MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7028311431

Exploring Students' Motivation to Engage in Sustainable Engineering Practice

2017· dissertation· en· W7028311431 on OpenAlexafffundabout

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2017
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSustainability in Higher Education
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersQueen's UniversityStrong
KeywordsWork (physics)Government (linguistics)PopulationQuality (philosophy)LimitingField (mathematics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study used a quantitative approach to explore Canadian undergraduate students’ motivation to engage in sustainable engineering practice. Engineering is considered to be a key profession for sustainable development, which requires engineers and engineering students to be motivated. An ex-post facto design was used to measure students’ stereotypes of and previous experiences with, self-concept of abilities of, and relative value of sustainable engineering practice. These elements were used to investigate and compare students’ motivation levels across gender, year of study, and engineering discipline. A survey instrument was developed specifically for this study and was tested in a mixed method pilot study with a sample of graduate engineering students. After the pilot study, the improved survey instrument was distributed to undergraduate students at eight engineering institutions across Canada.
\n\tThe results from the survey instrument suggested that students’ have high value for but limited experiences with sustainable engineering practice. As a result, the the results suggested that students are not necessarily motivated to engage in sustainable engineering practice. Male students were found to have slightly higher self-concepts of some of their abilities and no differences were found among year of study. Most differences occurred among the engineering disciplines in the Stereotypes and Previous Experiences factors. Students in the ECE and Science, and Mechanical- Based disciplines had less positive and more limited experiences than students in the Chemical- and Environmental-Based disciplines. There were some differences between the ECE and Science and the Environmental-Based disciplines in students’ relative value. Generally, students valued sustainable engineering practice more for utility than intrinsic reasons. In all disciplines, students were biased towards the environmental element of sustainable engineering practice and incorporated only simplistic considerations.
\n\tA universal definition and understanding of sustainable engineering practice should be adopted to provide a foundation for practice. Generally, students require more experiences with sustainable engineering practice in their engineering programs. To address the differences among the disciplines, discipline-specific interventions should be developed to address the application and integration of the social, economic, environmental, and multidimensional elements of sustainable engineering practice.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.483
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.009
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.260 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQSpace (Queen's University Library)Same topicSustainability in Higher EducationFrench-language works237,207