Implementation of PBL in Engineering Education: Conceptualization and Management of Tensions
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
Engineering educators are facing high demands as they are being challenged to create learning environments that not only better teach technical skills, but also incorporate process skills and foster other desirable attributes. Problem-based learning, known as PBL, and its variants have been deemed effective as an instructional strategy in a variety of different disciplines including engineering. With pedagogical innovations like PBL, however, comfortable routines related to the structure and flow of classroom activity is disrupted for both educators and students. In addition to having to manage changes within their classroom processes and routines, engineering educators must also interact and operate within the larger systems in which their classrooms are embedded, the university. The structure and culture of the university system may facilitate or hinder the teaching intentions and goals of educators, as this larger system can impose its own set of tensions. In this paper, we report findings of a research study which investigated conceptualizations of PBL, tensions as experienced when implementing PBL and strategies to manage the tensions.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it