MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2760442646 · doi:10.18260/1-2--20206

Consistency in Assessment of Pre-Engineering Skills

2020· article· en· W2760442646 sur OpenAlex

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.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueEngineering Education and Pedagogy
Établissements canadiensMacEwan University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésConsistency (knowledge bases)TrigonometryMathematics educationEngineering educationMathematicsComputer sciencePsychologyEngineeringArtificial intelligenceEngineering management

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Consistency in Assessment of Pre-Engineering SkillsAssessment tools are often used in a predictive way to gauge the overall skills of first-yearengineering students as they begin their engineering education. They are also useful in settinginterventions in terms of tutorials, as well as providing self- improvement motivation for thestudents who achieve scores that are not consistent with earlier high school performance.Previous research has demonstrated that the academic averages obtained in high school, may notnecessarily reflect the skill level (competency) of the students entering first-year, especially inmathematics. However, a longitudinal study over more than ten years has also indicated that theaverages from the math advisory and engineering assessment (Force Concept Inventory) examsdid not show a statistically significant decline during that time period. In this study, both themath and engineering assessment results were further analyzed on a per question basis todetermine whether or not there were any observable trends in the student responses.The results for math assessment exams, taken over thirteen years, indicated that the averageperformance on each question every year is statistically very consistent. The questions that themajority of the students got right each year, and those that the majority got wrong each yearshowed very little variation in the standard deviation (typically < 5%), which was used as themeasure in variability of the mean. The results were further analyzed by categorizing thequestions according to three classifications: algebra, trigonometry and geometry. Typically, thequestions with the best overall performance were simple algebra questions, and the questionswith the worst overall performance involved trigonometric concepts. Moreover, as thecomplexity of the algebra questions increased, the success rate on those questions diminished asexpected. Both assessment exams were time limited and students were not allowed to usecalculators. In the high school curriculum in our region, students use calculators regularly in theirhigh school math courses. As a result, their inherent competency in trigonometric functions islacking, as the average scores (typically less than 30%) on these questions would indicate.Engineering assessment (Force Concept Inventory) exam results collected over a slightly shorterduration (six years) were also analyzed. The same trends in student responses were observed, butin this case the results were somewhat less striking than the results obtained from the mathassessment. It is clear, however, that there is a consistency on the success rate for individualexam questions that test both math and engineering concepts. These results support the anecdotalcontention that students collectively have competency in certain areas (algebra) but lackcompetency in others (trigonometry). It further demonstrates that students often come into first-year engineering with common misconceptions and common math deficiencies.The results from this study are useful from several perspectives. They can provide a focus forinterventions that might address both competency and misconceptions. Secondly, the consistencyand repeatability of this data may provide an impetus to work with K-12 educators to addressthese issues before the students reach university. The consistency of this data also implies thatpre-engineering skills are somewhat predictable from year to year.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: Simulation ou modélisation
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,197
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,315

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,013
Tête enseignante GPT0,279
Écart entre enseignants0,266 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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

En bref

Citations4
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetEngineering Education and PedagogyTravaux en français237 207