INNOVATIVE TEACHING METHODS AND ENGINEERING EDUCATION RESEARCH
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
In 2011, I conducted a research study that focused on the experiences of engineering educators who were implementing innovative pedagogies such as problem-based learning (or its variations) in undergraduate engineering education on a consistent and committed basis. The intent of the study was to identify not only the tensions encountered but also the management of tensions that arose when implementing these pedagogies. I specifically sought out this group of educators on the assumption that their belief in the benefits and outcomes of PBL outweighed the challenges that they faced at a classroom and system level when they, in essence, turned away from what may be considered a ‘traditional’ approach to engineering education.A survey was designed to capture data relevant to the research questions around implementation of PBL and tensions encountered. The data collection (1 month) period resulted in 313 valid survey responses who met inclusion criteria. Sixty-five engineering educators were interviewed on their teaching practices and management of tensions encountered when implementing PBL. At the end of the data collection period, I was left a sense of admiration for these educators who, despite having to address predictable and unpredictable tensions because of their pedagogical beliefs, maintained a course that they believed would best serve their students and society. So, between March 1 and July 29, 2011, a follow-up question was sent to all the educators who had been interviewed (n=65; response rate = 100%) and to those who not interviewed but had provided contact information (n=172; response rate = 33%). They were asked the following question: For an engineering educator wanting to implement PBL into their teaching practice, what words of wisdom (lessons learned) would you offer them (3‐5 bullet points)?The benefit of aggregating this sort of information may prove very useful for engineering educators and educational institutions planning the implementation of innovative pedagogies such as PBL.
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 | 0,008 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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