Curricular and Co-curricular Leadership Learning for Engineering Students
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years engineering educators have been encouraged to blend technical and professional learning in their curricular and co-curricular programing (EC, 2009; NAE, 2004). Our paper describes a multifaceted leadership learning program developed to achieve this goal by infusing reflective, experiential learning into an otherwise technically oriented discipline. The program was designed by a collaborative team of educators and researchers with backgrounds in engineering, education, psychology, and industry and offers a range of learning experiences using diverse pedagogical strategies. The content covers four realms of leadership corresponding to four levels of analysis: self, team, organization, and society. Learning experiences include elective academic courses, co-curricular workshop programs, guest lectures in core courses, seminars, department based leadership groups, and panel discussions. In this paper, we describe the program goals, curricular and co-curricular initiatives and early research findings in order to scaffold an emerging discussion about engineering leadership education in Canada. Informal feedback from students who have participated in our program provide us with preliminary evidence that students are learning, that they value the learning opportunities afforded by our program and that our initiative is enabling significant personal growth.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it