ENGINEERING DESIGN COMPETENCY: PERCEIVED BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE ENGINEERING DESIGN EDUCATION
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
The NSERC Chairs in Design Engineering have developed a white paper on Engineering Design Competency. The Engineering Design Competency document was created to stimulate activity in engineering schools and provide a recommended knowledge and skills guideline for engineering educators. However, engineering schools and individual faculty face a number of barriers in their efforts to excel in engineering design education. To make progress, these barriers must be recognized and understood. This paper will provide a brief review and discussion of five leading barriers to the advancement of engineering design education. The barriers covered are: tenure and promotion policies and procedures, hiring practices, academic structure, funding, and facilities. These barriers are mutually supportive which compounds the challenge. The paper and presentation will also provide some examples of best practices in overcoming these barriers. The goal of these examples is to provide evidence that none of these barriers are absolute, that all can be overcome, and that some engineering schools are succeeding.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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