Teachers' perceptions of innovations in the family management curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to gain an understanding of teachers' perceptions of innovations in a curriculum. The study examined three teachers' perceptions of the integrative approach and ecological perspective in the Family Management curriculum document in British Columbia. Two interviews, sixty to one hundred and twenty minutes in length, were conducted with each teacher. During the interviews, each teacher was asked to submit documents that illustrated the meaning the innovations had for their teaching. Through subsequent transcript and document analysis, descriptions of the teachers' perceptions were developed. For none of the teachers were the innovations immediately meaningful. However, they were able to give meaning to both concepts. Two teachers perceived the integrative approach as relating topics and concepts through discussions and work sheets. The third teacher used assignments that related topics and concepts although she did not perceive this as integrative. Teachers had similar perceptions of the ecological perspective: the interrelationship among the individual and family with the school, peers, and the local community. Teacher perceptions were influenced by multiple factors: lack of need for the innovations, the lack of pedagogical and conceptual clarity in the innovations, complexity of the innovations, time, inservice, peer meetings, teaching experience and students.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".