Developing Transferable Skills: Does Disciplinary Topic Matter?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Transferable skills are essential for student success beyond graduation, yet they are not often explicitly taught or assessed in postsecondary education. This study evaluated the effectiveness of a 50-minute workshop designed to explicitly teach scientific inquiry as a transferable skill to first-year undergraduate students in a biodiversity course. The workshop, delivered in either a biology-specific or general context, emphasized active, experiential learning.A mixed-methods post-workshop survey assessed student perceptions through Likert-scale items, open-ended responses, and knowledge-based questions. Students in both contexts reported high satisfaction, perceived the workshop as beneficial for their skill development, and recognized the relevance of scientific inquiry beyond the course. Students in the general-context workshop outperformed those in the biology-context on knowledge-based questions, suggesting general contexts may better support initial understanding through relatable examples. However, more biology-context students agreed that the skill learned is applicable beyond formal education. Students identified peer collaboration as a strength but noted challenges with the virtual format—particularly Zoom breakout rooms—highlighting the importance of thoughtful online learning design. This research contributes to ongoing discussions about how best to teach transferable skills in higher education. We recommend introducing these skills early in general contexts, then reinforcing them across disciplinary and interdisciplinary courses, with explicit integration into learning outcomes and assessments. These findings offer practical guidance for designing inclusive and intentional skill development in undergraduate education. The research presented here explores the topic at a single point in time – an undergraduate student’s first year of higher education. Further research is needed to examine how students’ perceptions of skill development in different instructional contexts evolve across stages of their academic careers. Transferable skills are essential for student success beyond graduation, yet they are not often explicitly taught or assessed in postsecondary education. This study evaluated the effectiveness of a 50-minute workshop designed to explicitly teach scientific inquiry as a transferable skill to first-year undergraduate students in a biodiversity course[MOU1] . The workshop, delivered in either a biology-specific or general context, emphasized active, experiential learning.A mixed-methods post-workshop survey assessed student perceptions through Likert-scale items, open-ended responses, and knowledge-based questions. Students in both contexts reported high satisfaction, perceived the workshop as beneficial for their skill development, and recognized the relevance of scientific inquiry beyond the course. Students in the general-context workshop outperformed those in the biology-context on knowledge-based questions, suggesting general contexts may better support initial understanding through relatable examples. However, more biology-context students agreed that the skill learned is applicable beyond formal education. Students identified peer collaboration as a strength but noted challenges with the virtual format—particularly Zoom breakout rooms—highlighting the importance of thoughtful online learning design. This research contributes to ongoing discussions about how best to teach transferable skills in higher education[MOU2] [SJ3] . We recommend introducing these skills early in general contexts, then reinforcing them across disciplinary and interdisciplinary courses, with explicit integration into learning outcomes and assessments. These findings offer practical guidance for designing inclusive and intentional skill development in undergraduate education. The research presented here explores the topic at a single point in time – an undergraduate student’s first year of higher education. Further research is needed to examine how students’ perceptions of skill development in different instructional contexts evolve across stages of their academic careers[MOU4] [SJ5] . [MOU1]In the theoretical study, it is best to write down the reasons that are the object of the training which lasts 50 minutes. [MOU2]How this stage is carried out [SJ3]Using a mixed-methods survey as described above and in the methods [MOU4]Add research results according to the problem [SJ5]Done, thank you
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 | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 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 ».