Instructor Goals and Practices Related to Sociotechnical Thinking in the Teaching of Undergraduate Engineering Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a global society, we face significant challenges, including environmental degradation and climate change, increasing economic inequity, rapid urbanization and population growth, the exclusion of individuals and groups from different forms of social engagement, and concerns with privacy and security. Given the omnipresent nature of technology and its influence on our lives, engineers must consider the ethical, environmental and sociological impacts of their work, and some engineering programs are considering new pedagogical methods and broader frameworks to engage students in macroethics, sociotechnical thinking and engineering for social justice. Using a particular perspective on sociotechnical thinking (STSE), the goal of this research was to explore sociotechnical thinking within engineering instructor teaching goals and practices. The study also sought to identify the challenges and enabling factors that engineering instructors experience in utilizing teaching practices related to sociotechnical thinking. STSE was selected given both its inherent flexibility, and its specific features that allow for some natural connections with engineering. Using STSE also allowed for the introduction of a framework from a different context to assess its utility and relevance to the engineering landscape.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".