MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Development and Assessment of a Course for Enhancing the 3‐D Spatial Visualization Skills of First Year Engineering Students

2000· article· en· W2019929652 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sheryl Sorby, Beverly J. Baartmans

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Engineering Education · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpatial Cognition and Navigation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCourse (navigation)VisualizationGraphicsMathematics educationComputer graphicsSpatial abilityQuarter (Canadian coin)Computer scienceEngineering educationEngineering managementEngineeringMedical educationPsychologyComputer graphics (images)CognitionArtificial intelligenceGeographyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In January 1993, we received NSF funding to develop a pre‐graphics course for freshman engineering majors who are weak in 3‐D spatial visualization skills. A text and computer lab exercises utilizing I‐DEAS software were written specifically for this course. The course is 3‐credits (quarter system) with two hours of lecture and two hours of computer lab each week. It was offered at Michigan Technological University (MTU) for the first time during the 1993 Fall term and has been offered each fall since that time. The objective of the course is to provide the prerequisite spatial skills needed by students to succeed in their subsequent engineering graphics courses. Assessment for the course has been continuous. Recently, a six‐year longitudinal study was conducted to determine the overall success of this project. This paper will describe the project and the assessment findings from the longitudinal study.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations371
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Engineering EducationSame topicSpatial Cognition and NavigationFrench-language works237,207