Teachers’ Involvement in Curriculum Design in Higher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complexities and incessant changes in all spheres of life in the global world ranging from climatic to socio-economic conditions such as increasing school enrolment, dwindling economic resources, high rate of unemployment, cultural and environmental challenges, place demand for emerging curriculum in higher education that will meet the evolving educational needs, so as to prepare learners for their future roles in the changing world. This calls for high level of proficiency in curriculum design on the part of faculty, either at the program or course level. This paper reveals that some of the key factors that affect the faculty from being proficient in curriculum design are, (1) beliefs and values of faculty, (2) gap in use of Information Technology (3) lack of design expertise (4) lack of collaboration among faculty and (5) inadequate support of faculty leadership. The paper suggests that these mitigating factors need to be addressed so that faculty can become more proficient in review and design of appropriate curricula that will meet the plethora of educational demands of the twenty first Century.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".