Description of, and Outcomes from, a Novel First Year Engineering Design Course
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In the Fall of 2021, the University of Saskatchewan’s College of Engineering implemented a new first year Engineering Design course called GE 142 (Design I). In comparison to similar courses in other Engineering programs, the course was unique in a few respects. First, it ran from mid-October to mid-December, and it included 7 lectures and 4 labs. Second, it was focused almost entirely on problem definition. Third, the assessment system was competency based. Each of these elements made for a unique design course, and each element will be described in detail. The course had a number of Learning Outcome goals in the general areas of knowledge, skills, experiences, and attitudes. Knowledge was assessed using an automated adaptive quiz system employing Mobius™ software, linked to the Canvas™ Learning Management System (LMS). Design skills were assessed through a series of six assignments that focused on the ability to characterize design problems, maintain an effective logbook, make a convincing case to undertake a design problem, communicate in a clear manner, and reflect on how to improve design practice. Experiences included various types of design exercises conducted in lab settings. For example, some design exercises were more open-ended while others were more closed design problems, and students also engaged in the characterization of a design problem with a live client. Assessment of attitudes was carried out at the end of the course using a series of Likert-scale questions that probed students’ perspectives on the value of design, their enjoyment of design, the value of logbooks, their interest in tech innovation, and the importance of group dynamics, project management, and technical communication. As a quality improvement/program assessment exercise, an analysis of grades and student attitudes was conducted and will be presented (n=306). As well, an initial analysis of the performance of students on the Mobius questions was carried out. In general, results were quite favourable both in terms of achievements against different types of Learning Outcomes and in terms of student attitudes towards various perspectives in Design. Student responses for the attitude survey were anonymous and all grade and quiz analyses employed aggregate data. At the end of the course, instructors reflected on what they felt should be continued, started, and stopped in subsequent iterations of the course. The suitability of the student performance data against the Learning Outcomes will also be discussed in the context of accreditation criteria for the CEAB.
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».