Building Engineering Professional and Teamwork Skills: A Workshop on Giving and Receiving Feedback
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 Proficiency in teamwork is one of the most essential skills employers seek in their new hires. As such, academic institutions are continually increasing their focus on teamwork education and assessment. This paper describes one module out of a series of six teamwork modules targeted at undergraduate engineering students. The series of modules have been designed to provide teamwork theory and skills in the context of an existing team project within a course, allowing the new knowledge and skills to be applied authentically and at the time of learning. Additionally, a number of assessment strategies have been developed in order to assess student learning and the overall success of the modules. The fourth module developed as part of this series on teamwork focuses on giving and receiving feedback. At the end of this module, students should be able to: 1. Understand the value of seeking, giving, and receiving feedback for themselves, their team, and as a professional; 2. Apply communication skills that keep feedback from becoming personal, both as a giver and as a receiver of feedback; and, 3. Give feedback that integrates various types of functions, including to understand, assess, and provide recommendations. Taking the format of a workshop, the module was piloted in five courses across different engineering disciplines, undergraduate levels, and courses. In an implementation in a first-year civil, environmental and geological engineering course, student teams exchanged feedback on preliminary designs completed prior to the start of the workshop. In addition, two classes of fourth-year management engineering students completed the module in their capstone design course, practicing giving and receiving feedback to their peers on conceptual designs as well as on design verification and validation plans. Finally, the workshop was also run in a second-year systems design engineering class as a standalone unit (not connected to a course project). In that offering, students developed different design concepts to address a design need suggested by the instructor and subsequently exchanged feedback on the designs with their peers. In all cases, students were able to reflect on their learning experience by answering survey questions and/or reflecting on the value of this module in their design reports. In general, students responded very positively to this learning experience, with each round of student feedback providing greater insight into how the workshop could be modified to ensure that students recognize the value of the feedback process as a professional skill and that they become comfortable giving and receiving feedback to each other. We describe the contents of the workshop in detail and summarize student feedback on each implementation. Further, we reflect on how the workshop can be further developed to better meet its intended learning outcomes and suggest ways in which instructors can alter it to suit different student disciplines, academic levels and course objectives.
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