Evidence of Sociotechnical Thinking in Engineering Students
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to acknowledge and respond to the combination of the social and technical aspects of structures and processes encompassed in engineering design is called Sociotechnical Thinking (STT). Integrating STT into engineering education is important, as considering sociotechnical aspects can help students develop more thorough understandings of engineering practice and create more well-rounded and inclusive designs. While numerous attempts have been made to promote STT in undergraduate engineering courses, researchers and instructors characterize STT in different ways. The purpose of this qualitative content analysis was to inductively develop a framework for deductively analysing students’ capacities for STT. An inductive thematic analysis of the research literature was conducted to identify themes of STT in engineering education. Using these themes, a framework for deductive analysis was created. The framework was then used to assess publicly available undergraduate engineering reports written for a second-year technical communication class. All six themes in the STT framework were identified in the reports, though the themes occurred with varying frequency and at varying degrees. Students showed evidence of dualistic, or “instrumental” thinking. This work is a pilot phase of a larger research study that aims to develop a theoretical background for STT, which will explain its characteristics, elements, and thinking processes for use in the teaching and assessment of engineering education.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it