A Multi-dimensional Model for the Representation of Learning through Service Activities in Engineering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A Model for Learning through Service in EngineeringThe Engineering Faculty Engagement in Learning through Service (EFELTS) project wasestablished with a key objective to identify the impact learning through service (LTS) has onfaculty and determines how to encourage faculty to adopt this instructional method. During arecent gathering of engineering instructors involved in LTS programs a group was tasked withdeveloping a model for characterizing LTS programs in engineering. Our group formulated amodel which characterizes 12 dimensions of LTS programs. This model provides a basis forcomparing and contrasting programs. In addition, it can be used as a check list for developingnew LTS programs, evolving existing LTS programs, or assessing the quality of an LTSprogram.The dimensions are formulated to capture the qualities of LTS programs that occur across a widebreadth of engineering institutions. As such the dimensions need to encompass the broad varietyof program designs that are currently occurring as well as take into account future developmentsin this pedagogy. The dimensions fall into 4 key categories: Academic, Program Design,Technical Social Balance, and Management. These dimensions are described in detail and theends of the spectrum in each dimension are defined and illustrated.The paper discusses application of the model in depth and characterizes some example programsfrom our institutions. The results are used as a basis for comparing and contrasting the programdesigns.LTS programs are becoming more common in engineering schools. They offer an opportunityfor our students to not only strengthen their engineering abilities but also achieve learningoutcomes that go beyond what can be learned in a traditional engineering course. There aremany different, successful examples of LTS. Defining examples using the proposed model mayhelp faculty new to this pedagogy design a program that would be viable at their institution. Inaddition, this model can be used to characterize and assess existing programs. The goal is tocreate a model that advances this valuable pedagogical method.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".