MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963248816 · doi:10.3390/educsci9030199

An Extended Constructive Alignment Model in Teaching Electromagnetism to Engineering Undergraduates

2019· article· en· W2963248816 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEducation Sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExperimental Learning in Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsRubricComputer scienceGrading (engineering)ElectromagneticsMathematics educationConstructiveCDIOElectromagnetismTransparency (behavior)Engineering educationEngineering managementEngineeringProcess (computing)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introducing abstract concepts to students from applied fields can be challenging. Electromagnetics is one of those courses where abstract concepts are introduced. This work presents a conceptual model which defines learning objectives in three levels for Engineering Electromagnetics. Each level is aligned with its own assessment and evaluation methods. The advantage is that the three-level learning objectives can be extended as student self-assess and instructor assessment rubrics, and a detailed implementation is presented here. This model gives students more accessibility to the learning objectives and increases the transparency of the learning and grading processes. The main goal of this conceptual model is to make students learn with the end in mind.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.569

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it