MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4393148208 · doi:10.1002/curj.264

Curriculum in Professional Practice: A spotlight on professionalism‐in‐context through dialogue

2024· article· en· W4393148208 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Curriculum Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueTeacher Education and Leadership Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésContext (archaeology)CurriculumPedagogyProfessional developmentSociologyMedical educationPsychologyEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceMedicineEngineeringHistoryArchaeology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This editorial introduces the second Curriculum in Professional Practice forum. This issue features our very first Curriculum dialogue, a unique format that allows for the development of dialogue between several authors, focusing on an area of curriculum-related research and practice. Such dialogue provides insight into the ways in which individuals value and negotiate different experiences, knowledge and perspectives around an area of practice. As part of this, we envisage that authors and readers will also be able to critically reflect on their own roles and contexts. The Curriculum dialogue format illuminates the professional expertise and judgement at play within a specific time and place. In so doing, this offers an antidote to the decontextualised and de-professionalised notions of teaching that are being constructed in some policy contexts (Hordern & Brooks, 2023; Mayer & Mills, 2021). At the same time, we see the Curriculum dialogue as a space in and of itself, whereby ‘professionalism-in-context’ (Kontovourki et al., 2018) emerges from the ‘bundle of trajectories’ (Massey, 2005, p. 54) that are brought together. In our inaugural editorial, we drew attention to the artificial binaries and boundaries that can exist when describing professionals involved in curriculum research and practice (Healy et al., 2024). In this issue, professionals are actively challenging binaries within subject curricula content and navigating constraints between ‘official, taught and experienced’ curricula (Priestley et al., 2021, p. 14). This includes exploration of the tensions between the prescribed curricula and the collaborative ways teachers might enact curricula that is shaped in-situ with their students. Contributors also draw upon experiences of working and studying across different country contexts, which appears to play a role in illuminating where there is potential to reconceptualise curricula content and reenvisage approaches to curriculum and teacher development. This issue comprises a Curriculum dialogue article and two Perspectives and reflections articles. The first paper, by Haira Gandolfi, Terra Glowach, Sharon Walker, Lee Walker and Elizabeth Rushton, builds upon Gandolfi and Rushton's (2023) Special Issue on Decolonial and anti-racist perspectives in teacher education curricula in England and Wales by opening space for a collaborative discussion between professionals working in teacher education and professional development across schools and universities. Gandolfi et al.'s dialogue allows insight into the forms of engagement teacher educators and school leaders have with decolonisation and anti-racism through their professional practice. The dialogue's concluding remarks address barriers and challenges, alongside hope for the ways that anti-racist and decolonial work can be taken forward. The second article, by Katherine Wallace, introduces an Indigenous-informed view of history education whereby ‘historical significance is reimagined as historical affect’. Wallace's studies in Vancouver, Canada transformed the perspectives on history education she initially developed as a history teacher in England. Within the article, this Indigenous-informed critique illuminates the binaries underpinning approaches to ‘historical thinking’ and addresses the consequences for history teachers in school classrooms when challenging these binaries. Finally, the third article, by Lottie Howard-Merrill, addresses the question of ‘What can curriculum contribute to preventing forced marriage?’ Howard-Merrill foregrounds her own professional expertise and that of the teachers involved in her research. In doing so, Howard-Merrill reveals challenges between prescriptive approaches to Relationships, Sexuality and Health Education (RSHE) and the richness of students' existing knowledge from an array of sources (e.g., documentaries, friends, social media and novels). The article raises questions about where there is capacity for teachers to cultivate space for young people to reflect on their own experiences, perspectives and lived realities. The article remains hopeful about possibilities for change whereby curriculum approaches could better create conditions for students' and teachers' agency in learning about gendered violence, including forced marriage. Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

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.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,686
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,796

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,107
Tête enseignante GPT0,455
Écart entre enseignants0,348 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle