MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1204289295 · doi:10.21427/8kz8-e390

Creating an Experiential Learning Based Multi-Disciplinary Program

2022· article· en· W1204289295 on OpenAlexaff
Jeff Moretz, Steve Marsh, Jennifer Percival

Bibliographic record

VenueArrow - TU Dublin (Technological University Dublin) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExperiential learningCurriculumActive learning (machine learning)Computer scienceKnowledge managementLearning sciencesEducational technologyProject-based learningEngineering managementEngineeringArtificial intelligenceMathematics educationPsychologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For many years, curriculum development has considered learning outcomes at the program level largely via learning outcomes at the course level. Some programs have modified their designs to use different structures such as condensed courses or project based learning. Recently, there has been an increased interest in experiential learning as a way to facilitate student acquisition of real-world applicable capabilities while enhancing student learning of ‘soft skills’ such as professionalism, communication, and team management. Historically, such engagement including complexities of real-world problems has been accomplished through internships, co-op, capstone courses, or project based learning. In this paper we present an innovative model for experiential curriculum design based on skill requirements and learning outcomes derived from industry needs combined with technology enabled learning. The curriculum has been designed in a highly modular approach to ensure flexibility in student learning pathways to meet the requirements of the work related learning projects that are integrated as part of the program design. The conceptual model of this approach to curriculum design will be presented through a case study of the development of the informatics program at UOIT. Areas of caution are explored to identify recommendations for risk mitigation when developing a program utilizing this type of learning environment. In particular, student selection, technical infrastructure requirements, learning outcome measurement, faculty scheduling, and program management are considered.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArrow - TU Dublin (Technological University Dublin)Same topicEngineering Education and Curriculum DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207