Learning science through technological design
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
Abstract In the course of a decade of research on learning in technology‐centered classrooms, my research group has gained considerable understanding of why and how students learn science by designing technology. In this article I briefly review two dimensions in which science and technology share fundamental similarities: (a) the production and transformation of representations and (b∥ the action‐oriented language describing the two domains. Because it is fundamentally problematic to derive what ought to happen in science classrooms from other dimensions, I provide three episodes to illustrate what and how students know and learn science during technological design activities. Episodes and analyses embody the two dimensions previously outlined. Because these episodes are representative of the database established during an extensive research program, I suggest there is sufficient ground for using and investigating science‐through‐technology curricula. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 38: 768–790, 2001
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 | 0.181 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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