Macro-implementation of critical thinking in British Columbia's social studies curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated how macro—implementation occurs within the British Columbia Ministry of Education. In particular, the Social Studies Curriculum Guide. Grade One-Grade Seven (1983) and related student textbooks, teacher videotapes, evaluation reports and other implementation support materials were examined to determine how the policy "critical thinking and problem-solving skills," a key component of the curriculum, was interpreted. Interviews (N=15) with relevant Ministry coordinators, committee chairpersons and members, and authors/ editors/consultants were audiotaped and later transcribed for analysis in light of the existing macro-implementation literature. It was found that the curriculum lacked clarity, was perceived variously by different policy developers, and was interpreted in discrepant ways in implementation materials. Ministry efforts to implement "critical thinking and problem-solving skills" appear to have been thwarted by lack of initial policy clarity; inconsistent liaison within the Ministry to facilitate shared expertise, understanding, and positive rapport; as well as insufficient attention to capacity building, particularly of Ministry coordinators responsible for monitoring each phase of the policy. Capacity needs highlighted in this study included adequate working conditions for developing complex policy, knowledge of the policy and its implications, as well as understanding the process of change. Future implementation prospects, may profit from research which focusses on exemplary ministry macro-implementation plans and those factors which enhance capacity building, liaison, and policy clarity.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".