MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3192353893 · doi:10.35199/epde.2021.5

A MODEL FOR LEARNING TEAMWORK SKILLS

2021· article· en· W3192353893 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 Curriculum Development
Établissements canadiensUniversité de Montréal
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTeamworkConstructiveAcknowledgementCurriculumProcess (computing)BachelorKnowledge managementPsychologyQuality (philosophy)Medical educationComputer sciencePedagogyManagementMedicinePolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The social practice of design is well implanted in the professional field. Working with others from inside or outside the field is recognized as beneficial for a project’s quality and efficiency. Educational establishments have answered this global phenomenon by inciting students to work in teams during their training. On the basis that teamwork is learned from experience, they have until now assumed that no global initiatives are needed to support learning of teamwork skills. Still, professional organizations are complaining that novices entering the field are not ready to collaborate – putting light on a conflicting situation that needs improvement. Investigation of design curriculum structure translates an acknowledgement of teamwork’s relevance, but few integrated initiatives to favor learning and practice. Teachers integrate team projects on the basis of their own judgment, leading to isolated initiative, lacking constructive alignment. Constructive alignment sees an educational program as a system, seeking for connections and interactions between its elements in order to favor deep learning (Biggs, 1996). Concerned about the integration of teamwork in design programs, this research investigates how these skills and experiences are lived and learned by the students in order to propose empirically based recommendations. To investigate this research problem, 22 bachelor’s degree students with ranging profiles and training stages integrated the data collection process of this research. All students were followed during their team project (five to seven weeks). They were asked to reflect on their daily activities by producing weekly entries describing their project’s development, challenges and decision-making. The final activity of the data collection planned an interview with each participant to conclude the research and discuss their project experience. All collected data was coded. Codes were organized systematically by order of occurrence and thematically to generate meaning. The classification of codes led to the identification of five main categories describing the learning experience of teamwork skills: (1) personal, (2) project, (3) organizational, (4) learning, and (5) social. Each of these categories is associated to specific or transversal skills and described by factors. This information is classified in stages of complexity in our model of zones of proximal development for teamwork skills. The zone of proximal development (ZPD) is a concept borrowed from developmental psychologist Vygotsky. The ZPD distinguishes stages of development between what an individual can do on his own from what he or she can do with the help of someone else – triggering a gain in upcoming development stages. It also translates a future-oriented and socially guided learning context, both promising for design expertise. Ultimately, the model can be used for constructive alignment between the different stages of a design program. It identifies which skills should be integrated at each stage of a bachelor's program and the relations between each of its stage, zone, skill and factor. The proposed model integrates a first stage of adaptation to basic disciplinary tools and skills; a second stage of development of skills and efficiency; and a third stage of refinement and integration of disciplinary or interdisciplinary community.

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: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,837
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,235

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 Opus0,007
Tête enseignante GPT0,216
Écart entre enseignants0,209 · 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