MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2239528705 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.3684

TEACHING ENGINEERING DESIGN AND COMMUNICATION IN FIRST YEAR USING RUBE GOLDBERG PROJECTS

2011· article· en· W2239528705 on OpenAlexaffvenue
David deMontigny, Heidi Smithson, C Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClass (philosophy)Work (physics)Mathematics educationEngineeringEngineering design processPsychologyPedagogyComputer scienceMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

First year engineering classes tend to be very large and impersonal, which can make it difficult for instructors to engage the students. Since the first year of courses is critical in setting students up for success in engineering, being able to inspire them and give them some hands on experience during their introduction to engineering design plays a significant role in bolstering their confidence and interest as they enter more demanding and technical upper-level courses. With an aim toward achieving this inspiration and engagement, the first year engineering design and communication class at the University of Regina included the production of Rube Goldberg machines as the term project. This proved to be a very effective mechanism for teaching students how to work on a design project from start to finish. The students had fun and stretched their imaginations. As a result, the overall feedback from students was very positive, but areas for improvement have been identified.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.191
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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