WORK IN PROGRESS Understanding Student Learning Profiles in Second Year Problem-Solving Engineering Classes
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
Student motivation, mindset, and learning styles play a role in student success and satisfaction, and research in engineering education is beginning to link these factors to student retention and learning outcomes. In this work in progress, we add to that prior work by surveying students in a second-year bioengineering course to identify their motivations, mindsets, and learning styles and check which correlates with student success. This set might be specific to this course because it necessitates conceptual problem-solving which requires a unique set of skills that are often new to students. They require thinking through the problem and gaining an abstract conceptual understanding before proceeding. During the first week of Fall 2021, 84 second-year engineering students at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign answered a questionnaire with 60 questions taken from validated instruments related to the factors mentioned previously. We conducted a statistical analysis on our data which consists of student performance data (i.e. midterm and final grade) and quantitative data from the questionnaire. We found that the students in our study as a whole have a mindset, intrinsic motivation and sense of belonging that should be conducive to positive learning outcomes. Final grades were correlated with students' responses to questions related to "thinking" as a preferred strategy. We also observed a correlation between grade improvement and questions taken from the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory and sense of belonging. In future work, we plan to use this for designing interventions that are specifically tailored to students in this class. We plan to extend our work to other conceptual problem solving Engineering courses.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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