Design and Craft Education in Iceland, Pedagogical Background and Development: A literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sloyd pedagogy was introduced towards the close of the18th century to Icelandic educators. Subsequently craft was established as a specific subject aimed at general education. In the beginning craft was called “school industry,” to distinguish it from “home industry” whose aim was to help homes to be self-sufficient for commercial purposes. Different curricula focusing mainly on craft were developed until 1999 when craft was re-established as a new technological subject, based on a rationale for technological literacy, innovation and design. The new subject, Design and Craft was influenced by the national curricula of New Zealand, Canada and England and a specific Icelandic model for Innovation Education. Designand Craft education is compulsory for all grades 1-8 (ages 6-13), but optional for grades 9-10 (ages14-15). In th new subject students base their idea generation and design on authentic problems and make their artefacts from resistant materials. They design systems based on electronic circuits, mechanisms, pneumatics and structures. In this article the authors describe the pedagogical background of the subject and the curriculum development.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".