MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1957354588 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.5773

IMPLEMENTING EXPERIENTIAL EDUCATION ON ENGINEERING AND SOCIETY

2015· article· en· W1957354588 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFacilitatorExperiential learningEngineering ethicsContext (archaeology)Experiential educationReflexivityInstitutionEngineering educationKnowledge managementSociologyPedagogyPublic relationsPsychologyComputer scienceEngineeringEngineering managementPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent educational research in engineeringhas examined the challenges Canadian universities arefacing when implementing graduate attributes, especiallythose attributes that involve significant social components(such as ethics and equity, impact of technology onsociety, and communication skills). In response to thesechallenges, this paper asks: how might experientialeducation be used as an approach to teach non-technicalgraduate attributes? Having asked this question at ourown institution, we are in the process of implementingexperienced-based approaches to engineering education.We describe our efforts in curricular and non-curricularspaces which include adding project-based components toour existing courses on technology and society andcommunication, designing a new experiential course oncreativity and innovation, serving as clients for capstonecourses, facilitating reflection for our co-op program,developing a workshop on community engagement, andorganizing design competitions in our innovation centre.We analyze the challenges and the benefits of theseapproaches. Our argument is that experience alone maynot lead to planned learning outcomes, so finding creativeways to promote reflection on experience becomescritical. In our programs, this has meant: playing the roleof both client and facilitator in projects; partnering withfaculty members in other disciplines; and having studentsdirectly interact with users from very differentbackgrounds. Through these approaches, we are findingways to help students visualize the lived context oftechnology use in communities, and ways to help themunderstand the non-technical components of design andco-op work that are essential if we want to create just andsustainable outcomes though technology. The implicationof this preliminary reflexive account is that experientialeducation holds much promise for improving instructionrelated to non-technical graduate attributes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.194 · 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