MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412870767 · doi:10.24908/pceea.2025.19685

Empowering Engineering Students: A Targeted Strategy to Strengthen Mathematical Foundations Through Adaptive Learning Tools

2025· article· en· W4412870767 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Julien Rossignol, Frédéric Mailhot, Sébastien Roy, Maude Josée Blondin, Aref Meddeb, Annick Bourget, Karina Lebel

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicProblem and Project Based Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersUniversité de Sherbrooke
KeywordsMathematics educationComputer scienceEngineering ethicsManagement scienceEngineeringEngineering managementKnowledge managementPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) requires mathematical competency for engineers. Assessments at Université de Sherbrooke revealed significant gaps in students’ mathematical prior knowledge, necessitating enhanced preparation to meet CEAB standards. Purpose: This project aims to bridge first-year engineering students’ mathematical prior knowledge gaps through a self-paced educational strategy using a tailored platform, strengthening foundational understanding and abstraction skills. Approach: A three-tiered support framework was integrated as a self-paced computer-assisted platform into the curriculum alongside Problem and Project-Based Learning (PBL). It comprises a range of supplementary individual activities, including a review of students’ mathematical backgrounds, personalized learning experiences, interactive modules with immediate feedback, and continuous progress monitoring. Outcomes: Implemented in Fall 2024 for 198 students, 67.7% engaged with the platform, completing an average of 6.7 modules out of 14.8 recommended modules. Engagement was higher (85%) among students with a technical background. Feedback indicated that 76% of students would recommend the platform to new students, and 58% felt the modules were appropriately aligned with the PBL units. Conclusion: The engagement with the platform surpassed initial hopes, underscoring the significance of tailored educational strategies in effectively preparing students, particularly in mathematics, to meet the engineering challenges of tomorrow.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2025
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicProblem and Project Based LearningFrench-language works237,207