The Student Voice in Designing a Jewish Studies High School Curriculum: A Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In January 2012, a team of curriculum specialists based at Bar Ilan University in Israel were approached by a Jewishday school in Australia to design a new Jewish Studies curriculum for its school. The mandate was to design acurriculum model from first-steps that would form the basis for the new curriculum.This article demonstrates how combining elements of Fullan's ideas about school partnerships with Schwab's'commonplaces' concepts can best meet the needs of the school's specific population and ethos. The role of studentvoice is shown to be critical in curriculum deliberations and decision making. Assumptions made by teachers aboutwhat students would want to learn proved, in a number of instances, inaccurate. Our research seems to indicate that thestudent "commonplace" voice within the design of a new curriculum should be given more consideration in thecurriculum design process.While the research was conducted in a particular school context, the principles learned, specifically re: the place ofstudent-voice, can be applied to school contexts internationally.
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 | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".