Integrating User-Centred Design Approaches for a Course Design Framework for Interdisciplinary Studies Teaching and Learning
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
This paper proposes the theoretical context for a course development framework to address the specific needs and challenges of teaching and learning in Interdisciplinary Studies (IDS). User-Centred design (UCD) principles are used for this development process. Traditional course development frameworks provide a helpful guide in terms of setting out the steps necessary for successful course development. While these steps will inform the course development framework being proposed here, several alterations will be made. The unique demands of teaching and learning in IDS require skill development necessary for doing advanced interdisciplinary work and eschews linearity. The key feature of this framework is the inclusion of intentional iterative phases throughout course delivery that will allow for adaptation based on the incorporation of feedback in a variety of forms: self, instructor, peer, stakeholder (e.g., from service-learning supervisors), and cognitive skills assessment tools. The adaptive nature of this framework should meet the demands of the growing area of IDS.
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 | 0.022 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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