MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Distributing Power through Curriculum Development

2014· book-chapter· en· W2476221218 on OpenAlexaff
Patricia Cranton

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · 2014
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAdult and Continuing Education Topics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumPower (physics)Selection (genetic algorithm)Process (computing)PedagogyMathematics educationCurriculum developmentEngineering ethicsSociologyComputer sciencePsychologyEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter explores how power can be distributed in the process of curriculum and program development in adult and higher education. As a theoretical framework, the author relies on Brookfield's writings on power and, in turn, Foucault's writing on power, which has had a strong influence on the thinking of adult education scholars. From there, she turns to practical strategies for distributing power through curriculum development. These include: learners' selection of topics, learners' setting of objectives, learners' selecting methods and materials, learner self-evaluation, equitable discussions, questioning styles, and structural issues. Finally, the author explores future directions for 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.675
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in educational technologies and instructional design book seriesSame topicAdult and Continuing Education TopicsFrench-language works237,207