A Facilitative Approach to Learning About Curriculum Development
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it