Curricular Critique of an Environmental Education Policy: Implications for Practice.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides a curricular critique of an environmental education policy framework called Acting Today, Shaping Tomorrow (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2009). Answers to the following two curricular questions: “What should be taught?” and “How it should be taught?” frame the critique. Scrutiny of the latter of the two questions through an examination of the conventional argument for integrated curriculum models and their relevance to K-12 environmental education comprises the first part of the critique. The second part of the critique examines utilization of a typology of integrated curriculum models to analyze an environmental education policy framework within the jurisdiction of Ontario, Canada. In conclusion, Ontario’s environmental education policy framework tends toward an integrated curriculum model referred to as ‘selective infusion’ illustrating a disconnect between curriculum theorists and designers. The implications for integrated curricular practice are identified, limitations of the critique are highlighted, and recommendations for improving the policy framework from a pragmatic curricular perspective are summarized.
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 | 0.039 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".