A Way Forward: Assessing

the Demonstrated
Leadership of Graduate
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 181.118.39.116 on 12/04/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Civil Engineering
and Construction
Management Students
LEIGHTON A. ELLIS, M.SC.; AND

ANDREW K. PETERSEN, PH.D., C.ENG., MICE

ABSTRACT: The year 2007 was a year for visionary change in the field of civil engi-
neering in the United States. This vision did not go unnoticed in the Caribbean. At the
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering of the University of the West Indies,
the M.Sc. programs have been restructured to meet the U.K. Joint Board of Moderators
requirements for academic accreditation and to fulfill the mandate of the vice chancellor
to develop 12 desired attributes, with leadership being among them. A model was devel-
oped in a course, Practical Team Project, to measure the learning outcome of leadership
by combining the Project Management Institute body of knowledge areas and the Insti-
tute of Civil Engineers (ICE) development objectives. The course prepares students for
professional review at the Incorporated Engineering (I.Eng.) level with the ICE and gives
them similar standing in other Washington Accord signatory countries. This new initia-
tive for the university required innovative assessment techniques, such as 360-degree
feedback and zero tolerance, to evaluate the demonstrated leadership of the graduate
students. Analytical tools such as ANOVA and t-test were used to justify the effectiveness
of the chosen model.

APRIL 2011 88 Leadership and Management in Engineering

Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(2): 88-96

 E
ngineering education is intended to
prepare students for a career in a profes-
sion that plays a vital role in society
(McCuen 1999). This vital role includes
the exercise of leadership. Hilton (1996)
indicated that “engineering schools
must better train engineers for leadership roles.”
Industry leaders have been calling on educators to pro-
vide a more holistic education geared toward strong
interpersonal skills and application of systems think-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 181.118.39.116 on 12/04/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ing (American Society for Engineering Education
1995); engineering educators have been blamed for
emphasizing “scientific theory over practice, knowl-
edge production over applied critical thinking,
mechanical analysis over business applications and
technological advances over project management de-
velopments” (Bowman and Farr 2000).
Leadership has been described as one of the most
observed and least understood phenomena on Earth
(Burns 1979). Extensive research has been conducted
in academia and industry at large to further under-
stand this phenomenon in an attempt to narrow the
gap. The research has been ongoing for over 50 years,
and much is still to be learned as cultures and situa-
tions change in modern environments.
Leadership courses are taught widely in universities
and colleges globally, with an emphasis mainly on the
leadership abilities demonstrated by politicians, busi-
ness owners, and business theorists. In attempting to
determine the leadership abilities of students, re-
searchers have used various techniques developed in
industry, such as 360-degree feedback (Rao and
Rao 2005). Although this information provides good
knowledge to students, an actual assessment of their
demonstrated leadership would give a clearer indica-
tion of their abilities to lead in the real world. This
paper addresses the problem of assessing the demon-
strated leadership of graduate civil engineering and
construction management students in an academic
setting that mirrors the real-world environment.
In “The Vision for Civil Engineering in 2025,”
ASCE (2007) noted that civil engineering education
and early experience have been reformed. It also stated
that this change was driven in part by the recognition
that academia and industry need to cooperate and
partner in the delivery of school, university, and life-
long learning educational activities. Industry has ag-
gressively brought real-world issues into university
classrooms and has implemented broad steps to ensure
the continuing professional development of engineers
throughout their careers. The academic–industrial
partnership has enabled formal education to keep pace
Leadership and Management in Engineering
Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(2): 88-96
with new technologies and rapidly changing current
practices (ASCE 2007). A similar vision was described
by E. Nigel Harris, vice chancellor of the University of
the West Indies (UWI), in the 2007–2012 strategic
plan (UWI 2007). The plan calls for 12 desired attrib-
utes to be developed in graduates, with leadership
being among them.
RESTRUCTURING THE UWI ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT
To enact this vision, UWI’s Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, hereafter referred to as
“the Department,” has undergone changes in the pro-
grams it offers at the graduate and undergraduate lev-
els. The vice chancellor’s desired attributes were
woven into the M.Sc. programs—civil engineering,
civil with environmental engineering, and construc-
tion management—and became the learning out-
comes for the various courses within each program.
This was the first introduction of learning outcomes
into the programs in the history of the university.
The Department’s leadership values its current
international accreditation but is mindful of the global
changes that must be considered if that accreditation
is to be preserved. Globally, accreditation of engineer-
ing higher education has converged under the
Washington Accord (an agreement among worldwide
accreditors of engineering educational programs) to a
process that measures the learning outcomes of both
undergraduate and graduate degree programs, with
a requirement that candidates have a bachelor’s degree
and 30 North American (U.S.) or 120 European
Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS)
graduate credits to satisfy the educational base for pro-
fessional qualification.
In many ways, the degree programs in the Depart-
ment are structured using North American guidelines,
particularly in terms of the credit system, in which 3
North American credits are equivalent to 3 hours of
lecturing (USAeducation.us 2009) as opposed to the
ECTS, in which 5 credits equate to 10 hours of learn-
ing (Europa 2005). The Department could seek
accreditation from the Accreditation Board for Engi-
neering and Technology (ABET); however, during a
weekend seminar ABET held in Trinidad in Septem-
ber 2007, ABET noted that it planned to initiate
accreditation of the Caribbean accreditors an estimated
3 to 4 years following the date of the seminar.
However, the Department has a long history of
being accredited by the Joint Board of Moderators
(JBM 2010) in the United Kingdom, which acts
89 APRIL 2011
 on behalf of the U.K. Standard for Professional Engi-
neering Competence in accrediting civil, structural,
and highway engineering degree courses. Because
ABET is not ready to accredit Caribbean degrees
yet, there is no alternative but to continue seeking
accreditation from the United Kingdom.
The most recent JBM accreditation report, dated
2004, asked the Department to demonstrate, through
a paper submission, among other things, how learning
outcomes are assessed and the range of industrial
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 181.118.39.116 on 12/04/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
involvement. This was done in the summer of 2007
and gained approval. This departmental review of
its graduate programs led to a review of the kind of
graduate the Department wished to produce and
the capabilities students should have to satisfy the de-
mands of industry. Acknowledging that the Depart-
ment was accredited by the JBM led to a review of
what they would be looking for in a future accredita-
tion process. The Quality Assurance Agency for
Higher Education (QAA) document “The Framework
for Higher Education Qualifications in England,
Wales and Northern Ireland” (QAA 2009) noted
the following:
Typically, holders of an MSc qualification will be
able to:
(a) deal with complex issues both systematically
and creatively, make sound judgments in
the absence of complete data, and communi-
cate their conclusions clearly to specialist
and non-specialist audiences;
(b) demonstrate self-direction and originality in
tackling and solving problems, and act auton-
omously in planning and implementing tasks
at a professional or equivalent level;
(c) continue to advance their knowledge and un-
derstanding, and to develop new skills to a
high level; and will have:
(d) the qualities and transferable skills necessary
for employment requiring:
• the exercise of initiative and personal
responsibility;
• decision-making in complex and unpredict-
able situations; and
• the independent learning ability required for
continuing professional development.
As a result, the Department’s mission must be to
provide quality education at the undergraduate and
graduate levels in order to produce the vice chancellor’s
desired attributes: “critical and creative thinkers, prob-
lem solvers, effective communicators, knowledgeable
APRIL 2011
Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(2): 88-96
and competent leaders and team players, IT and infor-
mation literate, socially and culturally responsive,
ethical, innovative, entrepreneurial and lifelong learn-
ing” engineering graduates who will enhance the
quality of life and face future challenges within the
Caribbean and beyond (UWI 2007).
ASSESSING THE LEARNING OUTCOMES
This evaluation process in turn led to a redefinition of
the Department’s learning outcomes. On completion
of the M.Sc., according to the revised definition, suc-
cessful civil engineering candidates will be able, at
threshold (pass) level, to
1. Lead and work within teams to identify and
solve technical, business, social, cultural and
ethical issues in Civil Engineering both system-
atically and creatively, make sound judgments
in the absence of complete data, and communi-
cate their conclusions clearly to specialist and
non-specialist audiences;
2. Demonstrate self-direction, critical thinking
and originality in tackling and solving
problems, and act autonomously in planning
and implementing tasks using Information
Technology.
3. Continue to advance their knowledge and un-
derstanding, and to develop their new skills
to a higher level. Candidates will have the com-
petencies, qualities and transferable skills neces-
sary for employment requiring: the exercise of
initiative and personal responsibility; deci-
sion-making in complex and unpredictable si-
tuations; and the independent learning ability
required for continuing professional develop-
ment as a practicing Civil Engineer.
To achieve these learning outcomes, students must be-
come involved in working in teams (Outcome 1),
undertaking a design-oriented project (Outcome 2),
and undertaking a research project (Outcome 3), in
addition to and supported by the taught units. This
paper focuses its attention on Learning Outcome 1:
work in teams.
THE WAY FORWARD
The program learning outcomes in Learning Outcome
1 were woven into the course entitled Practical Team
Project, which is compulsory for M.Sc. students in the
construction management, civil engineering, and civil
with environmental engineering programs. At the
90 Leadership and Management in Engineering
 time of this research, a total of 45 students had taken
the course over 2 years. The course aims
• To simulate the project management activities of
professionals;
• To provide students with an opportunity to broaden
and deepen their understanding of the nature of the
project management process through practical ex-
perience; and
• To develop competence in the technical, manage-
rial, organizational, communicative, and teamwork
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 181.118.39.116 on 12/04/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
skills required in professional practice.
Learning Outcomes
To achieve these aims, four learning outcomes were
introduced: On successful completion of this unit,
students should be able, at threshold level, to
1. Lead and work within teams;
2. Identify technical, business, social, cultural, and
ethical issues for a given project;
3. Solve technical, business, social, cultural, and
ethical issues for a given project, both system-
atically and creatively, and make sound judg-
ments in the absence of complete data; and
4. Communicate conclusions clearly to specialist
and nonspecialist audiences.
Leadership Focus
As was the case in many other engineering education
institutions, leadership had been neglected in the cur-
riculum. Bowman and Farr (2000) believed that the
key to embedding leadership in the formal education
process is to mirror the real world. Project-based learning
(PBL) refers to the theory and practice of using real-
world work assignments on time-limited projects to
achieve mandated performance objectives and to facili-
tate individual and collective learning (Smith and
Dodds 1997). Bowman and Farr stated that leadership
skills are developed when students embarking on a
project are
• Required to develop project proposals,
• Organized into and lead project groups as is com-
monly accepted in industry,
• Held accountable for each group’s performance,
• Evaluated on their ability to lead a team,
• Required to coordinate with clients, and
• Tasked to give oral presentations.
According to McCuen (1999), leadership consists of
the knowledge and skills that the individual possesses
and uses to persuade others to enthusiastically work
Leadership and Management in Engineering
Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(2): 88-96
toward the completion of the plan of action that
the leader has established. A leader needs to effectively
motivate subordinates to successfully achieve the
established goals. In Successful Professional Reviews for
Civil Engineers (Steels 2006), the Institute of Civil
Engineers (ICE) defined leadership as being capable
of “setting the direction of a project or activity and
encouraging and guiding people towards that
direction.”
With these concepts of the engineering leader in
mind, the authors sought the attributes that would
best suit the criteria. The authors selected several
attributes identified by Rao and Rao (2005), who as-
sessed the leadership attributes of a group of students
in India, and developed others. These attributes are as
follows:
• Takes initiative to organize the team and ensures
that uncertainties are clarified,
• Helps peers define clear objectives;
• Delegates authority and encourages independence;
• Is decisive in taking action when needed;
• Exhibits a high level of self-confidence;
• Consistently looks for better ways of doing things;
• Is open to ideas from all quarters to find new ways of
solving problems;
• Strives to create an environment of collaboration,
team spirit, and trust;
• Is able to work with team members of diverse back-
grounds while maintaining the quality and quantity
of their interactions; and
• Is able to meet objectives set by the employer or
client.
Learning and Teaching Strategy
The overall objective of the M.Sc. program and this
course in particular is to help prepare the students
for corporate membership in the Institute of Civil En-
gineers or a similar professional body internationally.
As a result, the students are exposed to a learning
atmosphere that is as close as possible to the experience
of working on a real project. This course is a “capstone
project,” which calls on all the skills (learning out-
comes) of the other courses in the program and
emphasizes self-learning, creativity, project teamwork,
and communication skills, as well as judgment and
problem solving. The projects that the students
consider are deliberately chosen to be suitable for
interdisciplinary work, with students from other
departments in the university being involved, and
with input from experienced, practicing professionals
in addition to the academic supervisors and tutors.
91 APRIL 2011
 In this 15-week course delivered in the final teach-
ing semester of the program, the nine knowledge areas
of the Project Management Institute’s PMBOK
(Project Management Institute 2008) plus an addi-
tional objective (Submission of the Project Plan) de-
fine the weekly objectives that the leader of each
team is required to get his or her team to accomplish.
Each team consists of five members, one leader and
four team players. The roles of each individual change
every week: A new leader is selected from the teams
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 181.118.39.116 on 12/04/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
weekly, while the previous leader assumes the role of
team player on an entirely different project until the
opportunity is given again to become the leader of that
new project 4 weeks later. The leader in any particular
week is required to decide how best the workload can
be divided among the team players and to motivate
them to achieve their individual objectives before
the start of the class the following week.
Each week the current leader is assessed, using a
questionnaire, by the “client” and teammates on the
basis of the leader’s level of success in getting the team
to achieve the set goal for that week. The team players
are also assessed based on their demonstrated ability to
complete the task assigned to them by their current
leader.
Because the students’ team roles are changed each
week, they get the opportunity to lead a team only
twice, and hence to learn from experience and to im-
prove on mistakes made on the first attempt. The team
players are required to produce a one-page document
weekly that is assessed on the basis of zero tolerance—
that is, it has to be without errors and omissions and
has to be based on the task assigned by their leader.
Each team player is assigned an aspect of the weekly
objective that, when combined, should give a total
picture of the objective itself.
BRINGING IT ALL TOGETHER
In the assessment process for this course, new tech-
niques had to be incorporated to ensure that the course
objectives were met. This research incorporated a be-
spoke method of the 360-degree feedback model used
normally in human resource management. In pilot
research the authors conducted in 2008, the 360-
degree feedback technique was adapted to include
various assessment methods such as self-assessment,
peer assessment, and the traditional student assess-
ment by staff (Ellis & Petersen 2010). This was a
subjective means of assessment; however, studies con-
cerning assessment methods have shown self- and peer
assessments to be capable of providing summative
APRIL 2011
Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(2): 88-96
feedback (Mowl 1996, McDowell and Mowl 1996)
that can be used to assign a grade to a student. This
method was used to assess the students based on their
demonstrated leadership.
An objective means of assessment was also incorpo-
rated to assess the quality of work produced by the
team players. In research conducted by Reynolds et al.
(2004), the researchers developed an innovative idea of
zero tolerance for errors and omissions; zero tolerance
assessment is used in evaluating students’ weekly one-
page task reports. The reports are assessed weekly, and
up to three errors or omissions are highlighted. The
grade awarded to the student is based on the number
of attempts required to achieve an error-free submis-
sion. This was found to provide a reliable basis for
assessing students’ academic achievement. The grad-
ing in this application, however, varies slightly from
the work of Reynolds et al. (2004); for this study,
grading was as follows: correct on first attempt =
80%, second attempt = 70%, third attempt = 60%,
fourth attempt = 50%, and fifth attempt = 40%.
Fig. 1 shows the average number of attempts students
required to achieve an error-free submission on
each topic.
Overall Assessment Strategy
Learning Outcome 1—lead and work within teams—
is measured using a 360-degree feedback performance
appraisal. Learning Outcome 2—identify technical,
business, social, cultural, and ethical issues for a given
project—is measured via a project plan developed by
the team that identifies the issues to be solved; the
teams cannot proceed until the assessor deems this
plan satisfactory (zero tolerance). Learning Outcome
3—solve technical, business, social, cultural, and eth-
ical issues for a given project, both systematically and
creatively, and make sound judgments in the absence
of complete data—and Learning Outcome 4—com-
municate conclusions clearly to specialist and nonspe-
cialist audiences—are measured by oral presentations
to industry representatives and a timed written essay
on the project intended for a nonspecialist audience.
Assessment Schedule and Strategy
Coursework is graded in percentages divided among
five criteria in the following manner:
1. Group project plan (zero tolerance) = 20%
2. 360-degree feedback performance = 20%
3. Individual industrial interview = 20%
4. Individual essay = 20%
5. Personal ICE development objectives = 20%
92 Leadership and Management in Engineering
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 181.118.39.116 on 12/04/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure. 1. Average number of attempts to submit an error-free document for each objective by the 2010 cohort.

Preparation for Incorporated Professional

Review
Helping undergraduate master’s (M.Eng.) students
start completing their ICE development objectives
is not new, as is evidenced by work done by Langdon
and Petersen (1997) at the Department of Civil Engi-
neering at the University of Portsmouth, England.
What is new is that graduate students with a B.Sc.
who have had a year of experience in industry and
may be completing their master’s degree part time
have the work experience necessary to complete their Figure. 2. Responses to Question 6, “The feedback on the
development objectives for the Incorporated Engineer marked coursework was relevant to my career objectives.”
level. Incorporated Engineer is on the route to Char-
tered Engineer (C.Eng.), the leaders of the industry.

WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED

Using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS 2009), analyses were performed to verify and
validate the assessment methods. To evaluate the re-
sults of the 360-degree feedback used to assess dem-
onstrated leadership, analysis of variance (ANOVA)
was used. A Student’s (one-sample) t-test was used
to analyze the work of the team players in relation Figure. 3. Responses to Question 7, “The material covered
to the zero-tolerance assessment. A postcourse evalu- in the course was relevant to my career objectives.”
ation was also conducted to gain feedback from the
students on the design and delivery of the course
for possible improvements. Questions were also asked students, no significant difference was found among
of its relevance to their career objectives. The responses the raters in their evaluation of the leaders. This
to these questions are shown in Figs. 2 and 3. justified the hypothesis that the bespoke 360-degree
feedback method could be used to provide a summa-
360-Degree Feedback Evaluation tive grade for the students.
In 2009, the course was offered as an elective with a However, the findings of the 2010 cohort of 31 stu-
cohort of 14 students (Ellis and Petersen 2010). Since dents provided a different result. A significant differ-
then, it has become a core part of the curricula. Based ence of 0.002 (i.e., less than 0.05) was found between
on the analysis conducted with the 2009 cohort of the leaders and the evaluation of their peers based on

Leadership and Management in Engineering 93 APRIL 2011

Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(2): 88-96

 their demonstrated leadership. This may have resulted
from the Hawthorne effect, in which persons being
assessed tend to project more in the area being assessed
than under normal conditions; as a result, the leaders
may have evaluated themselves higher than the aver-
age assessment of their peers. The Hawthorne effect
was expected by the authors as it had been predicted
in the work of others (Rao and Rao 2005). The find-
ings from 2010 could be used to suggest an adjust-
ment to the self-assessment of the leaders. No
significant difference was found based on the analysis
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 181.118.39.116 on 12/04/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
between the leaders and the clients (members of staff)
as well as the peers and the client. Therefore, it is sug-
gested that a truer evaluation was found between these
respondents.
During the 2009 delivery of the course, the peers
were required to evaluate their leader in the classroom
based on a paper version of the questionnaire, whereas
in 2010, an online assessment was used that allowed
for greater flexibility on the part of the students.
Although the evaluation is of an anonymous nature,
the peers may have been more comfortable completing
the evaluation away from the presence of the leader,
contributing to the difference in evaluation.
Zero Tolerance Evaluation
Each team was required to produce a project plan for
the course. This plan was divided into 10 main sec-
tions, nine of which are based on the knowledge areas
in the PMBOK:
1. Scope management,
2. Risk management,
3. Time management,
4. Cost management,
5. Human resources management,
6. Quality management,
7. Procurement management,
8. Communication management,
9. Integration management, and
10. Project plan.
As professionals and future leaders of the industry, the
students are expected to produce documents without
known errors and omissions, as these documents are
used by other teams to execute the project. The simple
misplacement of a comma in a bill of quantities could
cause the loss of a project at the tender phase. Hence,
zero tolerance for such practices is necessary.
To analyze the students’ ability to each produce a
one-page document without known errors and omis-
sions, one-sample t-testing was used. A test value of 3
was used, representing the average level at which the
APRIL 2011
Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(2): 88-96
students are expected to achieve, assuming the grades
are normally distributed around an average of 60%,
and representing the average achievement of an
error-free submission on the third attempt.
The results from the 2009 group of students re-
vealed a significant difference in three of the 10
topics—human resource management, quality man-
agement, and project plan—for the test value (Ellis
and Petersen 2010), meaning that the students per-
formed better in these areas than in the others. The
results from the 2010 cohort proved even more favor-
able, as significant differences were found in seven of
the 10 objectives using the 2-tailed test (less than
0.05): all areas except scope, risk, and time manage-
ment. The data showed a positive mean difference,
with a 0.07 level of significance for scope manage-
ment; the students experienced difficulty in the initia-
tion of the projects, and most teams took four to five
iterations to produce an error-free document. As the
learning curve increased with time and understanding
progressed, however, the students were able to pro-
duce the documents at the required level with fewer
iterations. The remaining seven objectives had a con-
sistent significance level of 0.000, with the project
plan slightly higher at 0.009.
The mean of the mean represents the average level
at which the team players achieved an error-free sub-
mission; it was 3.3 in 2009 and 2.2 in 2010. This may
be attributed to the fact that the 2010 group were able
to see the project plans produced by the previous
group, giving them clearer insight into the expecta-
tions of the course than the previous group, who were
the pioneers.
Postcourse Evaluation
A postcourse evaluation questionnaire was designed
and administered to the students of the 2010 cohort.
The questionnaire comprised 15 questions, two of
which were directly related to the impact of the course
on the career development of the students. Because the
program took place in the evenings, most of the stu-
dents were able to continue their careers while contin-
uing their studies part time. As a result, the students
were able to see the direct impact of the course on their
current and future roles in their workplaces.
The “academic safety net” allowed students an op-
portunity to exercise their leadership and team playing
abilities in a less stressful environment that could
facilitate a greater scope of learning. Figs. 2 and 3 in-
dicate the responses of the 31 students to questions
about the relevance of the course and its impact on
their career development. More than 70% of the
94 Leadership and Management in Engineering
 students felt that the feedback gained from the course
was relevant to their personal career objectives (Fig. 2).
In most organizations, employees desire feedback from
those who work with and above them on a continuous
basis to help them develop in specific areas of weak-
ness. Negative feedback may not always be welcomed,
as is shown by the 8% who felt the feedback from the
course was not relevant, but it may be necessary to
allow for continuous professional development of
the individual. Fig. 3 shows that 92% of the students
felt that the content of the course was relevant to their
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 181.118.39.116 on 12/04/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
career objectives. Indeed, students themselves played a
large part in developing the content of the course
through their attempts to identify and solve the vari-
ous issues that were involved in the projects, with
guidance from the PMI’s PMBOK and the ICE’s de-
velopment objectives.
Follow-up Evaluation
A follow-up evaluation questionnaire was also de-
signed to gain information on the effect of the course
on the students after a year back in industry. The ques-
tionnaire was administered via e-mail. Because of the
slow feedback rate from the graduates, these data are
not included in this paper; the results will be pub-
lished in a future article.
CONCLUSION
In the field of civil engineering, a need has been found
for more well rounded engineers who possess leader-
ship skills that can guide the industry through the
changing times ahead. Mergers have been formed be-
tween industry and academia to produce future engi-
neers who will possess these needed characteristics to
meet ASCE’s Vision 2025. Changes have already been
made in the curricula of various universities, including
the University of the West Indies in the Caribbean.
The Department of Civil and Environmental Engi-
neering has undertaken a restructuring of its under-
graduate and graduate programs to meet the
requirements of the vice chancellor of the university
and the accrediting body. In the restructuring of its
M.Sc. programs, a course known as Practical Team
Project was developed that had the task of assessing
the demonstrated leadership of students. Innovative
assessment techniques were introduced, such as
360-degree feedback and zero tolerance, to assess
the students, and an evaluation conducted at the
end of the course indicated that the students agreed
that the content of and feedback from the course were
relevant to their overall career objectives.
Leadership and Management in Engineering
Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(2): 88-96
REFERENCES
American Society for Engineering Education. (1995).
“Educating tomorrow’s engineers.” ASEE Prism,
4(9), 11–15.
ASCE. (2007). “The vision for civil engineering in
2025.” 〈http://content.asce.org/files/pdf/
TheVisionforCivilEngineeringin2025_ASCE.pdf〉
(Dec. 10, 2010).
Bowman, B. A., and Farr, J. V. (2000). “Embedding
leadership in civil engineering education.” J. Prof.
Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 126(1), 16–20.
Burns, J. M. (1979). Leadership, Harper & Row,
New York.
Ellis, L., and Petersen, A. K. (2010). “Constructing a
sustainable future through today’s engineering
manager.” Second Int. Conf. on Construction in Devel-
oping Countries, Cairo, Egypt.
Europa. (2005). “ECTS users’ guide: European Credit
Transfer and Accumulation System and the diploma
supplement.” 〈http://ec.europa.eu/education/
pub/pdf/higher/ectsguide_en.pdf〉 (Dec. 9, 2010).
Hilton, M. H. (1996). “The importance of civil engi-
neering leadership in the government sector.”
J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 122(2), 53.
Institute of Civil Engineers. (2010). “Development
objectives.” Rep. ICE 3005A. 〈http://www.ice
.org.uk/ice3005a〉 (October 10, 2010).
Joint Board of Moderators. (2010). “Welcome to
JBM.” 〈http://www.jbm.org.uk/index.aspx〉
(March 9, 2010).
Langdon, N., and Petersen, A. K. (1997). “MEng pro-
fessional development.” Proc., Sheffield Hallam En-
gineering Education Conference, Sheffield, England.
McCuen, R. H. (1999). “A course on engineering
leadership.” J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract.,
125(3), 79–82.
McDowell, L., and Mowl, G. (1996). “Innovative
assessment—Its impact on students.” Improving
student learning through assessment and evaluation,
G. Gibbs, eds., Oxford Centre for Staff Develop-
ment, Oxford, England, 131–147.
Mowl, G. (1996). “Innovative assessment.” DeLiber-
ations. 〈http://www.lgu.ac.uk/deliberations/
assessment/mowl_content.html〉 (March 31,
2009).
Project Management Institute. (2008). A guide to the
project management body of knowledge: PMBOK guide,
4th Ed., Project Management Institute, Newtown
Square, PA.
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
(2009). “The framework for higher education
qualifications in England, Wales and Northern
95 APRIL 2011
 Ireland—January 2001.” 〈http://www.qaa www.usaeducation.us/EduSystem/credit/〉 (July
.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/fheq/EWNI/default 20, 2009).
.asp#framework〉 (June 17, 2009).
Rao, T. V., and Rao, R. (2005). The power of 360
degree feedback: Maximizing managerial and leader-
Leighton A. Ellis is a graduate research assis-
ship effectiveness, Sage Publications, New Delhi,
tant enrolled in the Ph.D. program in the Depart-
India.
ment of Civil and Environmental Engineering at
Reynolds, J. H., Petersen, A. K., and Tutesigensi, A.
the University of the West Indies, St. Augustine,
(2004). “Evaluation of a zero tolerance assessment
Trinidad and Tobago. Leighton’s research is in
strategy for incorporating risk assessment into
the area of leadership assessment of graduate
undergraduate construction related courses.”
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 181.118.39.116 on 12/04/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

students using innovative techniques for student

Mini-project report, LTSN Engineering, ed., LTSN
Engineering, Loughborough, England, 1–10.
Smith, B., and Dodds, B. (1997). Developing managers
through project-based learning. Gower, Aldershot,
England.
SPSS. (2009). “Statistical package for social sciences.”
〈http://www.spss.com/〉 (July 15, 2009).
Steels, H. M. (2006). Successful professional reviews for
civil engineers, 2nd Ed., Thomas Telford Publish-
ing, London.
University of the West Indies. (2007). “UWI strategic
plan 2007–2012. Office of Planning and Develop-
ment.” 〈http://www.uwi.edu/StrategicPlan/
strategicplan20072012.aspx〉 (July 20, 2009).
USAeducation.us. (2009). “Credit system.” 〈http://
assessment. He can be contacted at leighton
.ellis@sta.uwi.edu.
Andrew K. Petersen is professor, Department
of Civil Engineering, FH Mainz, University of
Applied Science, Mainz, Germany. He has held
positions as senior lecturer at the University of
the West Indies and principal lecturer in the
Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Portsmouth, England. Dr. Petersen has intro-
duced a number of new assessment strategies
for assessing student learning in the subject of
health and safety risk management. LME

APRIL 2011 96 Leadership and Management in Engineering

Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(2): 88-96