MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1959372932 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.3795

PROMOTING COLLABORATIVE, SELF-DIRECTED, HANDS-ON LEARNING IN ENGINEERING DESIGN IN UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE TEACHING

2011· article· en· W1959372932 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Khosrow Farahbakhsh

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiomedical and Engineering Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsCapstoneEngineering educationInclusion (mineral)Computer scienceProject-based learningEngineering managementMathematics educationEngineeringPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The face of engineering education is rapidly changing as more emphasis is placed on a self-directed, problem-based and design-driven approach. The School of Engineering at the University of Guelph has recognized the importance of engineering design education by introducing capstone design courses and encouraging incorporation of design in many senior-level courses. Two recent initiatives include inclusion of a student-led laboratory design project in the Mass Transfer Operations course (ENGG*3470) and a self-directed, problem-based approach to teaching a new graduate course in Pollution Prevention Engineering (ENGG*6790). Both courses placed a significant emphasis on “learning by doing” and importance of “self-directed learning”. Both courses also encouraged the development of various design skills such as problem definition, information collection, collaboration, innovation, communication, life-cycle costing, etc. This paper provides insights on these two courses and the approaches used to ensure a collaborative, hands-on and self-directed learning experience for students.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicBiomedical and Engineering EducationFrench-language works237,207