The Professional Spine: Creation of a Four-Year Engineering Design and Practice Sequence
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract The Professional Spine: Creation of a Four-year Engineering Design and Practice SequenceIncreasingly engineering educators see value in establishing a connected sequence of experiencesthat focus on engineering design and practice in undergraduate engineering programs. Notablereports on the future of engineering education conclude that students should be provided anopportunity to integrate knowledge and skills in activities of increasing complexity that emulateengineering practice throughout their program (e.g. Sheppard, 2008; Crawley 2007).Experiences of this type exist in some programs but are relatively rare and often not published.Research at our institution and elsewhere has demonstrated a need for repeated involvement indesign activity for students to build competence and confidence in engineering activities({authors’ own reference masked}; Kotyz-Schwartz, 2010).This paper will discuss the development of a four-year sequence of project-based courses onengineering design and practice at a mid-size Canadian university. The course sequence wasdeveloped over the past two years by a committee consisting of faculty representatives from allengineering programs in the faculty of engineering, a student society representative,administrators, and invited experts. The curriculum development followed generally acceptedpractice (Wolf, 2007). The course sequence is being delivered to first year engineering studentsfor the first time in the 2010-2011 academic year and will continue rolling out over the next threeyears.The four-year sequence is a core requirement for all engineering students, and will developcompetence in design process methods and tools, problem analysis, creativity, economics andentrepreneurship, engineering communications, professionalism, and ethics. The sequence wasdesigned to meet requirements of the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board graduateattributes (Engineers Canada, 2009), which addresses requirements of the Washington Accord(International Engineering Alliance, 2009). They also target applicable elements of the CDIOsyllabus.The paper will discuss the process involved in creating the sequence, the course objectives anddelivery for each year of the program, and proposed assessment and evaluation methods. Thesequence will also be compared to previously published engineering design and practicesequences. The outcomes of the first year, including student feedback and attribute assessment,will also be discussed. Upper year students who will not experience the engineering design andpractice sequence are being assessed on understanding of design method to provide baseline datafor comparison with students in who go through the sequence in future years.ReferencesCrawley, E et al., Rethinking Engineering Education: The CDIO Approach, Springer, New York, 2007.Engineers Canada / Ingénieurs Canada (2009), Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board: Accreditation Criteriaand Procedures / Bureau canadien d’agrément des programmes de génie: Normes et procédures d’agrément, 2009,accessed online October 7, 2010 athttp://www.engineerscanada.ca/e/files/Accreditation_Criteria_Procedures_2009.pdfInternational Engineering Alliance (2009), Graduate Attributes and Professional Competencies Paper, Version 2 - 18June 2009. Accessed online October 7, 2010 at http://www.washingtonaccord.org/IEA-Grad-Attr-Prof-Competencies-v2.pdfKotys-Schwartz, D. et al. (2010), “First year and capstone design projects: Is the bookend curriculum approacheffective for skill gain?”, ASEE Annual Conference 2010.Sheppard, S. et al. (2008), “Educating Engineers: Designing for the Future of the Field”, Jossey-Bass.Wolf, P. and Christensen Hughes, J. (eds.) (2007), Curriculum Development in Higher Education: Faculty-DrivenProcesses & Practices. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Jossey-Bass Publishers. Available online at:http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/117869107/issue
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 | 0,017 | 0,022 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,010 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,012 | 0,005 |
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 ».