Co-designing curricula to promote collaborative knowledge construction in secondary school science
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe a two-year study of a rich secondary science curriculum that was codesigned in close partnership with teachers, technology specialists and even school administrators. The goal of the research was to provide empirical support for a recent model of learning and instruction that blends the two perspectives of knowledge communities and scaffolded inquiry. A design-oriented method was employed, where the first iteration of the curriculum was evaluated in terms of its fit to the model, as well as its impact on student learning. Based on a set of design recommendations, a much more substantive curriculum was developed for the second iteration, leading to rich measures of student collaboration and deep understanding of the targeted science concepts. This paper describes our co-design process, which allowed teachers to lead the curriculum design and classroom enactment while researchers contributed design guidelines according to the theoretical model.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it