Capstone 101: A Framework for Implementation of an ABET-compliant Capstone Sequence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Capstone 101: A Framework for Implementation of an ABET-Compliant Capstone SequenceThe ABET Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs states, “Students must be prepared forengineering practice through a curriculum culminating in a major design experience based on theknowledge and skills acquired in earlier course work and incorporating appropriate engineeringstandards and multiple realistic constraints.” The ABET Criteria for Accrediting EngineeringPrograms states “Baccalaureate degree programs must provide a capstone or integratingexperience that develops student competencies in applying both technical and non-technicalskills in solving problems.” Many programs already have a course in place that was designed toserve the purpose of providing a clinical experience for students prior to graduation, but thevision for these courses is inconsistent at best when the population of programs in the UnitedStates is considered as a whole. Some institutions implement the course as a single semesterexperience, some as a two semester experience. Some programs concentrate all students on asingle project; some programs employ multiple projects from which student teams choose. Theteaching burden for courses of this nature is not congruent with a traditional lecture or laboratorycourse. Some Universities recognize this difference, others simply treat it as just another course,despite its’ key role in retaining accreditation and the large time commitment required for auseful experience for the students.This paper defines a notional structure for implementing a modern capstone experience wherenone exists or where a new course paradigm is desired, based on the experiences of manyprogram instructors from across the United States and Canada. This includes data andexperiences described in seminal published papers, as well as the personal experiences of theauthors. The material presented will also serve as a training aid for faculty new to this type ofcourse delivery with suggestions for minimizing effort while maximizing quality and realism ofstudent experience.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".