Curriculum orientations and program realities: negotiated agendas?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this classroom-based case study was to explore the process by which institutional values are translated into teaching and learning. A content-based course, Translating and Interpreting 200 (TT 200), offered in the second year of a two-year program at a Canadian college for Japanese ESL students was the focus of the study. The mission of this institution was to educate students to develop a global perspective. The study involved four groups of participants: 1) three senior management members, 2) three "junior management" members, 3) four IT 200 faculty and 4) forty-two students. Data were collected through document analysis and ethnographic interviewing. The study investigated A) the intended program, identifying the curriculum orientations (McNeil, 1990) in the mission statement, in senior management's interpretation of the mission statement, and in IT 200 faculty definitions of globalism and B) the enacted curriculum, examining the extent to which the orientations were evident in IT 200 curriculum documents and in students' perceptions of their learning. Results indicated that the mission statement, in addition to the curriculum orientations identified by McNeil (1990), was based on a processual form of humanism containing key moments of reconceptualization-- self-actualization, perspective building and global impact—through which students were able to view themselves and their relationships with other people anew. Faculty definitions of globalism were congruent with the intended orientations, supporting a match between the intended and implemented curriculum. Administrative constraints and faculty perceptions of students were perceived to limit the implementability of humanistic and social orientations underlying globalism. The intended orientations emerged in the IT 200 curriculum document, giving students exposure to a variety of learning experiences which worked in unity to bring about the intended aims of the mission statement Students' perceptions of their learning in IT 200 reflected the intended orientations. Social (26%), Technical-Academic (17%) and a Technological-Academic / Humanistic (17%) combination emerged dominant An analysis of the data from three students revealed a unifying themetransformation, supporting Mezirow's (1978; 1981; 1990) theory of perspective transformation and the Reconceptual approach (Heubner, 1963) that stresses learning through lived experience and particular perspectives.
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 | 0.019 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".