MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105226499 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.3790

SERVICE LEARNING: A POWERFUL APPROACH TO THE INTRODUCTION OF ENGINEERING DESIGN FOR FRESHMAN

2011· article· en· W2105226499 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jean Brousseau, Abderrazak El Ouafi, Suzie Loubert

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsService-learningService (business)Computer scienceEngineering educationEngineering managementWork (physics)Course (navigation)Project-based learningService designSoftware engineeringEngineeringService delivery frameworkMathematics educationPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Service learning is a very interesting pedagogical approach for engineering education. It can be used in most engineering courses, but it fits well in a project-based design course. Through service learning, the students work with a real customer, apply all the steps of the design cycle, deliver a functional prototype, manage a real project, understand the multi-faceted responsibilities of an engineer and develop team work and communication skills. The approach was introduced in an existing, first year, first semester, design course. The experience shows that projects can be found in the community without too much effort, students perform very well and can deliver functional and useful prototypes in four months. Before introducing the service learning approach, the course was already well evaluated and is even more appreciated now. The conclusion is that service learning is a perfect approach for a course that was designed to introduce students to real-world problems in engineering at the start of their engineering education.

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 score0.451
Threshold uncertainty score0.748

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicEngineering Education and Curriculum DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207