MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3001518674 · doi:10.24908/pceea.vi0.13734

A SNAPSHOT OF THE CANADIAN ENGINEERING EDUCATION SYSTEM: REFLECTIONS FROM AN EMERGING SCHOLAR TRYING TO SUPPORT NATIONAL CURRICULUM CHANGE

2019· article· en· W3001518674 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTechnology Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumTerminologyScholarshipThematic analysisEngineering ethicsEngineering educationWork (physics)Political scienceEngineeringPublic relationsSociologyQualitative researchPedagogyEngineering management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Engineering Education Challenge (CEEC) is an initiative with the goal of ‘developing a national collaboration to target engineering curriculum to graduate students who will be eminently prepared to take on the challenges of the future’. The National Coordinator performed a scan of the education system across Canadian engineering programs to determine existing initiatives, and common challenges. The objectives of this work are: 1. Identify needs and challenges of the Canadian Engineering Education system, and 2. Identify challenges and opportunities in providing support to curricular change initiatives. 
 This work is conceptually framed and driven through the Coordinator’s perspectives, assumptions and goals, using an action research framework. A qualitative inductive thematic analysis is used to identify common themes and trends from across visits and conversations with over 60 individuals from 14 institutions. A secondary goal of this work is to share the process, lessons learned, and personal reflections, with those who have contributed to generating the data, and others entering into the field of Engineering Education.
 Several trends emerged from the data, which elucidate needs and challenges. These include: distinct roles in the system, curricular initiatives relating to non-technical skills and design spine, challenges associated with Engineering Education Research and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, the impact and inertia of culture, modeling and instructor training related to non-technical skills, funding promotes change, and the importance of terminology and shared understanding.
 Considerations became apparent which may inform how to best support individuals and the system. These include: the need to align with the existing priorities of others, the desire for engineering educators to learn from each other, the power of culture, and incentives to promote engagement.
 This work will serve to identify potential opportunities for the CEEC to leverage collaboration between institutions with common alignment, as well as important considerations to be incorporated for the CEEC to maximize impact. Finally, this work hopes to provide valuable insight to others who wish to engage more deeply in Engineering Education.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.241 · 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