Investigating the design-science connection in a multiweek engineering design-based introductory physics laboratory task
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
Reform documents advocate for innovative pedagogical strategies to enhance student learning. A key innovation is the integration of science and engineering practices through engineering design (ED)-based physics laboratory tasks, where students tackle engineering design problems by applying physics principles. While this approach has its benefits, research shows that students do not always effectively apply scientific concepts, but instead rely on trial-and-error approaches, and end up their way to a solution. This leads to what is commonly referred to as the —that students do not always consciously apply science concepts while solving a design problem. However, as obvious as the notion of a may appear, there seems to exist no consensus on the definitions of and , further complicating the understanding of this gap. This qualitative study addresses the notion of the design-science gap by examining student groups’ discussions and written lab reports from a multiweek ED-based undergraduate introductory physics laboratory task. Building on our earlier studies, we developed and employed a nuanced, multilayered coding scheme inspired by the Gioia Framework to characterize and . We discuss how student groups engage in various aspects of design and how they apply physics concepts and principles to solve the problem. In the process, we demonstrate the interconnectedness of students’ design thinking and science thinking. We advocate for the usage of the term as opposed to to deepen both design and science thinking. Our findings offer valuable insights for educators in design-based science education.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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