Developing maker activities to enhance adolescents’ self-directed learning: A systematic review
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
With a greater emphasis on technology and innovation, developing self-directed learners has become a predominant goal in 21 st century education. Maker and design-centric activities, including 3D printing, may provide opportunities to foster self-directed learning (SDL) skills. To identify the elements that enhance SDL in adolescents during maker tool use, a systematic review of studies that targeted SDL was conducted. The review identified three main theories used to support SDL: a) self-regulated learning (SRL), b) inquiry-based learning, and c) problem-based learning. Each framework was evaluated on the applicability to 3D printing and making activities. Further, six key characteristics of SDL environments were identified as there were commonalities amongst frameworks. These include: a) guiding supports, b) SRL components, c) inquiry and choice, d) collaboration, e) differentiation: balancing goals with abilities, and f) hypothesis testing and inquiry. Based on these results, a set of practices is proposed that teachers can implement when using making-activities in their high school classrooms. It further provides a foundation for future research on the effective integration of 3D printing as an educational tool that extends beyond behavioural engagement.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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