Curriculum Convergence: An ethno-historical investigation into schooling in Trinidad and Tobago
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conscious manipulation of the curriculum in order to achieve the goals of colonialism was a principle in schooling in Trinidad and Tobago prior to independent rule. The approach was selective: the state identified and conveniently put into practice certain principles believed to have potential for servicing the colonial ideal. The curriculum domains which provided guidance in the process were mental discipline, child study, social efficiency and humanism, and the indicators gleaned from each of these ideological camps came together at the height of the colonial period and collectively informed curriculum choice and pedagogical practices. An amalgam of curriculum principles and approaches, therefore, rather than any one distinct operational ideology, underpinned practice. The study focuses on the teaching end of the schooling spectrum. It uses an ethno-historical method to identify both curriculum content and pedagogical strategy, determines the ideological provenance of these inputs, and indicates how the colonial state stood to benefit from the choices made. It is argued that the approach used by the colonizer did in fact accomplish some intended outcomes, but in that very feat lies the crucible for many of the difficulties which an independent Trinidad and Tobago now faces in its attempt to develop and implement curricula that are responsive to the emergence into a modern nation state.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".