Embracing Wonder and Curiosity: Transforming Teacher Practice Through Escape Rooms and Design Thinking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".