Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study drew upon a constructivist and Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligence view of learning, to develop an interactive curriculum development model involving high school students and teachers. Eight grade ten students contributed in a central way to the study, a factor precipitated by my intention to emphasize students’ perspectives concerning their individual abilities and interests, and the way in which the high school curriculum did or did not accommodate these. Four grade ten teachers also participated in the task of identifying the degree to which students’ individual differences can be accommodated in an integrated high school curriculum. The study, conducted over a ten-month period during one school-year, addressed three questions. 1) What is the nature of the curriculum development process when high school students and teachers in their classroom practices, apply ideas congruent with Multiple Intelligence Theory, in order to address individual student differences, within the traditional constraints of a high school? How can these processes be incorporated into a model? 2) What was the role of the students in the development of the Multiple Intelligence Theory Application Model? and, 3) What was the role of the teachers in the development of the Multiple Intelligence Theory Application Model? My response to these questions involved the monitoring of students’ perspectives concerning their interests and abilities as reflected by both their current curriculum and the integrated curricular unit prepared by the teachers. The students’ and teachers’ perspectives are discussed and examined by means of in-depth interviews, interactive group discussions, and field notes and documentation of the collaborative processes involved in developing the integrated curriculum unit. The analysis of the findings suggests that change within the curriculum content, consistent with a constructivist and MI view of learning, would enable students to develop further their individual differences. Such change is endorsed particularly by the high school student participants. The study also examines the usefulness of the MITA Model as a means of initiating that change, within an integrated studies context. Finally, I suggest a number of related issues for further research.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 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".