MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391604372 · doi:10.18260/1-2--43805

GIFTS: Undergraduate Student Professional Development

2024· article· en· W4391604372 on OpenAlexaff
Niamh C. Williams, Leah Bug, Arin Crow, E. Mahoney

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsL'Alliance Boviteq
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariety (cybernetics)Process (computing)Resource (disambiguation)CreativityEngineering educationComputer scienceWork (physics)Engineering managementEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Motivation This Complete Evidence-Based Practice paper will describe the engineering lab created to cater to first-year engineering students and the institutional strategies to support student success. An accessible workspace with available materials, such as power and hand tools, 3D printers, and soldering stations, is fundamental for first-year engineering students as it provides much needed resources and support for the completion of their introductory engineering projects. Background The Engineering Lab (TEL) at North Carolina State University includes both a makerspace and a resource room. What began in 1998 with 1 room and a few tools and consumable materials has grown to be a necessity for the first-year engineering students providing them space to work, access to tools and materials to use in the creation of their projects, and be around other first-year students with their peers who have similar levels of experience levels, yet still be in a safe, supervised environment. First year engineering projects challenge students to create something out of common materials in order to learn the engineering design process. The Engineering Lab is stocked with new, recycled and donated materials so that students have a large variety of options when designing their projects. The high quantity of available tools and materials promotes creativity and innovation among the first year students and allows them the opportunity to learn and make revisions independently while having the option to receive help or change the direction of their project. This requires access to hand and power tools along with a variety of materials that the students would have to purchase. Problem Upon beginning their undergraduate career, first-year students are often competing for workspace with upperclassmen or students in senior design classes, and do not have priority in receiving access to these labs. Methods/assessment: In order to remedy this, a tools and safety training course is mandatory for students wanting to use this makerspace, so that first-year students have a safe space to work that has the necessary tools and any other materials needed for the creation of their projects. The training course is required so that the makerspace is safe for all students to use and the students are able to construct their projects independently while still being supervised. The hours of the lab are extended in times where the students will need to visit more frequently to work on their projects. Students are able to pick up any needed materials from the resource room during open hours but can also make an online request using a Google form to pick up their supplies at another time when they are able to visit the lab. Additionally, a website with a listing of the operating hours of the lab as well as all of the available resources and materials is consistently updated for the students and staff to utilize. The option to request supplies remotely was very beneficial as it was more accommodating for the students since the resources were accessible through multiple means and they were able to make the request at a time that was convenient for them. This was also easier for the staff to manage as it meant less traffic entering the limited space of the lab. Requiring students to complete the makerspace training before entering the lab was another advantageous change as it created a safer workspace and helped the students feel more confident in the construction of their designs. Results: As the lab is such a key resource for first-year engineering students, one challenge was handling the amount of students that wanted to use the workspace. To make accommodation for this, there was a google form provided for the students to sign up for a time slot to work in the lab. This was helpful in managing how many students were visiting the lab each day and optimizing the hours that the workspace was open. In the future, the improvements that could be made would be providing more remote alternatives for the students to use as it accommodates for people's different schedule's and helps reduce the number of students visiting the lab at any given time, and educating the students more on how to use the lab and resources that are available to them.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.379
Threshold uncertainty score0.895

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEngineering Education and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207