REFLECTIONS ON IMPLEMENTING A STUDENTS-AS-PARTNERS APPROACH TO CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN ENGINEERING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The implementation of Students-as-Partners (SaP) with instructors in the co-development of curriculum is becoming an increasingly popular pedagogical model. Enhanced learning outcomes, student satisfaction, and skill development have been demonstrated as a result of SaP work. Engineering educators stand to benefit from this approach, however further investigation is needed to better understand the implications of SaP work on curriculum development processes. Thus, the primary goal of this paper is to provide an analysis of the complexities of the Students-as-Partners approach from an experiential lens of curriculum design in first-year engineering. This study uses a collaborative auto-ethnographic approach to draw from instructor and student written reflections on the process and experiences of working within the SaP model on a first-year engineering curriculum development project. Common themes were identified and synthesized from individual reflections. Important considerations of a partnership include creating a positive climate, pre-existing perceptions of power, framing the project with intention, and taking advantage of niche areas of expertise. Various forms of motivation were also found to influence the partnership dynamics and outcomes. Restraints of partnerships in general were identified in the unequal student representation and the difficult balance of providing guidance and instilling ownership. These findings provide key considerations to engineering educators who may find the SaP approach a viable option in curriculum development processes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".