MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7110244462 · doi:10.1080/03043797.2025.2598348

Quality education: what do undergraduate students expect from their engineering education experience?

2025· article· en· W7110244462 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Engineering Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEngineering educationQuality (philosophy)Higher educationTeaching methodQuality assurance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the expectations of undergraduate engineering students regarding educators, course delivery, and the broader university experience, based on 958 survey responses from five institutions in Australia, Brazil, Canada, and India. The results show that students highly value educators who clearly explain complex concepts, demonstrate enthusiasm, are approachable and respectful, and foster an engaging learning environment. While employability emerged as the most critical purpose of higher education for nearly 60% of respondents, the study also highlights the importance of well-structured courses that promote critical thinking and problem-solving. Educational resources, ranked as the most significant factor enriching students’ experience, further underscore the need for accessible support systems. These findings provide actionable insights for aligning university strategies with students’ priorities, ultimately contributing to Quality Education (United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 4).

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.264 · 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