Student-Generated Infographics and Videos for Learning about Professional Obligations and the Impact of Engineering on Society
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract This Complete Evidence-Based Practice paper describes the use of two forms of alternative assessment for students to learn about the professional obligations and responsibilities of engineers as well as the impact of engineering on society. Providing students with opportunities to develop professional skills in both professional and non-professional programs is an important and desirable outcome of higher education. This is especially relevant in engineering, where accreditation bodies such as the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology and the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board, require engineering programs to be designed to emphasize professional skills development, in addition to focusing on scientific and technical knowledge. These professional skills include, but are not limited to, the ability to (1) communicate effectively, (2) function in multidisciplinary teams, and (3) understand professional and ethical responsibility as well as the impact of engineering on society. Over the years, various approaches to provide students with opportunities to develop these skills have been considered, e.g., embedding specific activities in courses such as capstone / design projects or targeted workshops. Student-generated content, such as infographics and videos, have been shown to be effective at promoting active learning, engaging students as they create diverse learning artefacts, promoting critical thinking, and developing digital and communications skills. We describe implementing two alternative assessments-student-generated infographics and videos-in a first-year course on the engineering profession. The topics for the infographic and video address grand engineering challenges and focus on having the students consider the engineer's responsibility to society, how an engineering project might impact society and the environment, and what issues related to ethics, equity, diversity, inclusivity, and accessibility might arise. Working in teams, students perform research, synthesize results, and then communicate them through the creation of an infographic and a video. At the end of the semester, students complete a self-evaluation survey where they are asked to evaluate the usefulness of these two alternative assessments, as well as their perceptions on the professional obligations and the role of the engineer in society. In terms of the infographics and videos, the experience was generally positive; for example, one student commented, 'they provided experience in working with a team to solve open-ended issues, which is extremely important in engineering' and a number of them indicated a desire for similar assessments to be implemented in other engineering courses. Students also reported a better understanding about the role of the engineer in society, how engineering work can impact society, and the responsibilities and obligations of an engineer. Self-evaluation survey results correlated with responses from separate reflective writing exercises given to the students during the semester. Overall, these forms of assessment are useful for enhancing students' learning of the professional obligations and responsibilities of an engineer and the impact of engineering on society.
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 ».