Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Philosophical Issues in Curriculum is a class offered twice (Spring and Summer semesters) every two years. The course is designed to normally attend student-teachers whom are finishing their practicums. After much emphasis in “Professional training” for student-teachers, it is believed that they lack a stronger humanistic/philosophical background. Having that in mind, I designed the course in a way that I could invite the student-teachers to think about the difficult aspects of education: how hard it is to work in groups, how difficult it is to manage and organize people and discussions. The readings were all basically on critical pedagogy, and there was a heavy reading load. I chose to require four full-length books and a myriad of suggested readings and films, in order to challenge these student-teachers to do some slow, thoughtful and distraction-free work. One of the most interesting moments of the course was the course syllabus itself. Having experienced some difficulties managing seminar courses in the past, I wrote a lengthy (10 pages!) syllabus to be read in class during week one. I wrote the syllabus in a conversational tone, with some footnotes that added some humour and lightness to the tremendous academic tasks I was inviting them to engage in. Besides the many activities and readings, I asked my students to develop a project without having in mind a final grade. The main pre-requisite of the project was that they designed it to show the community that lives outside of academia. I tried to foster the sense that since we were in a public institution for higher learning, we should develop work and give it back to the people. Out of four groups (of eight students each), two projects are already real and engaged in the world: one is a curriculum on social justice designed by teachers, fighting for the teachers’ right to design their own curriculum, and has caught the Minister of Education’s eye. The other project became a real forum in which educators from diverse fields and backgrounds gather once a month to discuss solutions for education’s problems. This project was worth only ten per cent of their mark, and their final op-ed (with its 750 word max limit) was worth fifty. Paradoxically, they all put way more effort into their projects. Proof of this is that no-one’s op-ed has been published, thus far. I established this grading system in a paradoxical manner as a way for them to reflect upon the true value and/or meaning of grades.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».