| Figures | ||
| 1.1 | The STEA+M plexus education model. | 3 |
| 1.2 | Curriculum potential in the STEM learning areas for the Empathise stage. | 14 |
| 1.3 | Curriculum potential in the Humanities for the Empathise stage. | 15 |
| 2.1 | TPCK model as theorised by Mishra and Koehler (2006). | 26 |
| 4.1 | The post-task interview with Kathy and Gary. | 70 |
| 4.2 | The ‘body compass’ activity. | 72 |
| 8.1 | Conceptual design to access the PPT. | 145 |
| 8.2 | Weighted scores for the questions PD13 and PF16. | 148 |
| 8.3 | Home and login page of the Practicum Profiles Tool. | 152 |
| 8.4 | Student teacher login access page and questionnaire. | 153 |
| 8.5 | PPT Home page. | 154 |
| 8.6 | Entity-relationship diagram with the main PPT contents. | 155 |
| 8.7 | Matching scores from one student teachers and the poll of mentor teachers. Call: 2022 from a university of The Netherlands. | 156 |
| 10.1 | Theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). | 184 |
| 10.2 | Structural model, standardised coefficients. | 190 |
| 12.1 | Place of residence of respondents. | 221 |
| 12.2 | Employment position. | 221 |
| 12.3 | Job relevance to qualification. | 221 |
| 12.4 | Reasons for dropping out of compulsory education. | 222 |
| 12.5 | Reasons for participation in second chance schools. | 222 |
| 12.6 | Reasons for dropping out of second chance schools. | 223 |
| 15.1 | EppekQual’s conceptual framework. | 277 |
| Tables | ||
| 1.1 | Stages of design thinking process: Descriptions in education (Kidman et al., 2022; Tech Schools, 2020; Hasso Plattner Institute of Design, 2010; Stevens, 2021; Woolery, 2019). | 12 |
| 1.2 | Curriculum potential of design thinking stages in the STEM and Humanities areas. | 17 |
| 3.1 | Example for data analysis. | 49 |
| 3.2 | Harmful values. | 50 |
| 5.1 | First stage analysis mapping. | 91 |
| Second stage analysis mapping. | 94 | |
| 7.1 | Phases of problem-based learning. | 125 |
| 8.1 | Pairing questions for the managerial, professional and pedagogical dimensions. | 146 |
| 10.1 | Constructs in the research model and their operational definitions. | 187 |
| 10.2 | Validity and reliability. | 189 |
| 10.3 | Structural model goodness of fit (GOF). | 190 |
| 10.4 | Parameter estimates. | 191 |
| 13.1 | Class aims, activities, techniques and tools. | 233 |
| 13.2 | Students’ gender, year of study, year of birth, grown up area. | 236 |
| 13.3 | CNS items, Mayer and Franz 2004. | 237 |
| 13.4 | Ethos and professional ethics items. | 238 |
| 13.5 | NC items before and after the on-line class. | 240 |
| 13.6 | Ethos and professional ethics items before and after the on-line class. | 241 |
| 13.7 | Ethos and professional ethics correlation with NC, before and after class implementation. | 242 |
| 15.1 | Confirmatory factor analysis. | 279 |
| 15.2 | Composite reliability. | 280 |
| 15.3 | The EppekQual scale. | 283 |
in Reimagining Education for the Second Quarter of the 21st Century and Beyond
Herausgeber:innen:
,
, und
Tasos Barkatsas
Tasos Barkatsas
Search for other papers by Tasos Barkatsas in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Tasos Barkatsas in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Patricia McLaughlin
Patricia McLaughlin
Search for other papers by Patricia McLaughlin in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Patricia McLaughlin in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Wendy Goff
Wendy Goff
Search for other papers by Wendy Goff in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Wendy Goff in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed