ENGINEERING UNDERGRADUATES AND THEIR SELF-REPORTED CONFIDENCE AND PROFICIENCY LEVELS IN LIFELONG LEARNING (A12)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on what we found when we surveyed second-year students in a Technical Communication class, once at the beginning of the semester and again at the end, and then when we surveyed two senior capstone design classes, one in Mechanical Engineering, one in Electrical and Computer Engineering, and one in Civil Engineering. In all these iterations, we asked students to indicate their levels of confidence and proficiency in their writing and speaking skills (communication skills), teamwork and personal skills development (lifelong learning). When we surveyed our second-year students, they indicated that they were only moderately confident in their communication skills (the aggregate was mostly 3 or slightly more on a scale of 5). At the end of the semester, when we asked them what they believed would be the competency level expected of them in these areas when they graduated, that number jumped to 4.5 on average. These students, however, were also decidedly more confident in their teamwork and lifelong learning skills, where the average hovered close to 3.5. On average, the capstone students were likewise confident in these areas, even slightly more so (3.87). Given the rapidity with which technical information grows and the complexity of the world around us, engineering students must be more prepared than ever to develop the drive to keep learning so that, as practicing professionals, they are equipped to maintain their competence and contribute to the advancement of knowledge.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".