MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3001745726 · doi:10.24908/pceea.vi0.13465

Peer Learning and Leadership in Engineering Design and Professional Practice

2019· article· en· W3001745726 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Amy Hsiao, Grant McSorley, David G. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMentorshipTeamworkContext (archaeology)Leadership developmentPsychologyProfessional developmentPedagogyMedical educationKnowledge managementManagementComputer sciencePublic relationsPolitical scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work presents an assessment of the development of leadership skills in fourth-year engineering students, who are project leads of teams that comprise of third-year engineering students in a yearlong Engineering Design and Professional Practice course. It is proposed that the success of peer learning is directly related to the growth and change in the project leads, the progress of the followers, and the strength of the leader-follower engagement. As such, this work will compare classroom observations with Leader-MemberExchange (LMX) theory and the concepts of servant leadership and authentic leadership in the context of an engineering workplace. This work will also discuss both the value of the inputs and the measure of the outcomes in this peer mentorship scenario, i.e. starting with the importance of the individual in peer mentorship, through reflection, goal-setting, and self-awareness, to the importance and practice of designated project lead management meetings, to the significance of knowledge transfer in the learning process. The challenges of peer learning at the undergraduate level will also be discussed. In presenting this work, the authors would like to promote knowledge sharing of how peer mentorship and the development of leadership skills have been implemented and assessed effectively in Engineering at other universities. Keywords: peer learning and mentorship, project-based teamwork, authentic and servant leadership, leaderfollower exchange.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.999
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicEngineering Education and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207