Student-Generated Infographics and Videos for Learning about Professional Obligations and the Impact of Engineering on Society
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This Complete Evidence-Based Practice paper describes the use of two forms of alternative assessment for students to learn about the professional obligations and responsibilities of engineers as well as the impact of engineering on society. Providing students with opportunities to develop professional skills in both professional and non-professional programs is an important and desirable outcome of higher education. This is especially relevant in engineering, where accreditation bodies such as the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology and the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board, require engineering programs to be designed to emphasize professional skills development, in addition to focusing on scientific and technical knowledge. These professional skills include, but are not limited to, the ability to (1) communicate effectively, (2) function in multidisciplinary teams, and (3) understand professional and ethical responsibility as well as the impact of engineering on society. Over the years, various approaches to provide students with opportunities to develop these skills have been considered, e.g., embedding specific activities in courses such as capstone / design projects or targeted workshops. Student-generated content, such as infographics and videos, have been shown to be effective at promoting active learning, engaging students as they create diverse learning artefacts, promoting critical thinking, and developing digital and communications skills. We describe implementing two alternative assessments-student-generated infographics and videos-in a first-year course on the engineering profession. The topics for the infographic and video address grand engineering challenges and focus on having the students consider the engineer's responsibility to society, how an engineering project might impact society and the environment, and what issues related to ethics, equity, diversity, inclusivity, and accessibility might arise. Working in teams, students perform research, synthesize results, and then communicate them through the creation of an infographic and a video. At the end of the semester, students complete a self-evaluation survey where they are asked to evaluate the usefulness of these two alternative assessments, as well as their perceptions on the professional obligations and the role of the engineer in society. In terms of the infographics and videos, the experience was generally positive; for example, one student commented, 'they provided experience in working with a team to solve open-ended issues, which is extremely important in engineering' and a number of them indicated a desire for similar assessments to be implemented in other engineering courses. Students also reported a better understanding about the role of the engineer in society, how engineering work can impact society, and the responsibilities and obligations of an engineer. Self-evaluation survey results correlated with responses from separate reflective writing exercises given to the students during the semester. Overall, these forms of assessment are useful for enhancing students' learning of the professional obligations and responsibilities of an engineer and the impact of engineering on society.
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 | 0.000 | 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".