Comparative Analysis of Engineering Curricula for Alignment with 21st Century Engineering Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The vast engineering challenges of the 21st century and the unique position of engineers as decision makers, conveners, and influencers has created a need for a directional shift in the content and teaching methods used in Canadian engineering education.Both Canadian and international universities were evaluated based on nine criteria deemed relevant and important to the evolution of engineering education by Engineers Without Borders Canada. These include overall vision and direction of the engineering faculty and university, interdisciplinary opportunities, leadership programs and recognition, topics in technology and society, innovation in curriculum content or delivery, a growing understanding of globalization, cross cultural communication and project management, and a direct connection between work experience and curriculum.Results have shown that many Canadian universities are strong overall, while some universities have strengths in a few areas. These results can be utilized and shared as best practices. The international program evaluation showed very diverse results, some of which can be adapted and utilized in Canadian engineering curriculum. These results can be employed as many entities collectively move forward to develop and reinvent engineering education in the 21st century.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".