Supporting teaching practice, program improvement, and accreditation efforts in an engineering program
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
This paper emphasizes the essential role of a support person for faculty teaching and assessing the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) graduate attributes as part of an ongoing accreditation cycle. It details the continuous program improvement process adopted by the Department of Biosystems Engineering at the University of Manitoba, and the role of engineering stakeholders. It recounts a study that details the supportive efforts of a Research Associate who helped to validate and implement rubrics with individual professors as outcomes-based tools for teaching and assessing the 12 CEAB graduate attributes, which resulted in the creation of 14 rubrics for 12 courses. Findings included new pedagogical understandings, the appreciation of individual support from the Research Associate, and the continued use of rubrics; the work led most professors to think deeply and in new ways about teaching and assessment. There was evidence that six professors engaged in ‘reverse design’, developing rubrics with targeted learning outcomes and course materials in mind. The work led to critical improvement in teaching practices and evidence of continual program improvement. Despite overall engagement and success, some professors continued to struggle with the concept and use of rubrics. In sum, this experience emphasizes the benefit of a dedicated person to support professors to implement rubrics, and in creating and sustaining an outcomes-based assessment culture in the department.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 it