Reflections on Dimensions of Educational Change: Lessons from One School Using Design Thinking as a School Reform Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to share researcher reflections about a school’s withdrawal from an educational change initiative that uses design thinking as a reform process. Upon reviewing audio-recorded workshop and debrief transcripts, observational field notes, and one follow-up telephone interview with a teacher-participant, the researchers generated some preliminary ideas about the school’s decision to withdraw. Drawing on case study methodology to interpret this qualitative data, this paper comprises three nascent dimensions of educational change which align with extant academic discourses: direction of change, facilitation approach, and communication. We interweave researcher observations and participant perspectives to provide a snapshot of how one school using a design thinking-based reform process experienced approaching school change. Little research documents design thinking as a change process, let alone in a current reform initiative. This paper attends to this gap while also providing rare access to field experiences with design thinking in action
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 | 0.053 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".