MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

DESIGN THINKING IN MATHEMATICS EDUCATION FOR PRIMARY SCHOOL: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW

2022· article· en· W4280555414 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAlifmatika Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran Matematika · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology-Enhanced Education Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScopusThrivingInclusion (mineral)Systematic reviewMathematics educationMedical educationLibrary sciencePsychologyPedagogyMEDLINESocial scienceMedicineSociologyComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Design Thinking is a knowledge as a thriving innovation practice and an approach to creative problem solving. The main purpose of this study is to review existing studies which are related to the Design Thinking in Mathematics Education for primary school. The search terms were used by inserting the suitable keywords based on the main topic such as "design thinking", "mathematics education", "mathematics", "primary school" and "elementary school". Systematic Literature Review (SLR) was conducted to gain information for better understanding regarding our topic. This SLR was performed through two search engines which were SpringerLink and Scopus. In reporting this study, the PRISMA guidelines were followed. We identified and screened 1123 articles published between 2017 until 2021 in SpringerLink and Scopus. After elimination of duplicates and non-relevant topics, there were 23 articles remained based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The limited number of studies on the main topic as design thinking for primary school caused the small numbers of articles were selected. This is because there are many articles about teachers and post-graduate. Our findings indicated that the year of 2021 was mostly research conducted, followed by the year of 2020, 2019 and 2017 meanwhile there is no research conducted in 2018. Concerning the geographical distribution of the authors, the findings indicated that the predominant authors that developing the design thinking were in Germany, Australia, USA, Singapore and Switzerland, and only a few research conducted in Hong Kong, Sweden, Cyprus, Israel, Turkey, UK, Spain, Canada, Netherlands, Malaysia, and mixed countries. From the results, we can see that this design thinking should be practiced by teachers in their teaching regardless of whether it is mathematics or any other subject. In conclusion, design thinking among the students, especially primary school students nowadays, is indispensable to ensure that our country is always moving forward in the era of globalization.

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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.613
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.304 · 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