MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026648515 · doi:10.1115/detc2010-28602

Pedagogy of Science in Engineering

2010· article· en· W2026648515 on OpenAlexaffabout
O.R. Fauvel, Marjan Eggermont, Christine V. McDonald, Dorte Caswell, C. R. Johnston

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLearning sciencesAccreditationComputer scienceProcess (computing)CurriculumEngineering design processEngineering educationLearning environmentQuality (philosophy)Engineering ethicsEngineeringEngineering managementExperiential learningMathematics educationPedagogyPsychologyMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Definitions of the engineering profession include “…application of scientific principles to design or develop machines, processes, works, etc.” Significant science-based content is therefore a feature of accredited engineering curricula — a feature tending to dominate the early years thereby establishing a particular learning environment. This paper 1) identifies how a dysfunctional relationship between learning of science and the practice of engineering can arise; and 2) presents ways to improve learning of both science and design through integrated science learning. Over the course of almost three decades of trying to improve engineering design learning at the University of Calgary — employing many of the approaches described at length in the engineering education literature — it became apparent that realization of our teaching goals (e.g. quality, innovation, agility, and establishing a basis for life-long learning) might require a fundamental change in the culture of learning. Through a process of re-design plus continuous improvement, the authors have sought to develop a learning environment that establishes a learning culture that can foster the desired attributes. A pivotal aspect of this learning environment lies in the integration of science and design learning at the most fundamental level. Observation of thousands of students working on hundreds of design projects has revealed that desired outcomes can be achieved (Fig. 1).

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEngineering Education and Curriculum DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207