MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2788739687

Embracing Wonder and Curiosity: Transforming Teacher Practice Through Escape Rooms and Design Thinking

2018· article· en· W2788739687 on OpenAlexaff
Kathryn Crawford, Sherry Martens

Bibliographic record

Venue2018 Conference of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological and Educational Research Studies
Canadian institutionsAmbrose UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCuriosityWonderSession (web analytics)CurriculumPsychologyDesign thinkingPedagogyCritical thinkingMathematics educationSocial psychologyEngineeringComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This session will present emerging observations of teacher participant reflections describing their experiences with design thinking and user experiences after an initial escape room provocation. Design thinking can support teacher- and student -construction of learning through collaboration, immersive user-experience and curriculum connections. This phenomenological interview methodology engages teacher participants to explore how wonder and curiosity might transform their teacher practice through a district-wide and district-led design thinking cohort. Recruited participants will participate in a focus group, followed by two individual interviews over a six-month period. Initial interviews will seek to share how gamification, design thinking and co-construction of learning in a K-12 classroom influenced a fostering of curiosity and wonder through the lens of a user experience. Follow-up individual interviews will encourage teacher reflection on the contribution escape rooms may have played in supporting critical thinking and real-world connections through design thinking and collaboration for teachers and student learning. The presentation will share emerging as well as unanticipated findings identified during the phenomenological review to date.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.185
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2018 Conference of the Canadian Society for the Study of EducationSame topicPsychological and Educational Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207