Analyzing Implicit Science and Math Outcomes in Engineering and Technology Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the key steps when developing pathways between baccalaureate and diploma programs is comparing learning goals between the programs. This paper presents application of a seven-dimensional framework (cognitive process, transferability, depth of analysis, interdependence, question novelty, scaffolding and communication) to analyze the implicit learning outcomes in 11 of Ontario’s post-secondary programs in engineering and engineering technology. We collected 319 calculus questions (179 from six technology programs and 140 from five engineering programs) and 205 physics questions (122 from two technology programs and 83 from four engineering programs). Content specialists assessed each question in the first four of these dimensions, and instructors from the participating institutions scored random questions from their own disclosed questions on the remaining dimensions. Analysis of scaffolding in physics questions showed that engineering questions mostly required the students to choose from or synthetize a range of approaches while technology questions often required the students to use a specific approach. The study found that technology programs focused more on discipline-specific physics concepts and their applications than physics courses in engineering. Calculus questions from both sectors mostly required application of mathematical concepts in non-contextualized scenarios or a general engineering context, with no significant difference in question novelty, scaffolding and level of communication. From a credits perspective, these results suggest that direct credit for bidirectional transfers may be warranted, and that small bridging learning modules targeting missing outcomes may be able to support efficient transfer pathways.
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 | 0.006 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".