Educating, Enlightening, and Entertaining: Audience Perceptions of the Educational Value of a Presentation Competition for Engineering Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Educating, Enlightening, and Entertaining: Audience Perceptions of the Educational Value of a Presentation Competition for Engineering Students Like many of our colleagues at ASEE, the authors of this paper believe that showcasingthe ideas and presentation skills of our engineering students benefits both the presentersand the audience. More of the world needs to know about the valuable work ourengineering students – future engineers – are doing. And their messages are bestdelivered by the engineering students themselves: They can educate, enlighten, andentertain their audiences – even about challenging technical topics, from accessible watertreatment for developing countries to the potential of quantum computing.This paper describes the results of a survey of audience members at a presentationcompetition for engineering students at a Canadian post-secondary institution.Engineering students and faculty members in the audience were asked about theirperceptions of the educational value of the competition for both the competitors and theaudience members. They were also asked about their perceptions of the personalcharacteristics of the competitors.Overall, the results of the survey pointed to an overwhelmingly positive response to thepresentation competition and the educational value it provides. Both faculty and studentsresponded that the presentations were educational, enlightening, and entertaining. Theywere impressed by the presentation skills and the technical knowledge of the presenters,and they were inspired by the presentation strategies and ideas presented. At the sametime, the students in the audience personally identified with the presenters and wereencouraged by seeing “students just like us” presenting so competently.These results will help us capitalize on the educational value of the competition as well asprovide directions for future research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".