MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Transdisciplinarity and the Dangers and Opportunities of STEM Education: An Interview with Dr. Pratim Sengupta

2025· article· en· W7117259644 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Nenad Radakovic

Bibliographic record

VenueEncounters in Theory and History of Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Education and Society
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersPeabody CollegeNational Science Foundation
KeywordsScholarshipTransdisciplinarityConceptualizationConversationThe artsScience educationCurriculumDisciplinePragmatism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dr. Pratim Sengupta is a professor of learning sciences, and a member of the Graduate Faculty of Computational Media Design at the University of Calgary, where he has also served as Research Chair of STEM Education. Prior to joining the University of Calgary, Dr. Sengupta was a professor at Vanderbilt University's Peabody College, where he co-founded and chaired the Learning Sciences PhD program. He is the recipient of a National Science Foundation CAREER Award (2012) for his research on developing agent-based programming languages and integrating computational modeling in K12 science and math classrooms, and a Paul D. Fleck Award from the Banff Center for Arts and Creativity for his work on public computing. He is a Fellow of the International Society for Design and Development in Education. Significant editorial roles include executive editor of Cognition and Instruction (2017 – 2025), and senior editor for Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education (2018 – ongoing). Prior to completing his PhD in learning sciences at Northwestern University, Dr. Sengupta attended Presidency College, Kolkata (India), the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur (India) and Northwestern University (USA), where he received his undergraduate and graduate degrees in Physics. I first encountered Pratim’s work about five years ago while researching scholarship on transdisciplinarity in STEM and STEM education. At that time, and still today, there was a challenge in finding work that was truly transdisciplinary. Pratim’s conceptualization of coding as a participatory and embodied process aligned closely with my own view of transdisciplinary STEM. This interview is a slightly modified transcript of our conversation about transdisciplinarity and the dangers and opportunities of STEM 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.481
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEncounters in Theory and History of EducationSame topicDigital Education and SocietyFrench-language works237,207