Anticipating the Citizenship Curriculum Order in Secondary Schools in England: A Snapshot of Teachers' Preferred Purposes and Curriculum Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is based on a small-scale study that explored how a sample of ‘specialist’ secondary school teachers in England characterize ‘educating for citizenship’ on the eve of its inclusion into the National Curriculum. This study was carried out between September, 2000 and January, 2001. Data was gathered from a group of ‘specialist’ secondary teachers through postal self-completion questionnaires, interviews, and classroom observations. Relevant documents, e.g. school-based curriculum documents, Department for Education and Employment (DfEE), and Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) documents, were also considered. Teachers' thinking about essential learnings, curriculum practices, and contextual concerns are described and analyzed. Findings suggest general support for the purposes of the Citizenship initiative, preferred yet divergent curriculum practices, and scepticism about implementation. They also suggest a need for a more critical examination of the interconnections among curriculum intentions, pedagogical practices, and contextual considerations.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".