Assessment of Individual and Teamwork Attributes in Undergraduate Engineering Students
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".