What the elementary schools should be doing : blueprints from three Canadian provinces - Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined major provincial curriculum-defining documents produced during the period 1969 to 1977 in Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia, Canada, in order to identify: (1) the reasons for the preparation of the documents, (2) the processes by which the documents were prepared, (3) the recommendations made concerning priorities for the elementary schools curriculum, and (4) any possible applications for the Nigerian educational systems. The conceptualization used in the study represented curriculum as a process of societal educational decision-making and a product of that process. The conceptualization was used as an analytical tool to examine the source documents. The specific questions used in the study are of two types - process and product. The questions relating to process were intended to identify in the source documents the procedures used for their preparation. The questions relating to product sought to identify in the documents the curricula for the elementary schools. A comparative analysis of the findings about the procedures showed essential differences between the Ontario and the Alberta documents on the one hand and the British Columbia document on the other. Two policy decision-making models (rational-participatory and reactive-adversarial) were used to examine the procedures. The rational-participatory model was recommended for the Nigerian educational systems. An assessment of the procedural methods observed in the three Canadian documents indicated that the methods could apply to Nigerian settings in a particular way which could facilitate the involvement of both the literate and the illiterate in the process of a societal education decision-making. A comparative analysis of the findings about the curriculum for the elementary schools showed that the three Canadian documents display in their statements of ends and means of schooling considerable variety in breadth, specificity, and clarity. The advantages of specificity may be offset to some extent by the way in which broader statements may facilitate curriculum development within the framework which they provide.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".