[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-595915-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":72,"doc-detail-595915-en":122},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":65,"head_meta":67,"extra_data":69,"updated_unix":71},105,"en","analyzing-implicit-science-and-math-outcomes-in-engineering-and-technology-programs","Analyzing Implicit Science and Math Outcomes in Engineering and Technology Programs","","One of the key steps when developing pathways between baccalaureate and diploma programs is comparing learning goals between the programs. This paper applies a seven-dimensional framework to analyze implicit learning outcomes in 11 Ontario post-secondary engineering and engineering technology programs. Data include 319 calculus questions and 205 physics questions, rated across dimensions by content specialists and participating instructors. Results show technology programs emphasize discipline-specific physics concepts and applications, while calculus patterns emphasize non-contextual or general engineering contexts without significant differences in novelty, scaffolding, or communication.",{"@graph":14,"@context":64},[15,34,55],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/analyzing-implicit-science-and-math-outcomes-in-engineering-and-technology-programs/595915/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/analyzing-implicit-science-and-math-outcomes-in-engineering-and-technology-programs/595915.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Anna Hans","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-04","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":33},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",{"@type":56,"mainEntity":57},"FAQPage",[58],{"name":59,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"What do the results suggest regarding credits and transfer modules?","Question",{"text":62,"@type":63},"They suggest direct credit for bidirectional transfers may be warranted, and that small bridging learning modules targeting missing outcomes could support efficient transfer pathways.","Answer","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":66,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":68,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":70,"site_id":7},595915,1792082107,{"code":4,"msg":73,"data":74},"success",[75,79,83,87,92,97,102,106,111,114,118],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":76,"show_sort_weight":77,"slug":78},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":80,"show_sort_weight":81,"slug":82},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":84,"show_sort_weight":85,"slug":86},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":88,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":93,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":94,"show_sort_weight":95,"slug":96},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":98,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":99,"show_sort_weight":100,"slug":101},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":103,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},8,30,"research-report",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":109,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":112,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":113},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":115,"slug":117},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":119,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":88,"slug":121},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":73,"data":123},{"doc_id":70,"user_id":124,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":125,"doc_module":4,"category_id":103,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":126,"file_id":127,"file_url":128,"file_type":129,"file_size":130,"view_count":33,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":109,"language":131,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":132,"faqs":133,"seo_title":134,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":71,"read_time":95,"preview_page_count":4},5909892332657,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_994ba38a5ba835b3df7d355c54d3ed8d","The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning  \n\n| Volume 10 | Issue 1 | Article 9 |\n| --- | --- |\n| Spring 5-31-2019\u003Cbr>Analyzing Implicit Science and Math Outcomesin Engineering and Technology Programs\u003Cbr>Sima Zakani\u003Cbr>University of British Columbia, [szakani@mail.ubc.ca](szakani@mail.ubc.ca)[ ](szakani@mail.ubc.ca)Jake Kaupp\u003Cbr>Queen's University, [jake.kaupp@queensu.ca](jake.kaupp@queensu.ca)[ ](jake.kaupp@queensu.ca)[Roderick D. Turner](Roderick D. Turner)\u003Cbr>Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology, roderick.turner@senecacollege.ca Brian Frank\u003Cbr>Queen's University, [brian.frank@queensu.ca](brian.frank@queensu.ca)\u003Cbr>Follow this and additional works at: [https://www.cjsotl-rcacea.ca](https://www.cjsotl-rcacea.ca)\u003Cbr>[https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2019.1.7994](https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2019.1.7994) |  |\n\nRecommended Citation  \nZakani, S., Kaupp, J., Turner, R. D., & Frank, B. (2019) Analyzing implicit science and math outcomes in engineering and technology programs. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(1). [https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl](https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl)rcacea.2019.1.7994  \nAnalyzing Implicit Science and Math Outcomes in Engineering and Technology Programs  \nAbstract  \nOne of the key steps when developing pathways between baccalaureate and diploma programs is comparing learning goals between the programs. This paper presents application of a sevendimensional framework (cognitive process, transferability, depth of analysis, interdependence, question novelty, scaffolding and communication) to analyze the implicit learning outcomes in 11 of Ontario’s post-secondary programs in engineering and engineering technology. We collected 319 calculus questions (179 from six technology programs and 140 from five engineering programs) and 205 physics questions (122 from two technology programs and 83 from four engineering programs). Content specialists assessed each question in the first four of these dimensions, and instructors from the participating institutions scored random questions from their own disclosed questions on the remaining dimensions. Analysis of scaffolding in physics questions showed that engineering questions mostly required the students to choose from or synthetize a range of approaches while technology questions often required the students to use a specific approach. The study found that technology programs focused more on discipline-specific physics concepts and their applications than physics courses in engineering. Calculus questions from both sectors mostly required application of mathematical concepts in non-contextualized scenarios or a general engineering context, with no significant difference in question novelty, scaffolding and level of communication. From a credits perspective, these results suggest that direct credit for bidirectional transfers may be warranted, and that small bridging learning modules targeting missing outcomes may be able to support efficient transfer pathways.  \nUne des étapes principales lors du développement de trajectoires entre les programmes menant à un baccalauréat et ceux menant à un diplôme consiste à comparer les objectifs d’apprentissage entre ces programmes. Cet article présente l’application de sept cadres dimensionnels (processus cognitif, possibilité de transfert, profondeur d’analyse, interdépendance, nouveauté de la question,échafaudage et communication) pour analyser les résultats d’apprentissage implicites dans 11 programmes d’enseignement post-secondaire d’Ontario en génie et en technologie. Nous avons recueilli 319 questions de calcul (179 de six programmes de technologie et 140 de cinq programmes de génie) et 205 questions de physique (122 de deux programmes de technologie et 83 de quatre programmes de génie) . Des spécialistes du contenu ont évalué chaque question dans les quatre premières de ces dimensions et les instructeurs des établissements participants ont noté d","cbCaibv1vDyPMcqY","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaibv1vDyPMcqY","pdf",876144,"English","# Abstract\n# Keywords\n# Study Context and Rationale\n# Analytical Framework and Data Collection\n## Scaffolding and Communication Findings\n## Calculus Findings and Novelty\n## Credit Transfer Implications","[{\"question\":\"What do the results suggest regarding credits and transfer modules?\",\"answer\":\"They suggest direct credit for bidirectional transfers may be warranted, and that small bridging learning modules targeting missing outcomes could support efficient transfer pathways.\"}]","Analyzing Implicit Science and Math Outcomes in Engineering and Technology Programs | PDF"]