Spinning Curriculum Designs at a Crossroads: Big Ideas, Conversations, and Reconciliation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spinning Curriculum Designs at a Crossroads NG---A---FOOK 99that the central tenets of the field, which I assert are centred around the issues of school practice and school design, are no longer viable" (p.369).Hlebowitsh (1999) goes on to state, "you have probably read how Pinar responded to my original piece.He ignored it… The field, as a result has never really experienced any kind of open discussion about the self--proclaimed reconceptualization" (pp.369-370).To that end, he asks us not to forget "traditional" and "practical" concepts that live amongst and through "curriculum" and "instruction."In this regard, curriculum scholars who are located within the United States, Canada, and elsewhere should consider the ground breaking work put forth in Connelly, Fang, and Phillion's (2008) edited handbook on curriculum and instruction.This key text includes the work of two Canadian consulting authors (Roger Slee and Jim Cummins) as well as three contributing authors (Michael Fullan, Ben Levin, and Xu Shijing).In their own right, each has made significant contributions to educational research and policies across Canada.At the crossroads of his triangulated critique, we are asked to encounter, study, and challenge the canonical, disciplinary, differing historical readings of the American field in terms of the real and/or imagined burdens created by certain curriculum forefathers.Here, we might take note of the brilliant work of Jennifer Gilbert at York University.In Reading Histories, Gilbert (2010) asks us to reconsider the theoretical groundings that inform each of our theories for "reading" histories, for what constitutes the worldliness of curriculum and instruction as we face the pressing market demands of globalization."If
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 | 0.030 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.041 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".