Studying the Compatibility of Iran's New Primary School Curriculum with the Curriculum Change Principles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some principles are key to any change process and considering them in practice make the change process effective. The advocators for "down-up" change believe that the thoughts and ideas of individuals with practical and direct experience of the situation are more effective for making change. As main actors of curriculum, teachers have beneficial views on change plans. This survey aimed to investigate the primary school teachers' viewpoints on the compatibility between Iran's Primary School Curriculum changes and the 12 Curriculum Change Principles. Finding showed that in Iran's primary school curriculum, the principles relating to learning as an agent needed for change (principle 1), intervention for making change (principle 5), district and school-based leadership as an essential elements of long-term change success (principle 7), systematic view on change (principle 11), considering the school as the primary organizational unit for change (principle 3) and focus on objectives (principle 12) are highly considered. However, organizational and individual roles in making change (principle 4) and appropriate intervention role in reducing resistance to change (principle 4) are less considered by the subjects. Some differences were significant based on other background variables, too.
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 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".