Lessons Learned from Teaching a Pilot Multidisciplinary Entrepreneurial 4th Year Capstone Design Course
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
During the 2015/16 academic year, a pilot course at the University of Saskatchewan was offered to senior engineering students. The pilot course was meant to offer an entrepreneurial version of the standard 4th year capstone design course. It also created an opportunity for students to work with students from engineering disciplines other than their own. Two design groups, each consisting of four students, were formed. This paper describes the structure of the course, how the entrepreneurial content and multidisciplinary aspects were handled, and a variety of lessons that were learned that may be of value to other institutions considering similar ventures.The College’s capstone design courses had the weightings of two regular 3-credit courses, running from the start of the Fall term to the end of the Winter term. The most fundamental differences between this course and the standard 4th year capstone course were i) the students identified their own design problem, and ii) they formed multidisciplinary teams to solve their problem. Both of these differences created significant challenges in terms of organizing and running the course. Students from Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, and Engineering Physics were full participants in the course. Students from Mechanical Engineering were given the opportunity to participate on a one course credit basis i.e. they still had to take the standard 4th year design course in addition to the entrepreneurial version.Many lessons have been learned from the experience of developing and teaching this course. Issues that will be discussed in the paper include, but will not be limited to: integrating the different learning outcome needs of the different departments involved, managing the uncertainty of the design problems undertaken, integrating entrepreneurship into the design course, talking about design to students from different disciplines, managing “sub-contractor” students in capstone projects, evaluation, scheduling of classes, multidisciplinary supervision, client interaction and evaluation of student work, peer assessment, and student group dynamics.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».