Self-Regulation Strategies in an Engineering Design Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Models of self-regulation describe how individuals engage deliberately and reflectively in goal-directed action in order to achieve valued goals. Studies have found that the consistent use of self-regulation in an academic setting is highly correlated with student achievement. Self-regulation plays a critical role in problem-solving, particularly when unraveling ill-structured problems as is required in engineering design. The primary research question: How did engineering students perceive their self-regulation activities while engaged in a design project? A total of 307 students from three higher education institutions working on their capstone engineering design projects participated in the study. The study evaluated students’ self-regulation in relation to both design and project management skills. We used a self-regulation in engineering design questionnaire (EDMQ) to assess students’ approaches to self-regulation. Quantitative data were analyzed in two parts using descriptive and inferential statistics. Findings suggested that: (1) Students focused more consistently on task interpretation than other self-regulatory strategies, particularly during design; (2) Students lacked awareness of the essential need to develop a method to assess the design deliverables; (3) Self-regulation gaps were found during early design phases, but as the design process progressed, a more balanced approach to self-regulation was apparent. Given the importance of task interpretation to successful performance, students attended to identifying tasks during both the design process and project management. However, they did not report engaging in planning, implementing, and monitoring and fix-up strategies as consistently, even when those processes were relevant and called for. Implications are drawn for research, theory, and practice.
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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".