ENGINEERING INSTRUCTORS AND THEIR TEACHING GOALS, TEACHING PRACTICES AND CONCEPTIONS OF STUDENT LEARNING IN UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper shares the results of a multiinstitutional study examining the teaching goals andpractices of engineering instructors. Through both a survey and a set of interviews, engineering instructors at four institutions in Ontario were invited to share their key teaching and learning goals, teaching philosophy, and the use of teaching and learning activities in the teaching of undergraduate engineering students. Engineering instructors shared a surprising diversity of teaching goals and practices, and through a discussion of powerful teaching activities, a set of conceptualizations around student learning emerged, ordered in decreasingprominence: Students learn through: (1) making realworld connections; (2) application of concepts; (3) interaction with the instructor; (4) interaction between students; (5) independence and ownership and (6) listening to what the professor says and does. These views are all reflected in the diversity of learning theories available in the literature, and in particular situated learning theory, but an understanding of these specific conceptualizations, articulated by engineering instructors, can be used to better support engineering instructors in their teaching, and in the development of new curricular initiatives in undergraduate engineering education. This work expands on the existing literature on teaching in higher education and teaching practices in engineering.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".