CONSIDERATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF CRITICAL REFLECTION SKILLS IN FIRST-YEAR ENGINEERING INFORMED THROUGH STUDENT PERSPECTIVES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reimagined curriculum models offer new possibilities for embedding durable competencies into the curriculum, including critical reflection, which promotes the development of self-directed learning skills. However, students often perceive these skills as unimportant with pre-existing biases focusing on technical content as the core of engineering. The primary goal of this work was to identify key considerations when integrating critical reflection into engineering curricula, specifically in the context of first-year engineering, to promote the development of student self-directed learning skills. This work was framed within the Students-as-Partners (SaP) approach, where two undergraduate students worked in collaboration with the instructor. To gather information regarding student perceptions of critical reflection, focus groups were conducted for first-year engineering students and students familiar with reflection. Qualitative thematic analysis was performed on the focus group data and key insights were identified and categorized into five themes: approaches, supporting students, evaluation and framing, development pathway and value, and reflection for engineers. Suggested learning outcomes, student activities, and evaluation methods are proposed. These findings are applicable to implementing reflection across a variety of academic settings, as they highlight main considerations and challenges faced with reflection from the perspective of students in multiple programs.
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 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 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".