Fundamentals Of A First Year Engineering Design And Communication Course: Familiarization, Functionality And Testing
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Session 1793 Fundamentals of a First-Year Engineering Design and Communication Course: Familiarization, Functionality and Testing D.J. Caswell, C.R. Johnston, O.R. Fauvel, D. Douglas, M. Eggermont Department of Mechanical & Manufacturing Engineering/Faculty of Engineering, University of Calgary Calgary, Alberta, CANADA Introduction There is a large body of pedagogy surrounding the use of a common design methodology in engineering. The well known description of the design process as a series of steps from problem identification, through conceptual design to detailed design has been a standard in engineering design courses of all levels for at least 50 years. The design process does indeed document the main components of successful design. However, the ability of engineering students to grasp the significance of the steps in the design process is not ideal. In fact, it might be said that employing the standard design process is much like playing the music of Mozart: Too hard for professionals but too easy for students. Even at the professional level, blind adherence to a set procedure for design too often results in the creation of inferior products6 Much of the literature describing the loss of engineering design skills, particularly in North America, focuses on the ways in which the process might be given meaning for the students of engineering design. It is our view that the great number of pedagogical devices, case studies and design projects that have been developed over the years to demonstrate the application of the traditional design process (with sporadic levels of success) is an indication that there may be a problem with the portrayal and implementation of the design process itself. In short, the design process makes sense when taking a retrospective view of a successful design. However, it breaks down when a novice attempts to apply the process to a real design project. For example, the first design process step of determining the problem is known by every designer to be the most difficult part of design and often occurs closer to the end of the actual design process than the beginning. We have taken on the task of developing an approach to the design process that we refer to as the “Design Trinity” of Familiarization, Functionality and Testing. The design trinity, employed in an environment of participatory inquiry 13 is intended to engage the novice designer in a way that develops a sense and rigour to their design work. It is intended to occupy a mid-point between the “man-on-the street” approach (an endless cycle of build/fail) and the highly sophisticated use of successful design methodology. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2004, American Society for Engineering Education
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.
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 | 0,000 |
| 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 | 0,000 | 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 découle