MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392681698 · doi:10.22318/icls2023.430707

Reframing From Design Fields: Supporting Pre-Service Teachers in Designerly Thinking

2023· article· en· W4392681698 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings. · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive reframingConceptualizationFraming (construction)Design thinkingComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Mathematics educationHuman–computer interactionEngineeringPsychologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Guided by contemporary theory and research from design fields, we propose a framework for conceptualizing K-12 educators' stances towards design that focuses on problem framing, information gathering, divergent thinking, and iteration.We use this framework to analyze data drawn from 28 pre-service teachers' conceptualization of design within the context of a design course taken by over 400 pre-service teachers.Our analysis demonstrated that most participants made only moderate progress in refining their thinking about design. Theoretical frameworkInsights from design fields suggest that a designerly stance towards design for K-12 educators focused on supporting second order changes would emphasize four key themes as follows: (a) view of the problem space (e.g.,

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.665
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.252 · 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