Co-Operation Is Not Enough: Teacher Educators as Curriculum Developers in Times of Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this exploratory two site case study is to examine how teacher educators, student teachers and programme leaders experience their ‘curriculum developer role’ in times of change, against the background of a new national guideline for preschool teacher education being implemented in Norway. The multidisciplinary team approach established by policy for this reform is examined as a strategy to create coherent programmes. Data collected for the study include fifteen semi-structured interviews and four focus groups conducted at two educational institutions. Qualitative data processing software is used to process four stages of qualitative data analysis. The evidence indicates that the actors involved experienced the ‘reproduction’ of curriculum elements from before the recent reform to a modest extent. Most frequently, they describe incorporation of earlier practices, ‘moderate translation’, in order to meet the demands of multiple disciplines. ‘Radical translation’ also takes place as part of their new collaborative role.
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 | 0.017 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| 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".