A Facilitative Approach to Learning About Curriculum Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Graduate students have high ambitions and desire excellence in their work. Creating learning opportunities that capture this drive and help them achieve and exceed their goals is a challenge for educators. This article describes two teaching approaches, group process and an adaptation of Bensusan's escalator model, which were used in a graduate nursing course to help students learn about curriculum development. Students participated as a faculty group, submitting successive iterations of their work as they developed hypothetical curricula. Benefits students identified from course faculty's critiques of their submissions included experiencing enhanced self-direction, self-esteem, and mutual respect among students and between students and course faculty, as well as authentic curriculum development in a safe, caring, and supportive context. This article discusses the strengths and limitations of this pragmatic and productive learning approach to preparing future nurse educators for their role as curriculum developers.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".