scotia Agricultural College Saint Mary's University Saint Francis Xavier University Onta rio Carleton University Conestoga College Lakehead University Laurentian University McMaster University Queen's University Royal Military College Ryerson University University of Guelph University of Ontario Institute of Technology University of Ottawa University of Toronto University of Waterloo University of Western Ontario University of Windsor York University

1 160 0 3 2

1.2% 14.7% 0.0% 1.9% 2.5% 11.4% 1.7% 4.0% 0.8% 1.2% 1.1% 0.7% 0.0% 1.3% 1.9% 0.4% 0.9% 0.8% 3.2% 1.4% 1.3% 6.1% 1.4%

86 1090 47 157 79 1459 2251 50 747 161 2946 2531 355 2310 474 1023 1595 4222 3903 1111 991 165 24785

38 2 6 2 32 18 0 30 9 4 15 33 124 15 13 10

P ro v inc e / Ins titutio n Responses P rince Edward Island | Ile-du-Prince-Edouard University of Prince Edward Island 18 Qu bec Concordia University Ecole de Technologie Suprieure Ecole Polytechnique de Montral McGill University Universit de Sherbrooke Universit du Qubec AbitibiTmiscamingue Universit du Qubec Chicoutimi Universit du Qubec Montral Universit du Qubec Rimouski Universit du Qubec Trois-Rivires Universit du Qubec en Outaouais Universit Laval S a skatchewan University of Regina University of Saskatchewan

E nrolment 17.6% 102

10 25 9 31 15 1 3 0 2 6 0 23

0.4% 0.8% 0.3% 1.2% 1.3% 1.9% 1.2% 0.0% 2.4% 3.6% 0.0% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.8%

2784 3221 3295 2669 1150 52 255 53 83 165 32 2470 16229 751 1249 2000

6 9

Note: Enrolment figures based on 2011 Engineers Canada report

Appendix B: Provincial Results

Most Important
80%

70%

60%

50%

Alberta
British Columbia

40%

Manitoba New Brunswick

Newfoundland and Labrador 30% Nova Scotia

Ontario

20%

Prince Edward Island Quebec

10%

Saskatchewan

0%

Least Important Attributes

70%

60%

50% Alberta
40% British Columbia Manitoba

New Brunswick
30%

Newfoundland and Labrador Nova Scotia

20%

Ontario Prince Edward Island Quebec

10%

Saskatchewan

0%

Most Effectively Mastered Attributes

90%

80%

70%

60%
Alberta British Columbia Manitoba 40%

50%

New Brunswick Newfoundland and Labrador Nova Scotia

Ontario Prince Edward Island

30%

20%

Quebec Saskatchewan

10%

0%

Least Effectively Mastered Attributes

80%

70%

60%

50%

Alberta
British Columbia

40%

Manitoba New Brunswick

Newfoundland and Labrador 30% Nova Scotia

Ontario 20% Prince Edward Island Quebec

10%

Saskatchewan

0%