Teaching and learning design engineering: What we can learn from co-curricular activities
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
A gap exists in the effective teaching and learning of design engineering. The Design graduate attribute is one of 12 attributes developed by the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board to which Canadian universities must comply across engineering curriculum. This paper discusses how student run design-build-test-compete co-curricular activities meet CEAB Design graduate attribute indicators using the example of the SAE International Collegiate Design Series (CDS) team at Concordia University, Concordia SAE. Advantages, challenges, and recommendations are made for integrating aspects of the co-curricular platform into existing academic infrastructure in the interest of attributing accreditation units to this type of design experience. This approach would improve accessibility by providing all students the opportunity to participate in co-curricular-like activities, improve resource allocation to co-curricular activities, and improve student engagement and motivation in engineering design learning.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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