Developing Leadership Skills in Engineering Students – Foundational Approach through Enhancement of Self-Awareness and Interpersonal Communication
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 leadership education is emerging as a vital addition to the development of theprofession. However, practitioners of engineering leadership education are still defining outcomes, objectives and curricula. The assumptions, desired outcomes, and our pedagogical approach to engineering leadership education discussed in this paper starts with a strategic assumption to minimize the emphasis on development of “vision” that is a clear focus of leadership training in business and other disciplines. While vision is clearly a critical leadership characteristic, engineering schools already excel at developing students who envision solutions to complex problems. Therefore, less effort is needed for the engineer to transition “problem solving” into “leadership vision.” Instead, the focus is placed on interpersonal communication (vs. organizational communication) and understanding of motivation and behaviors of self and with respect to interactions with others. This paper will present the methodology and reflective assessments in teaching engineering students “leadership communication,” and “self-awareness.”Leadership communication consists of techniques to develop intentional listening skills and questioning/interviewing approaches to define problems and understand motivations with emphasis on application of lessons learned from behavior inventory assessment. Further, the use of self and group reflection will be discussed in the context of both learning leadership concepts and increasing self-awareness.
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 | 0.000 | 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