INTRODUCTING A NEW ENGINEERING COURSE: A LEARNING EXPERIENCE FOR STUDENTS AND FACULTY
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A Task Force was created by the Faculty of Engineering at the University of New Brunswick in September 2004 charged with creating a new course for all first year engineering students to be delivered for the first time in September 2005. The course, to be taken by approximately 270 students, was to integrate material from other first year courses, introduce the students to working in teams, contain a substantial design element through a design project, and introduce communication skills. Nine professors from throughout engineering “volunteered” to help develop and deliver the course. In this paper we own up to what we did wrong during the first two years of delivery of this course, and (naturally!) counter this by celebrating our successes. Students are assessed based on a combination of individual and team submissions, with some submissions being oral and others written. This paper will outline the complex assessment scheme we initially used, and how we later simplified it. Rubrics were used to evaluate many of the course assignments. For most of the instructors, this was the first time they had used rubrics and so it was a learning experience to both develop and apply them. We show how we adapted their use in the second year of delivery after the experiences of the first year. We were pleased with the way that the assessments were mostly built around the design project – this helped the students grasp why clear communication is vital and enabled them to obtain continual feedback on the project. We were also delighted that an element of social responsibility was introduced into the course by making the project an international “Engineers Without Borders” project based in Africa. We believe this added an additional dimension to the course and especially the project. The professor-delivered skits were especially popular! Delivered by two wannabe actors, they introduced the students in a humorous manner to the different types of engineering that are taught at UNB. Engineering students at UNB have to commit to their specific engineering field from their first day at UNB, so these skits were included to ensure the students were exposed to all the UNB engineering disciplines. We conclude the paper with our plans for delivery of the course in September 2007 and beyond.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,010 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,015 | 0,006 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».