Reimagining Teacher Education through Design Thinking Principles: Curriculum in the Key of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inspired by Arendt’s (2009) “task of renewing a common world” (p. 193), a team of ten instructors took on the challenge of reimagining a teacher preparation course entitled Curriculum II - Arts & Humanities. Through the dominant discourses of management, accountability and technique-driven preparation, the act of teaching is interpreted as a “service rendered” (Pinar, 2012, p. 36), measured “objectively” by demonstrable deliverables and pre-determined outcomes. Our team provoked these discourses by asserting that human beings are inherently attuned to deeper learning through wonderment, interpretation, ideation and experimentation (Whitehead, 1929). The principles of design thinking – a problem-based process which, through curiosity, empathy and interdisciplinary thinking, generates playful and collaborative creative experimentation – offered a space within which to open up deeper educational conversations with pre-service teachers. Invoking the metaphor of a choral performance, this series of miniature musical movements “in the key of life” express the challenging, enlivening and multivocal nature of curriculum and pedagogy enacted through Design Thinking principles. From contemplating the power of self-reflection and collective action, to meeting challenges and resistance with courage, to listening with heart to people and places, and to responding with joy and hope in the face of our place and circumstances, each individual movement gives voice to the echoes that linger long after the official coursework is complete. Together, these voices join together in a chorus of authentic and responsive curriculum renewal.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".