USING THE HONOURS PROJECT COURSE TO ENHANCE ENGAGEMENT ACROSS ALL STAKEHOLDERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior to 2009 students in the School of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Adelaide developed their management and professional practice skills in an unpopular stand-alone course “Engineering Management and Professional Practice (EMPP)”. The intended learning outcomes of this course were, however, synergistic with those of the final year “Honours Project” and so the two courses were strategically combined. This amalgamation (which is still referred to as the “Honours Project”) has developed into a successful scaffolded, authentic, engineering problem based learning course that: motivates and engages over 200 participating students; effectively outreaches to both primary and secondary schools; attracts vibrant and enthusiastic industry interaction; draws significant news and media coverage as the University showcases and creates a nexus between the research and the professional communities. It represents the coordinated sustained efforts by a team of over 50 academic and professional staff within the School of Mechanical Engineering, the Faculty of Engineering Computer and Mathematical Sciences and the University administrative services; which include the Media and Strategic Communications office, and the offices of the Vice Chancellor (VC) and the Deputy Vice Chancellor-Academic (DVCA). This paper discusses the background and evolution of the integrated Honours Project (Mech. Eng. 4143). Importantly, responses of key stakeholders, to the course work and outcomes are examined. These stakeholders include current students, industry, community members and academics. Suggestions for continued evolution and improvements will also be discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".