MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056944615 · doi:10.1115/imece2010-39430

Active Learning in Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering, Case Study: Computer-Based Interactive Learning in Robotics Classroom

2010· article· en· W2056944615 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Hamid Alemohammad, Mohsen Shahini

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExperimental Learning in Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsMechatronicsInteractivityActive learning (machine learning)Class (philosophy)Experiential learningUploadComputer scienceMultimediaRoboticsEngineering educationRobotArtificial intelligenceEngineeringEngineering managementWorld Wide WebMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is concerned with the review of active learning methods implemented in Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering courses. The active learning methods are categorized into two groups of in-class activities without the use of computers and computer-based classrooms. The strategies to encourage university instructors to adopt active learning methods are also discussed. The paper also addresses the pilot project for the implementation of a novel computer-based experiential learning in the course of “Robot Manipulators: Kinematics, Dynamics, Control” at the University of Waterloo, Canada. A Student Interactive Learning System (SILS) has been developed for in-class activities in this course. The SILS system has two components: students’ mobile devices and a front-end website in which the instructor has control to upload the demonstrations and quizzes and receive students’ responses. The students are connected to the website through the WiFi connection. Findings of an initial survey, which was conducted at the start of the semester, revealed that majority of the students find the conventional classroom passive and believe adding interactivity in the lecture enhances their in-class learning experiences.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.227 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicExperimental Learning in EngineeringFrench-language works237,207