Curricular Changes in Higher Education in Mexico (2002-2012)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Normal 0 21 false false false ES-MX X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 Based on the analysis of 1241 documents published in Mexico (2002-2012) concerning curriculum studies, we findthat the issue of innovation was addressed in 6 out of 10 research papers that focused on the higher education level(60.4 %). It shows an increase in empirical research, quantitative and qualitative, that accounts for the process ofimplementation of innovative curriculum models and recover the experiences of his actors. There is still apredominance of neoliberal discourse and a vertical approach in curricular reforms, the "top-down curriculum design",but there are also examples of active agency of actors (mostly teachers and students), ranging from acts of resistanceand rejection, to proactive experiences in their academic communities based on the organization of groups of teachersor researchers who took a leading role and achieved successful experiences related to the needs of their context. Thelack of a systemic change approach, and especially appropriate teacher training processes, are the main obstacle toeducational change prescribed in the curricular reforms in Mexico. In higher education are two important issues: thecompetency based education approach and the curricular flexibility. In both terms prevails polysemy, and there are noconsistent attempts to innovation through them in the sense of changing conceptions and practices in the classrooms.The competencies approach suffers a “pedagogical vacuum”, and in some curricular reforms it has tried to fill inseveral ways, primarily the adoption of business models or neo-behaviorists conceptions transferred to universities.The flexible curriculum is not only a technical issue, because of its implications in the management and administrationof universities, as well as in school practices and processes. There is evidence that the most important problems in theirimplementation concerns legal aspects, academic organization and operation, as well as by the lack of mentoring andacademic mobility of students and teachers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".