MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1909668406 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.5805

THE SELF-REPORTED CONFIDENCE AND PROFICIENCY LEVELS OF UNDERGRADUATE ENGINEERING STUDENTS IN AN ENGINEERING TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION COURSE

2015· article· en· W1909668406 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Anne Parker, Kathryn Marcynuk

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClass (philosophy)PsychologyLifelong learningGraduate studentsMedical educationStrengths and weaknessesCommunication skillsMathematics educationPedagogyComputer scienceMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have conducted surveys at thebeginning and the end of semesters in an EngineeringTechnical Communication course, surveys that aredesigned to determine how confident our students feelabout “Communication Skills” and personal skillsdevelopment, or “Lifelong Learning” (defined here asthe ability to devise ways to develop broader knowledgeand to identify personal strengths and weaknesses). Ourobjective is to see whether students’ confidence levelsincrease and then compare these levels with wherestudents believe they should be once they graduate. Inthis paper, we report on the data obtained from thesetwo surveys conducted from Winter 2013 until Winter2015. Normally, one section of the class completed thesurveys, although two sections (A01 and A02) completedthe surveys in both the Winter 2013 semester and in theWinter 2015 semester, for a total of 9 classes thatparticipated.. So far, we have found that students doindeed feel more confident in all the surveyed areas atthe end of the semester.Yet, regardless of their growing confidence,many students also feel they have not yet achieved thelevel of proficiency expected of them once they graduate.For example, for “personal skills” (such as applyingcritical inquiry and analysis to engineering problemsand doing the communications that support theengineering work), 5 represents an ability to lead orinnovate in a particular area, and 3 indicates an abilityto understand and explain. In our surveys the aggregatewas 3.4 for the initial survey (n=450 students) and 3.5for the end-of-term survey (n=378). Most telling,however, is the level students feel they must achieve bythe time they graduate (4.5). In other words, byacknowledging that lifelong learning is an importantattribute, one that they will have to continue to developif they are ever to achieve the level expected of them,students demonstrate a remarkable level of selfawareness.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicEngineering Education and Curriculum DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207