Making Pedagogic Sense of Design Thinking in the Higher Education Context
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 This paper explores the educator experience and sense-making of design thinking pedagogy in the higher education context. Design thinking has become a pedagogical phenomenon in higher education due to its widespread relevance across many disciplines. Some studies discuss design thinking as a pedagogy in the educational context; however, there is a lack of empirical research to understand the educator perspective on design thinking pedagogy. Three design thinking educators who have had more than fifteen years of teaching experience were interviewed to explore their experiences. The data from these individual in-depth, semi-structured interviews were analysed employing Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). One super-ordinate theme; capability building for everyone , and four subordinate themes; developing a participatory approach towards world issues ; developing an open, explorative attitude ; developing creative ability ; and developing an ethical mindset were identified. From these findings, the paper argues that design thinking educators have the basis for a pedagogical rationale that transcends disciplinary boundaries and provides common ground for collaboration and on-going development of design thinking pedagogy as an emerging field in education.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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