Teaching process design in a multidisciplinary capstone design course
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To increase the percentage of our graduates trained in a multidisciplinary setting, we have pooled resources from several departmental capstone design courses to create a common multidisciplinary course with a novel structure. The new course consists of multiple sections, one for each of the project types previously offered in the departmental courses. The new teaching platform has increased the choice of capstone design projects available to students and provides the flexibility to form multidisciplinary as well as mono‐disciplinary teams of students depending on the needs of the projects. In the process design section of the course, teams of four or five students work on design projects sponsored by industry and are co‐mentored by a practicing engineer and a faculty member. Seven evenly spaced milestones are used to pace students, guide mentors, and facilitate the progressive assembly of a high‐quality final report. Peer evaluations are also used to improve team dynamics and are combined with mentor ratings to derive individual grades from the assessment of team deliverables. The normalized peer ratings of effective team members follow a normal distribution with a mean of unity and a SD of 0.04, whereas the ratings of ineffective members fall below the distribution. Our collaborative approach for teaching process design provides a motivating educational experience to students and each of the course learning outcomes was achieved by over 95% of the students during the first two offerings of the course.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".