Assessment of Individual and Teamwork Attributes in Undergraduate Engineering Students
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Engineers Canada Accreditation Board lists12 Canadian Engineering Graduate Attributes necessaryfor program accreditation. One of these is the Individualand Team Work attribute. At the University of Calgary anannual survey has been developed to assess studentperceptions of teamwork. The survey examines students’overall satisfaction with teamwork activities, attitudestowards teamwork, perceived emphasis and supportreceived from the department, teamwork skills(competence and importance), and personal support forteamwork initiatives. Based on the responses from pastyears two trends can be identified: students perceive agap between their competence in teamwork skills and theimportance of those skills, and students show high levelsof support for more teamwork initiatives. Following thesetrends three recommendations can be made: teamworkskills development activities for the students, moreopportunities for peer feedback in team projects, andsupport for first year students. By annually administeringassessments engineering departments can evaluate theirsuccess in developing the necessary Individual and TeamWork attribute required by Engineers CanadaAccreditation Board for program accreditation.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it