Designership Press · Research programme
100 research directions connect Cheteni’s public work with questions that can be investigated. Explore spatial computing, classroom agents, Designership, educational infrastructure and human potential. Each topic is a proposed inquiry; the completed research editions are collected in Volume 1.
Domain 1: Spatial Computing, VR, & Embodied Cognitive Science · Research direction
Study approach: fMRI study measuring motor cortex activation during VR vs. physical spatial tasks.
Domain 1: Spatial Computing, VR, & Embodied Cognitive Science · Research direction
Study approach: Benchmark testing human temporal-spatial prediction vs. multimodal AI world models.
Domain 1: Spatial Computing, VR, & Embodied Cognitive Science · Research direction
Study approach: 3-year multi-site RCT comparing virtual vs. brick-and-mortar learning outcomes.
Domain 1: Spatial Computing, VR, & Embodied Cognitive Science · Research direction
Study approach: Measuring cognitive load (EEG) during multi-modal haptic VR STEM simulations.
Domain 1: Spatial Computing, VR, & Embodied Cognitive Science · Research direction
Study approach: Measuring skill transfer efficiency in aeronautical assembly tasks via VR training.
Domain 1: Spatial Computing, VR, & Embodied Cognitive Science · Research direction
Study approach: Eye-tracking and pupillometry analysis of cognitive strain across XR environments.
Domain 1: Spatial Computing, VR, & Embodied Cognitive Science · Research direction
Study approach: Longitudinal study tracking 3D spatial reasoning test scores post-VR spatial intervention.
Domain 1: Spatial Computing, VR, & Embodied Cognitive Science · Research direction
Study approach: Structural MRI study assessing hippocampal grey matter density changes after 6 months in VR.
Domain 1: Spatial Computing, VR, & Embodied Cognitive Science · Research direction
Study approach: Co-design study validating adaptive spatial controls for motor-impaired learners.
Domain 1: Spatial Computing, VR, & Embodied Cognitive Science · Research direction
Study approach: Qualitative & behavioral analysis of non-verbal cues and trust development in VR avatars.
Domain 1: Spatial Computing, VR, & Embodied Cognitive Science · Research direction
Study approach: Comparative study of collaborative problem solving between US and African VR cohorts.
Domain 1: Spatial Computing, VR, & Embodied Cognitive Science · Research direction
Study approach: Double-blind RCT assessing error rates in laparoscopic surgery post-XR rehearsal.
Domain 1: Spatial Computing, VR, & Embodied Cognitive Science · Research direction
Study approach: Real-time theta/beta EEG ratio tracking during adaptive spatial problem-solving.
Domain 1: Spatial Computing, VR, & Embodied Cognitive Science · Research direction
Study approach: Machine learning classification of head-tracking/telemetry data to predict dropout.
Domain 1: Spatial Computing, VR, & Embodied Cognitive Science · Research direction
Study approach: Measuring empathy and long-term retention of ecological concepts via immersive VR.
Domain 1: Spatial Computing, VR, & Embodied Cognitive Science · Research direction
Study approach: Behavioral study on sensory regulation and focus using customizable VR stimuli.
Domain 1: Spatial Computing, VR, & Embodied Cognitive Science · Research direction
Study approach: Assessing spatial map construction via spatialized audio and ultrasonic haptic gloves.
Domain 1: Spatial Computing, VR, & Embodied Cognitive Science · Research direction
Study approach: Comparing conversational fluency gains between traditional software and XR immersion.
Domain 1: Spatial Computing, VR, & Embodied Cognitive Science · Research direction
Study approach: Algorithmic optimization of virtual spatial layouts to minimize navigation fatigue.
Domain 1: Spatial Computing, VR, & Embodied Cognitive Science · Research direction
Study approach: Micro-genetic study of intuitive physics concept formation during spatial VR manipulation.
Domain 2: Social Robotics & Autonomous Classroom Agents · Research direction
Study approach: Field study evaluating Jibo-class conversational agents in early childhood literacy.
Domain 2: Social Robotics & Autonomous Classroom Agents · Research direction
Study approach: Multi-agent RL deployment managing small-group discussions autonomously.
Domain 2: Social Robotics & Autonomous Classroom Agents · Research direction
Study approach: Testing real-time facial/voice emotion adaptive interventions in math anxiety.
Domain 2: Social Robotics & Autonomous Classroom Agents · Research direction
Study approach: Longitudinal psychological assessment of attachment behaviors toward AI robot tutors.
Domain 2: Social Robotics & Autonomous Classroom Agents · Research direction
Study approach: Measuring trust repair strategies by AI agents after delivery of incorrect information.
Domain 2: Social Robotics & Autonomous Classroom Agents · Research direction
Study approach: Clinical trial measuring joint attention behaviors in autistic children interacting with AI.
Domain 2: Social Robotics & Autonomous Classroom Agents · Research direction
Study approach: Micro-level interaction analysis of LLM-driven adaptive dynamic scaffolding.
Domain 2: Social Robotics & Autonomous Classroom Agents · Research direction
Study approach: Computer vision + microphone array tracking of group dynamics during autonomous tasks.
Domain 2: Social Robotics & Autonomous Classroom Agents · Research direction
Study approach: 2-year longitudinal study evaluating retention and self-efficacy in STEM with robot tutors.
Domain 2: Social Robotics & Autonomous Classroom Agents · Research direction
Study approach: Benchmark evaluation and fine-tuning of Whisper/Gemini models on child acoustic data.
Domain 2: Social Robotics & Autonomous Classroom Agents · Research direction
Study approach: A/B testing user preference and learning gains across non-humanoid vs. humanoid bots.
Domain 2: Social Robotics & Autonomous Classroom Agents · Research direction
Study approach: Assessing peer debate quality when moderated by an neutral AI robotic facilitator.
Domain 2: Social Robotics & Autonomous Classroom Agents · Research direction
Study approach: Edge-AI implementation of facial expression analysis without centralized video storage.
Domain 2: Social Robotics & Autonomous Classroom Agents · Research direction
Study approach: Evaluating automated engagement scores as predictors of formative assessment results.
Domain 2: Social Robotics & Autonomous Classroom Agents · Research direction
Study approach: Deployment of low-cost, offline-first solar powered robotic tutors in rural schools.
Domain 2: Social Robotics & Autonomous Classroom Agents · Research direction
Study approach: Comparing supportive vs. neutral pedagogical agent feedback on student persistence.
Domain 2: Social Robotics & Autonomous Classroom Agents · Research direction
Study approach: Measuring intrinsic motivation metrics during gamified AI robot tutor sessions.
Domain 2: Social Robotics & Autonomous Classroom Agents · Research direction
Study approach: Mixed-methods study on teacher burnout and shift to high-level mentoring with AI.
Domain 2: Social Robotics & Autonomous Classroom Agents · Research direction
Study approach: RAG-constrained LLM evaluation for zero-error domain-specific science instruction.
Domain 2: Social Robotics & Autonomous Classroom Agents · Research direction
Study approach: Testing specialized multi-robot roles (explainer, challenger, coach) in group learning.
Domain 3: Designership, Agency, Evidence and Public Contribution · Research direction
Research question: Does giving community members explicit revision authority over student-built local science worlds improve cultural accuracy and scientific transfer relative to consultation alone?
Study approach: A preregistered school-cluster pilot would compare community consultation with a co-governed revision process using the same science content, time and accessible headset/desktop options. Community reviewers and blinded science raters would independently score representational accuracy and delayed local-to-unfamiliar transfer; the study would track whose requested changes were accepted, rejected or negotiated. Consent would cover location privacy and the ability to withdraw community representations.
Distinct contribution: Existing idea11 compares cross-cultural collaboration;15 examines presence in climate field trips. This studies local representational governance and community revision rights, with independent cultural and science outcomes.
Domain 3: Designership, Agency, Evidence and Public Contribution · Research direction
Research question: Can an explicit mission-revision protocol help adolescents change a project direction in response to contradictory evidence without reducing persistence?
Study approach: Within a year-long research programme, randomize advisory groups to scheduled evidence-based mission reviews or equally frequent progress reviews. Blinded raters would score justified revision, inappropriate persistence and quality of transfer to a second problem. Record withdrawal, workload and perceived pressure; do not equate changing aspirations with failure. A prospective protocol would separate exploration, commitment and identity foreclosure rather than reduce all three to motivation.
Distinct contribution: Ideas83,88,89,92 concern risk-taking, entrepreneurship, self-efficacy or agency. This isolates evidence-justified mission revision and the potential harm of premature commitment.
Domain 3: Designership, Agency, Evidence and Public Contribution · Research direction
Research question: Does requiring graduating project teams to leave a teachable, revisable design handoff improve the next cohort's reasoning beyond access to a finished showcase?
Study approach: Compare matched incoming teams receiving either an outgoing team's structured handoff (failed prototypes, decision rationale, known limitations and a short live teaching session) or a polished final product plus equal access time. The primary outcome would be blind-scored diagnosis of a novel failure, with secondary measures of attribution accuracy and inherited misconceptions. Cohort-level analysis would explicitly model contamination and outgoing-team expertise.
Distinct contribution: Ideas86 and90 address peer collaboration and mentorship generally. This manipulates the content and structure of inter-cohort knowledge handoffs and measures inherited understanding.
Domain 3: Designership, Agency, Evidence and Public Contribution · Research direction
Research question: Do explicit decision rights and a structured dissent round improve adolescents' use of advice compared with an equally resourced advisory meeting organized around encouragement and progress?
Study approach: A consented, cluster-randomized feasibility study would compare meeting formats while balancing advisor expertise and contact time. Students would privately state an initial rationale, encounter conflicting advice and produce a documented final decision. Blind raters would evaluate reasoning, warranted rejection of prestigious advice and follow-through. Youth assent, adult consent, confidentiality and an escalation route would be established before collection.
Distinct contribution: Idea90 studies mentorship in innovation garages. This isolates board decision architecture, status-based deference and documented dissent rather than mentor access or frequency.
Domain 3: Designership, Agency, Evidence and Public Contribution · Research direction
Research question: When civic and community work can qualify students for a research pathway, which forms of work are recognized, whose contributions are missed and what support predicts sustained participation?
Study approach: Begin with an archival protocol using verified, publicly releasable programme criteria and aggregate admissions records; follow with an opt-in prospective cohort across partner schools. Double-code applications for kinds of civic evidence and examine selection, support uptake and completion using preregistered equity contrasts. Suppress small cells and distinguish selection associations from programme effects. Historical minutes would establish the existence of a reported pathway plan, not its later results.
Distinct contribution: Ideas62,64 and80 address access at infrastructure scale. This studies the selection and recognition rules that convert pre-existing civic work into research opportunities.
Domain 3: Designership, Agency, Evidence and Public Contribution · Research direction
Research question: Does building an evidence-checked account of an overlooked contributor improve students' historical causal reasoning more than producing a conventional hero-focused science narrative?
Study approach: Use a controlled classroom study with matched archival packets and a common historical inquiry. Student teams must distinguish primary records, retrospective testimony and unsupported inference, then defend a contribution claim under counter-evidence. Assessors blind to condition would score causal explanation, uncertainty and attribution. Any Tom Shiokari case would require verified archival provenance and family permissions for nonpublic materials before use.
Distinct contribution: Ideas93 and97 examine media integration or civic engagement. This tests primary-source reasoning, credit allocation and uncertainty in the reconstruction of science history.
Domain 3: Designership, Agency, Evidence and Public Contribution · Research direction
Research question: Which design commitments, governance arrangements and student-author roles persist or change across the publicly documented 2017–2026 Designership-related initiatives?
Study approach: Develop a preregistered longitudinal documentary study combining date-verified programme announcements, governance minutes, archived curricula and opt-in oral histories. Use a source-criticism matrix separating contemporaneous records from retrospective claims; seek disconfirming cases and independently code changes in authority, assessment and publication. Publish a rights-cleared evidence catalogue and a versioned chronology rather than infer effectiveness from programme longevity.
Distinct contribution: Idea100 is a broad 20-year future-of-work retrospective. This is a bounded 2017–2026 documentary/process-tracing study with explicit provenance tests and rival historical interpretations.
Source foundations
Domain 3: Designership, Agency, Evidence and Public Contribution · Research direction
Research question: Does concept-map search paired with explicit claim-to-source verification improve the quality of students' evidence selection compared with conventional search instruction?
Study approach: Preregistered classroom cluster trial comparing time-matched search approaches. Blind-rate source relevance, inferential fit and citation completeness in common research briefs; assess delayed transfer on an unfamiliar question and report access differences.
Distinct contribution: The 80 seeds address AI tutoring and media creation but do not isolate source-selection literacy and inferential fit in knowledge-graph discovery.
Domain 3: Designership, Agency, Evidence and Public Contribution · Research direction
Research question: Can structured contribution records and short oral defenses improve the accuracy and fairness of author-credit decisions in collaborative high-school research?
Study approach: Prospective multi-school validation study using version histories, contribution statements, artifact-linked oral explanations and independent assessors. Compare credit decisions with ordinary group grading, test inter-rater agreement and audit unequal access to visible roles; obtain consent and protect minors' private records.
Distinct contribution: Distinct from general project assessment (seed 91): the primary construct is accuracy of scholarly contribution attribution, not overall project attainment or journal publication volume.
Domain 3: Designership, Agency, Evidence and Public Contribution · Research direction
Research question: When research participation is rewarded, do students improve durable subject mastery or mainly optimize the visible metrics that earn rewards?
Study approach: Ethically reviewed, low-stakes experiment comparing nonfinancial recognition conditions and a no-reward condition. Preserve identical access to instruction, prohibit tradable speculative tokens and grade-linked financial rewards, use independent delayed transfer tasks, and examine crowding-out, gaming and differential participation.
Distinct contribution: Seed 63 concerns blockchain credentialing; the proposed study isolates measurement validity and motivational side effects rather than advocating a ledger or cryptocurrency.
Domain 3: Designership, Agency, Evidence and Public Contribution · Research direction
Research question: Can external educators reach consistent competency judgments from a student's research evidence when it moves between learning platforms and course contexts?
Study approach: Crossed-rater generalizability study using consented, de-identified research portfolios exported from at least three LMS environments. Hold content constant while varying evidence packaging; test inter-rater agreement, missing context, accessibility and inferential validity against independent common tasks. Publish a minimal evidence specification with exemplars and failure cases.
Distinct contribution: Seed 73 concerns immersive-platform interoperability and 77 concerns accreditation; this tests actual transferability and rater consistency of student evidence across courses and LMS exports.
Domain 3: Designership, Agency, Evidence and Public Contribution · Research direction
Research question: Does a teach-back consent process improve students' understanding of publication visibility, authorship, licensing and the limits of later withdrawal?
Study approach: Participatory design followed by a randomized comparison of standard disclosure versus interactive teach-back in simulated submissions. Measure comprehension, retention, voluntary choice and accessible participation; use no real public release without separate student and guardian permissions where required, and preserve a private alternative of equal academic value.
Distinct contribution: Distinct from XR telemetry privacy (seed 67): this addresses informed scholarly publication choices and the persistence of young people's public research records.
Domain 3: Designership, Agency, Evidence and Public Contribution · Research direction
Research question: How do planned transfer and closure practices affect students' trust, help-seeking and continuity of learning when a school retires a social robot or digital agent?
Study approach: Prospective multisite mixed-methods study of naturally scheduled platform changes. Compare an advance-notice and human-handover routine with ordinary transition support; never withdraw needed support solely to create an experimental condition. Predefine observable help-seeking, retention of a human support contact, curriculum continuity and student perceptions of control. Analyse class-level differences with baseline measures and document vendor outages separately from planned retirement. Require assent, guardian consent when applicable, an alternative activity and an escalation path to a human educator.
Distinct contribution: Existing ideas 21, 24, 25 and 29 examine robot effects, attachment, trust or long-term use. This studies service cessation, relationship repair and organizational handover, an unfilled lifecycle stage.
Domain 3: Designership, Agency, Evidence and Public Contribution · Research direction
Research question: Does a student-controlled correction and consent process improve the accuracy, ownership and revision quality of public school research artifacts?
Study approach: Cluster-randomized delayed-start study across school media or research classes. All groups receive safeguarding and factual review; the added protocol gives students a visible correction ledger, source challenge process and a choice between public and restricted circulation before any release. After public release, students can request correction, attribution repair, privacy redaction or platform restrictions, with explicit explanation that distributed copies and lawful licensed reuse may not be recallable. Blind assessors score source-claim alignment, correction quality and distinctions between reported opinion and evidence. Track how requests are resolved; publication itself is never required for a grade. Use content-matched private artifacts to avoid confounding audience size with editorial quality.
Distinct contribution: Ideas 93 and 97 cover media integration and civic engagement. This focuses on enforceable correction authority, consent renewal and factual provenance as measurable learning mechanisms.
Domain 3: Designership, Agency, Evidence and Public Contribution · Research direction
Research question: How does reciprocal authority over problem selection and evaluation change the quality and local usefulness of international student design projects?
Study approach: Co-designed comparative case study with partner schools selected only after consent and feasibility review. Student teams use either jointly negotiated community questions or an existing externally framed brief; both groups receive equivalent resources and contact time. Community panels in each setting independently assess usefulness, reciprocal contribution and whether local constraints are represented. Preserve translated decision records, compensation and access costs; examine disagreement rather than averaging it away. No promised implementation, existing bilateral partnership or beneficial outcome is assumed.
Distinct contribution: Idea 11 concerns cross-cultural spatial learning, 35 infrastructure adaptability and 72 sovereignty. This isolates reciprocal agenda-setting and community judgment rather than XR delivery or national technology policy.
Domain 3: Designership, Agency, Evidence and Public Contribution · Research direction
Research question: Can purpose, systems reasoning, relational responsiveness, execution and adaptive recovery be measured distinctly and fairly without treating metaphorical anatomy as neuroscience?
Study approach: Sequential measurement-development study with student co-design, cognitive interviews, a development sample and an independently recruited validation sample. Use secular, voluntary prompts and performance tasks, testing construct overlap with existing measures rather than presupposing five factors. Preregister factor-model comparisons, reliability targets, measurement invariance, missing-data decisions and out-of-sample prediction of a bounded project task. Include the possibility that a simpler model fits better; prohibit diagnostic use or admissions ranking until independent validation.
Distinct contribution: Idea 100 is a broad retrospective on human potential; 2 models cognitive world models and 36 examines empathy in AI. This is a falsifiable human-measurement programme for a specific five-part philosophical framework.
Domain 3: Designership, Agency, Evidence and Public Contribution · Research direction
Research question: What allocation of protected student inquiry improves substantive project progress while preserving foundational learning and keeping teacher workload sustainable?
Study approach: Preregistered pragmatic class-level trial comparing feasible small allocations of protected inquiry time with an attention-matched project planning routine. Determine candidate doses with teachers before randomization; do not assume the historical 20-percent proposal is optimal. Use blinded scoring of project reasoning, curriculum-aligned foundational tasks and teacher time diaries. Estimate learning and workload jointly, report heterogeneity by prior access and baseline attainment, and provide materials and in-school support so household resources do not determine participation.
Distinct contribution: Ideas 83, 89, 91 and 95 study risk-taking, entrepreneurship, assessment and scaling. This estimates time-allocation tradeoffs and dosage rather than treating the full Moonshot model as a single intervention.
Domain 3: Designership, Agency, Evidence and Public Contribution · Research direction
Research question: Which combinations of accommodation, transport support, introductions and academic advice reduce barriers to participation in short-term research or computing programmes?
Study approach: Prospective cohort and process study across existing access programmes, with consented recording of actual supports, costs, timing and unmet needs. Distinguish selection into a prestigious programme from support received after selection. Evaluate attendance, completion of a predefined artifact and participant-defined access barriers without using institutional prestige as the outcome. Where capacity permits, randomize only additional navigation support on top of an equitable minimum; never withhold housing or safeguarding. Use a contribution analysis and sensitivity checks rather than attributing success to a single mentor.
Distinct contribution: Idea 90 examines mentorship in innovation garages. This separates material and logistical opportunity structures from mentor advice and examines access before outcomes.
Domain 3: Designership, Agency, Evidence and Public Contribution · Research direction
Research question: Can requiring students to verify a simulated character’s claims improve historical and civic reasoning without reducing productive participation in role-play?
Study approach: Randomized classroom study with curriculum-matched simulations. Compare ordinary teacher-guided AI role-play with a version that visibly labels invented dialogue and requires a source check before historical claims enter a final argument. Both conditions include human facilitation and correction of harmful or false content. Blind-rate source use, confidence calibration and transfer to an unseen document task; audit agent logs for invented quotations and overstated certainty. Separate engagement from factual accuracy and do not present the simulation as testimony by the actual person.
Distinct contribution: Idea 39 concerns technical hallucination mitigation in tutoring. This tests learners' evidence calibration in role-play, including the educational effect of explicitly distinguishing invented dialogue from historical sources.
Domain 3: Designership, Agency, Evidence and Public Contribution · Research direction
Research question: Does learning to interpret and act on feedback in one domain transfer to evidence-based revision in another, or is the improvement domain-specific?
Study approach: Parallel-group study in secondary programmes offering sport and academic project routes. Compare explicit feedback interpretation and revision planning with time-matched practice, balancing prior experience and accessible participation. Assess both domains at baseline and use unfamiliar tasks after training to separate within-domain improvement from cross-domain transfer; counterbalance assessment order only. Blind-score use of specific feedback, justification of changes and performance on a new task, retaining pre-revision artifacts. Measure prior sport access and offer accessible non-sport equivalents. Report failure of transfer and avoid assuming that movement-based instruction benefits every learner.
Distinct contribution: Ideas 1 and 5 examine embodied motor learning and VR-to-physical transfer. This tests cross-domain feedback interpretation and revision, not motor training or immersive technology.
Domain 4: Education Policy, Metaversity Infrastructure, & EdTech Equity · Research direction
Study approach: Policy impact modeling of federal grant allocations for virtual vs. physical construction.
Domain 4: Education Policy, Metaversity Infrastructure, & EdTech Equity · Research direction
Study approach: Feasibility study of satellite-linked VR kit deployment in sub-Saharan Africa.
Domain 4: Education Policy, Metaversity Infrastructure, & EdTech Equity · Research direction
Study approach: Pilot testing decentralized identity (DID) academic records in rural school networks.
Domain 4: Education Policy, Metaversity Infrastructure, & EdTech Equity · Research direction
Study approach: GIS spatial mapping of XR infrastructure access against socio-economic indicators.
Domain 4: Education Policy, Metaversity Infrastructure, & EdTech Equity · Research direction
Study approach: Comparative analysis of university credit transfer for VR lab achievements.
Domain 4: Education Policy, Metaversity Infrastructure, & EdTech Equity · Research direction
Study approach: Econometric evaluation of venture capital vs. federal funding in sustainable EdTech.
Domain 4: Education Policy, Metaversity Infrastructure, & EdTech Equity · Research direction
Study approach: Legal and technical audit of pupil spatial telemetry under FERPA and GDPR.
Domain 4: Education Policy, Metaversity Infrastructure, & EdTech Equity · Research direction
Study approach: 10-year total cost of ownership (TCO) model comparing VR campuses to physical expansions.
Domain 4: Education Policy, Metaversity Infrastructure, & EdTech Equity · Research direction
Study approach: Empirical governance evaluation of community-driven DAO funding for public schools.
Domain 4: Education Policy, Metaversity Infrastructure, & EdTech Equity · Research direction
Study approach: Quantitative analysis of academic growth in Title I schools receiving XR grants.
Domain 4: Education Policy, Metaversity Infrastructure, & EdTech Equity · Research direction
Study approach: Delphi study establishing national competency benchmarks for spatial/AI educators.
Domain 4: Education Policy, Metaversity Infrastructure, & EdTech Equity · Research direction
Study approach: Qualitative case study on national data sovereignty in cloud-hosted AI learning platforms.
Domain 4: Education Policy, Metaversity Infrastructure, & EdTech Equity · Research direction
Study approach: Technical benchmark of OpenXR and SCORM interoperability across metaversity software.
Domain 4: Education Policy, Metaversity Infrastructure, & EdTech Equity · Research direction
Study approach: Audit of national AI grading models across demographic and socio-economic subgroups.
Domain 4: Education Policy, Metaversity Infrastructure, & EdTech Equity · Research direction
Study approach: Longitudinal study on enrollment growth among rural populations following VR deployment.
Domain 4: Education Policy, Metaversity Infrastructure, & EdTech Equity · Research direction
Study approach: Penetration testing and threat modeling of VR classroom protocols against biometric leaks.
Domain 4: Education Policy, Metaversity Infrastructure, & EdTech Equity · Research direction
Study approach: Employer survey on hiring bias regarding AI-certified skill micro-credentials.
Domain 4: Education Policy, Metaversity Infrastructure, & EdTech Equity · Research direction
Study approach: Epidemiological study on visual health and neck ergonomics in long-term juvenile XR use.
Domain 4: Education Policy, Metaversity Infrastructure, & EdTech Equity · Research direction
Study approach: Carbon footprint calculation comparing daily physical commuting vs. VR metaversities.
Domain 4: Education Policy, Metaversity Infrastructure, & EdTech Equity · Research direction
Study approach: Deployment and efficacy trial of portable VR learning hubs in refugee camps.
Domain 5: The "Woj Way", Moonshot Mindsets, & Future Workforce · Research direction
Study approach: Validating a quantitative survey instrument measuring TRICK culture in schools.
Domain 5: The "Woj Way", Moonshot Mindsets, & Future Workforce · Research direction
Study approach: Tracking student patent applications and startup creation out of high school DRGs.
Domain 5: The "Woj Way", Moonshot Mindsets, & Future Workforce · Research direction
Study approach: Psychometric assessment of failure tolerance among students in moonshot curricula.
Domain 5: The "Woj Way", Moonshot Mindsets, & Future Workforce · Research direction
Study approach: Longitudinal career trajectory analysis of graduates from 4iR-aligned high schools.
Domain 5: The "Woj Way", Moonshot Mindsets, & Future Workforce · Research direction
Study approach: Testing executive function improvements in self-directed vs. traditional classrooms.
Domain 5: The "Woj Way", Moonshot Mindsets, & Future Workforce · Research direction
Study approach: Network analysis of student collaboration patterns in open design spaces.
Domain 5: The "Woj Way", Moonshot Mindsets, & Future Workforce · Research direction
Study approach: Measuring ethical decision-making in senior design projects post-empathy modules.
Domain 5: The "Woj Way", Moonshot Mindsets, & Future Workforce · Research direction
Study approach: 10-year cohort study comparing traditional vs. Woj-Way alumni venture outcomes.
Domain 5: The "Woj Way", Moonshot Mindsets, & Future Workforce · Research direction
Study approach: Pre/post-test analysis of entrepreneurial mindset metrics in high school moonshots.
Domain 5: The "Woj Way", Moonshot Mindsets, & Future Workforce · Research direction
Study approach: Qualitative synthesis of mentor-mentee dynamics in high school tech incubators.
Domain 5: The "Woj Way", Moonshot Mindsets, & Future Workforce · Research direction
Study approach: Validating portfolio-based, peer-assessed rubric models for open-ended innovation.
Domain 5: The "Woj Way", Moonshot Mindsets, & Future Workforce · Research direction
Study approach: Interventional study measuring learned helplessness reduction via Woj-style choice.
Domain 5: The "Woj Way", Moonshot Mindsets, & Future Workforce · Research direction
Study approach: Evaluating diversity gains in CS programs offering integrated media arts curricula.
Domain 5: The "Woj Way", Moonshot Mindsets, & Future Workforce · Research direction
Study approach: Qualitative video analysis of student persistence strategies during design failures.
Domain 5: The "Woj Way", Moonshot Mindsets, & Future Workforce · Research direction
Study approach: District-wide implementation study identifying policy bottlenecks to TRICK adoption.
Domain 5: The "Woj Way", Moonshot Mindsets, & Future Workforce · Research direction
Study approach: Measuring psychological safety correlates with breakthrough project completion.
Domain 5: The "Woj Way", Moonshot Mindsets, & Future Workforce · Research direction
Study approach: Measuring local community policy change driven by student investigative media labs.
Domain 5: The "Woj Way", Moonshot Mindsets, & Future Workforce · Research direction
Study approach: Measuring teacher retention and job satisfaction in schools implementing TRICK.
Domain 5: The "Woj Way", Moonshot Mindsets, & Future Workforce · Research direction
Study approach: Tracking speed-to-prototype acceleration using AI generation tools in high school labs.
Domain 5: The "Woj Way", Moonshot Mindsets, & Future Workforce · Research direction
Study approach: Delphi panel projection on core human capabilities required alongside superintelligent AI.