A systematic review of the design work of STEM teachers
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
Background: To support a paradigm shift for 21st century learning, teacher design work is emphasized by conceptualizing teachers as designers. Despite the fact that teaching is increasingly referred to as a design science, both teacher educators and curriculum developers know little about how to enhance teacher design work in technology-enhanced learning environments. Further, teachers’ design knowledge, design experience and supports available to them are not articulated in a systematic manner.Purpose & Method: To address these issues, this study reports a systematic review of the literature on the design work of teachers within technology-enhanced learning environments, in STEM domains. In this review, there are four main themes: the context where teachers’ design work takes place, the form that the design work took, the aspect/phase of design process that the paper focuses on, and details of any supports that assist teachers in the work of design.Findings: Teacher design work takes place in a variety of contexts, and teacher design work also takes many forms. Research that reports on design work tends to focus on the implementation and evaluation components of the design process. Teachers have access to a variety of supports, including design materials and design frameworks.Conclusions: This synthesis identifies future areas of research in supporting STEM teachers’ design knowledge.
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 | 0.025 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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