Determining the Dependencies of Engineering Competencies for Engineering Practice: An Exploratory Case Study
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 Similar to the changes brought about by ABET’s adoption of student learning outcomes, changes to engineering accreditation requirements in Canada in 2009 initiated a shift to outcomes-based education and emphasis on continual program improvement. A list of 12 attributes was introduced – competencies that can be mapped on to the ABET General Criterion 3: Student Outcomes. The Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) requires all students graduating from CEAB accredited engineering programs demonstrate these competencies. This has presented a challenge: how best to teach and assess them? Generally, the CEAB graduate attributes were/are accepted as offered: 12 individual competencies, with emphasis often placed on the first listed – Engineering Knowledge, Problem Analysis, Investigation, Design, and Engineering Tools – the more ‘traditional’ engineering skills – even if this emphasis was not intended by CEAB. In fact, research in the field indicates that teamwork and communication skills – competencies found in the ‘middle’ of the list – are top competencies for engineering practice. Additionally, the need to investigate potential clusters of competencies has been emphasized in this research, identified as a gap in both engineering education and research. Considering the research, and motivated to inform engineering education curricular design and improvement at the University of Manitoba, an exploratory case study was designed in part to investigate how the CEAB graduate attributes cluster for a new engineer in engineering practice as perceived by key engineering stakeholders. The data consisted of perceived similarities between each possible pair of graduate attributes collected from engineering student, faculty and industry stakeholders. Multidimensional scaling analysis showed that the 12 graduate attributes can be conceptualized as four clusters, which we have suggested be titled, Problem Solving Skills, Interpersonal Skills, Ethical Reasoning, and Creativity and Innovation. These findings, supported by the relevant literature, highlight the need to further explore how engineering competencies cluster in practice to add empirical support for program changes aimed toward educating the whole engineer.
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